Drug WarRant

The recent reminders of the President’s extensive past recreational drug use bring an important issue to the forefront. What will we do with the President?

All the relevant authorities have been clear on this subject– there is no such thing as consequence-free recreational drug use.

The “first way” has been deprecated by the ONDCP, so it’s unlikely that we’ll see the President cuffed on the side of the tarmac as they search Air Force One. And the “second way” silver bullet of legalization isn’t an option. It’s just not possible for someone to do weed and maybe-a-little-blow and then, without intervention, just go on and write books and become President and stuff.

Therefore, it’s clear that he needs treatment. Fortunately, based on the thousands of treatment places I see advertising on and spamming this site, there are apparently some choices available. And it’s possible that his health care plan may cover some of the cost.

Perhaps the President can be enrolled in a H.O.P.E. Program, where he can be assured of swift, predictable, and immediate sanctions — a perfect choice for an active man-on-the-go like him. All he’d have to do is make a phone call each weekday morning to see if he’s to be drug tested that day. Simple!

It’s imperative that we get going on this right away. If not, someone’s going to figure out that President Obama’s drug use is exactly like the drug use of the vast majority of recreational users. And suddenly, we’ll have millions of people wondering why the government is destroying their lives, when, if left alone, they could be somebody– maybe not President–but someone living their own dreams and hopes.

And we can’t have that, can we?

Andrew Kirell asks the right question:

In light of these stories, shouldn’t President Obama offer every American the right to “choom” (verb, to smoke marijuana), instead of continuing to lock up marijuana users for hitting three-foot bongs like he did?

… in his article Why Won’t President Obama Support Our Right To ‘Choom’ A Doobie Like He Did?

Young Obama apparently was also a bit of a bogart when it came to communal marijuana smoking:

Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

In light of one of this administration’s drug policy fetishes, I also find it a bit ironic that Obama had actually developed a special way to smoke pot while in the car.

A very interesting article about an entirely different subject: Obama and Gay Marriage: A Lesson for All Progressives and the Obama Campaign

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that in the wake of President Obama’s support for marriage equality, opposition to it is at an all-time low, at 39 percent. For the first time, strong support exceeds strong opposition. Moreover, there is now greater support for marriage equality among African Americans — a whopping 59 percent — than in the general population, breaking long-held stereotypes.

Look at that: Leadership happens. […]

And there’s a lesson here for all progressives — and for the Obama campaign. We were told by the Democratic strategists and the campaign pollsters, the Democratic establishment, that coming out for marriage equality would be harmful to the president. […]

But the opposite has happened.

This is a point that Scott Morgan has been making for some time when it comes to drug policy. The notion that a President would be damaged by showing real leadership in drug policy reform is a false fear, and way out of date.

There are things we can learn from the activism work being done in gay rights.

I find the statistic about African American support for marriage equality particularly stunning. Imagine what could have happened with an African American President speaking out compellingly about the devastation of the drug war in African American communities. Imagine true leadership.

Meanwhile… the drug war continues and people die.

The Atlantic – this is a photo essay with warnings about them being graphic and stark. I’ve seen much more graphic photos of the violence in Mexico. Comments on the article are a mixed bag — a fair number who see legalization as part of the solution, but also some idiots…

Mexico has been soft on drug lords for years, largely because they are in control of much of the corrupt government. Nobody knows who can be trusted, and there is no accountability for being a violent criminal in Mexico. There is no death penalty, and your buddies will break into the jail and get you out in a few months anyway. It’s a free for all, and it’s a cop out to say that the US is to blame. These guys aren’t fighting drug agents – they are fighting each other for a larger piece of a country that is out of control. If the US is to blame, it is only because we tolerate drugs too much here. […]

I don’t use. My conscience is clear.

If you use, you deserve to be laying on the side of the road more than most of the people shown here. Party on. I hope the karma comes around. […]

50k don’t really make a difference, especially if they are criminals.

Your Latest Reminder That Obama Has Taken the War out of the War

In Honduras: Four dead in one operation, including a 14-year-old and two pregnant women. Then, a village raid, in which agents put a gun to the head of a teenager, threatened to kill him, then dumped in the jungle, still tethered. The DEA and Pentagon are playing coy about their involvement.

Federal judge: GPS use illegal in Chicago-Kentucky drug bust – Hmmm… a pro-Fourth Amendment ruling?

In the new Rasmussen Poll, 56% of Americans supported legalizing and regulating marijuana and only 36% were opposed.

That’s pretty remarkable. We’ve done an incredible job in educating the public. And another thing that helps is that pollers are realizing that because of the baggage that certain words carry due to efforts of prohibitionists, careful question wording is essential.

The question for that particular answer was:

Suppose that marijuana was legalized and regulated so that it was illegal for people under 18 to buy, that those who drove while under the influence of marijuana received strict penalties, and that smoking marijuana was banned in public places like restaurants. With such regulations in place, would you favor or oppose legalizing and regulating marijuana?

Interestingly, while only 11% were in favor of legalizing cocaine in a manner similar to tobacco, when the question was asked:

If you knew that legalizing and regulating both marijuana and cocaine would, in fact, reduce drug violence along the Mexican border, would you favor or oppose regulating both marijuana and cocaine?

… the number went up to 47%

That’s incredible.

We still have work to do, but we’re making great strides in the important area (which is the people, not the politicians).

Our Drug Czar’s been in Sweden, hobnobbing with Queen Silvia and having a great time with a supportive audience at the World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD) World Forum Against Drugs.

Naturally, it’s a one-sided gathering of all the worst of the prohibition world. They’re overarching theme is to completely turn the definition of human rights upside down, by apparently saying that human rights means protecting children from the existence of a world where adults use drugs. It’s taking the old, tired “think of the children” mantra to new and even more frightening levels of unreality. In fact, the whole thing was framed around the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

They dragged out the old Drug Czar under Nixon, Robert L. DuPont (who bears a whole lot of responsibility for the current mess), who spewed a bunch of nonsense, such as:

Would anyone faithful to human rights conclude that adult child pornography readers’ right to privacy trumps children’s right to protection from sexual exploitation as contained in CRC Article 34? Of course not. Why should it be different for drug policy?

Yes, he went there.

Of course, Gil gave a speech. He couldn’t pass up this opportunity to promote his “third way” nonsense that he got from Mark Kleiman. (And yes, he used the “silver bullet of legalization” phrase again.)

He took this opportunity to roll out some new bit of nonsense called “Principles of Modern Drug Policy.”

Principles of Modern Drug Policy

The three United Nations drug control conventions are the foundation of the global effort to reduce drug use and its consequences. To implement the conventions in the 21st century, the United States commits itself to the following principles and encourages other nations to do the same:

1. Ensure Balanced, Compassionate, and Humane Drug Policies. Modern drug policies must acknowledge that drug addiction is a chronic disease of the brain that can be prevented and treated. Public health and public safety initiatives are complementary and equally vital to achieving reductions in drug use and its consequences. The drug policy challenge facing the world today is not a choice between an enforcement-only “war on drugs” on the one hand and the extreme notion of drug legalization on the other. Rather, the challenge lies in combining cost-effective, evidence-based approaches that protect public health and safety.
2. Integrate Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Support Services into Public Health Systems. Public health approaches, such as evidenced-based prevention, screening and brief interventions in healthcare settings, drug treatment programs, and recovery support services, are vital components of an effective drug control strategy. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services are cost-effective ways to reduce drug use and its consequences.
3. Protect Human Rights. Respect for human rights is an integral part of drug policy. Citizens, especially children, have the right to be safe from illegal drug use and associated crime, violence, and other consequences— whether in their family or the community. Drug-involved offenders who have contact with the criminal justice system deserve to be supervised with respect for their basic human rights and be provided with services to treat their underlying substance use disorder.
4. Reduce Drug Use to Reduce Drug Consequences. The best way to reduce the substantial harms associated with drugs is to reduce drug use itself. Public health services for drug users, including HIV interventions for people who inject drugs, should be implemented in the context of comprehensive, recovery-oriented public health systems that also provide drug users access to treatment for addiction. Policies and programs such as injection rooms, drug distribution efforts, and drug legalization should be opposed because they tolerate drug use and allow the debilitating disease of addiction to continue untreated.
5. Support and Expand Access to Medication-Assisted Therapies. Recent innovations in medication-assisted therapies have demonstrated increasing effectiveness in reducing drug use and its consequences. These medications should be further studied to identify new therapies and best practices in program implementation.
6. Reform Criminal Justice Systems to Support both Public Health and Public Safety. Criminal justice systems play a vital role in breaking the cycle of drug use, crime, incarceration, and re-arrest. While individuals should be held responsible for breaking the law, the criminal justice system should help bring them into contact with treatment services if they are suffering from a substance use disorder. This includes providing treatment services in correctional facilities, providing alternatives to incarceration such as drug courts for non-violent drug- involved offenders, and using monitoring, drug testing, and other means to ensure recovery from illegal drug use.
7. Disrupt Drug Trafficking. Transnational criminal organizations should be targeted with a focus on the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of drug traffickers, the seizure of illegal assets, disruption of drug production networks, control of precursor chemicals, and the eradication of illegal drug crops. International cooperation on information exchange, extradition, and training and technical assistance should be strengthened to eliminate safe harbors for transnational criminal organizations.
8. Address the Drug Problem as a Shared Responsibility. Drug use, production, and trafficking are increasingly globalized problems and pose challenges to all of our nations. Because of the global nature of today’s drug markets, international cooperation is essential to protect public health and safety.
9. Support the UN Drug Conventions: The three UN Drug Conventions are the foundation of our global drug control efforts and are effective in their current form. Efforts to renegotiate the Conventions should be opposed.
10. Protect Citizens from Drugs: Drugs are illegal because their use is dangerous not only to users but to society as a whole. We are committed to protecting all citizens, including those in recovery, from the tragic consequences of illegal drug use.

That last one is particularly outrageous (though not particularly surprising) in that it specifically denies the existence of non-harmful use of currently illicit drugs when it comes to the Drug Czar’s view of drug policy. #10, along with #3 and #4 attempt to invent harm from the non-problematic recreational use of illicit drugs.

And of course, the harms of prohibition are almost entirely ignored.

Update: Check out the seriously deranged rantings of the Russian Drug Czar:

It is more than illustrative that the so-called Global Drug Politics Commission, which directly promotes drug legalization, last year hit upon the idea to present its definitely provocative and favoring drug legalization report on the 1st of June – on the International Children’s Day!

No doubt this large-scale and highly aggressive PR-campaign on drug propaganda is directly or indirectly related to enormous drug business income estimated by experts as 800 billion US dollars per year.

The mentioned report should be unambiguously regarded as a kind of a manifest of drug legalization supporters. […]

The objective of drug legalization supporters is to legalize transnational organized crime, a global criminal international, to make drug trafficking smooth and comfortable.[…]

Today we can see how powerful our antidrug front is. And we should pass to victories over drugs, to resolutely reject decadent moods and conciliation with the drug mafia’s initiatives.

The Harmful Side Effect of Drug Prohibition by Randy Barnett

There are so many reasons why drug prohibition is objectionable, it is hard to enumerate them all. In my Utah Law Review article, The Harmful Side Effects of Drug Prohibition, I try to systematically survey just the “consequentialist” arguments against this socially-destructive social policy. If I were to revise this article today, I suppose I would emphasize even more than I did how destructive the “War on Drugs” has been to the black community, perhaps especially because of the incarceration of thousands of black men, depriving their children of fathers, but also because of how the black market profits from the illicit drug trade supports the gang structure that preys upon the community and sucks up its kids. […]

But, as I said, the problem with assessing the War on Drugs is that there are so many harmful “side effects” of drug prohibition that it is difficult even to know where to begin. This article is my effort to be as comprehensive about these effects, yet still be accessible.

Won’t you please come to Chicago, show your face by Digby

It really doesn’t take much imagination to realize that militarizing the police and outfitting them as if they are about to mount an assault on Fallujah (when they are really just manning a political protest) might lead them to adopt the attitude that they are at war against their fellow citizens.

Under Asset Forfeiture Law, Wisconsin Cops Confiscate Families’ Bail Money by Radley Balko.

Nothing new to us here, but important for the rest of the world to wake up.

So Greer and her family visited a series of ATMs, and on March 1, she brought the money to the jail, thinking she’d be taking Joel Greer home. But she left without her money, or her son.

Instead jail officials called in the same Drug Task Force that arrested Greer. A drug-sniffing dog inspected the Greers’ cash, and about a half-hour later, Beverly Greer said, a police officer told her the dog had alerted to the presence of narcotics on the bills — and that the police department would be confiscating the bail money.

“I told them the money had just come from the bank,” Beverly Greer says. “We had just taken it out. If the money had drugs on it, then they should go seize all the money at the bank, too. I just don’t understand how they could do that.”

Congressmen Seek to Lift Propaganda Ban

There’s been a ban?

… essentially nothing.

Tweet of the day from Glenn Greenwald.

An extra cup of coffee is more likely to make someone unduly aggressive than trace amounts of THC

Maia Szalavitz in Time points out the absurdity of breathless media reports that Trayvon Martin had THC in his system:

Traces of Marijuana Found in Trayvon Martin’s Body: Does It Matter?

I’m not interested in getting into any debate over Martin/Zimmerman (that’s for the courts), but the miniscule presence of THC makes no more difference in this case than the presence of undigested Twinkie.

Wow. Gil is just getting more pathetic every day.

Study: More Than Half of Adult Male Arrestees Test Positive for at Least One Drug

On one side are those who suggest that drug legalization is the “silver bullet” solution to our nation’s drug problem. On the other are those who still believe that the “War on Drugs,” law-enforcement-only strategy is the way forward. Our policies reject both these extremes in favor of a “third way” to approach drug control.

The foundation of this “third way” approach is peer-reviewed, scientific research that provides us insight into the disease of addiction and a roadmap on how to prevent and treat it. The “third way” approach deals in facts — not dogma — and relies on research — not ideology.

And then he proceeds immediately to distort and misinterpret data to fit his ideology.

(Interestingly, he does take a moment to indicate his admiration for Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins and Angela Hawken.)

I sure hope somebody at the ONDCP makes him actually read the comments to his OpEd. The commenters absolutely eviscerate him. It appears that Huffington Post readers are smart enough to know when someone’s trying to sell them a load of manure.

…

From Duncan in comments here at Drug WarRant comes Your Questions Answered: Driving under the influence of marijuana from Fox 31 in Denver.

The upshot is that in a (fairly unscientific) test, the measurements made no sense at all, and the law being proposed would clearly have done little to actually improve public safety. Clearly the safer approach was to give the officer the ability to determine who was driving badly, rather than testing for the amount of THC in the body.

But of course, remember the Drug Czar and his desire for scientific fact, not ideology to drive policy decisions?

The funny part about that is actually reading what the drug czar says. For instance the ONDCP page on drugged driving includes the following strategies:

The first one is: “Encouraging states to adopt Per Se drug impairment laws”; The second one is: “Collecting further data on drugged driving.”

That’s right. Push for policies and laws, and then try to find the science that agrees with your ideology (or just misrepresent the science so that it does).

That’s the drug czar.

A little exchange over at the reality-based community

Brett: As long as Obama is putting people in prison for getting high, he is, unavoidably, an evil drug warrior. […]
Mark: Of course, “putting people in prison for getting high” is utter fantasy. But I suppose that doesn’t matter to you…

I see what Mark’s doing here, of course. The same thing the drug czar does all the time. It’s about downplaying the seriousness and destructiveness of prohibition, because they still want to use prohibition.

You often hear the drug czar say that nobody is (or very few are) in prison for possession of marijuana, usually as a way of claiming that legalizing marijuana wouldn’t make much of a dent in the prison population, so therefore that particular argument by legalizers isn’t a strong one. That’s a common shady debate trick – attacking just one of many arguments by the opposition and downplaying it, then using that to claim that the opponent’s position is weak.

Interestingly, the other commenters at the site stood up for Brett. It was clear to pretty much anyone reading Brett’s statement that it wasn’t so much a literal statement (as Mark was interpreting it), but a general statement about actively prosecuting marijuana laws.

You can’t separate the act of “getting high” from the rest of what goes on in this misguided drug war as if that is an activity that is somehow exempt from drug warrior extremes. You can’t just “get high.” First, you have to get marijuana. And unless you happen to stumble across some ditch weed on public lands, then something else has to happen — and that connects you to the world of people going to prison. Grow your own? That’s a felony. Buy from someone? They can go to prison for you getting high. Share some with friends? You’re a trafficker. Possess more than some arbitrary small amount? Intent to distribute. Pass a joint within 1000 feet of a day care center while discussing building a tunnel from Mexico? Don’t drop the soap.

Perhaps Brett should have worded it: “As long as Obama is putting people in prison because someone is getting high, he is, unavoidably, an evil drug warrior.” But we knew what he meant.

And people are going to prison. All of us know about people who absolutely shouldn’t be going to prison, and yet are.

And then, of course, don’t forget the “unintended consequences.” Remember Daniel Chong? 5 days locked up in a DEA cell without food or water, merely because he went to a house to “get high” and it was being raided by the DEA.

Marijuana prohibition and legalization are not about the single individual sitting in a room by himself getting high on some weed that he dialed up on his Star Trek replicator. It is a massive enterprise of prohibition activities and criminal activities that needs to stop. And we won’t be deterred by someone pointing at a pot smoker and noting that she isn’t in prison.