Drug WarRant

I don’t know if it’s just my imagination, but the New York Times seems to really be stepping up recently. The latest is an excellent article: Police Officers Find That Dissent on Drug Laws May Come With a Price

The article discusses the cases of several cops who have been disciplined or fired for expressing their sympathy with legalization, and it mentions Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at length.

Nice.

The excellent Maia Szalavitz in Time: Why Medical Marijuana Laws Reduce Traffic Deaths

A nicely-written and clear article on this study and it’s got a huge circulation.

States that legalize medical marijuana see fewer fatal car accidents, according to a new study, in part because people may be substituting marijuana smoking for drinking alcohol. […]

Studies have consistently found that while mixing either marijuana or alcohol with driving is unadvisable, driving high is much safer than driving drunk.

Bingo. That’s the key. We’ll never get far with the public by claiming that driving while high is better than driving while straight, but they’re much more likely to understand the clear truth that drunk driving is far more dangerous than stoned driving so that substitution is a positive effect.

It’s been suggested in comments here since the study clearly gets its life-saving benefits from young people switching to marijuana, that we, as drug policy reformers, should be less quick to claim that regulated legalization can control use by the young. And yet, as Maia shows, the study even covers that:

The authors also found that in states that legalized medical use, there was no increase in marijuana smoking by teenagers — a finding seen in other studies as well. But, in many cases, the laws were linked with an increase in marijuana smoking among adults in their 20s; this rise was accompanied by a reduction in alcohol use by college age youth, suggesting that they were smoking weed instead.

That’s positive all the way around.

Was our world made any safer because shortly after these pictures were taken, the women in them were shot in the back of the head?

The recent decision by Governor Gregoire and Governor Chafee (later joined by Vermont’s Governor Shumlin) to formally petition to take marijuana out of Schedule 1 is a pretty big deal, though not necessarily in the way some people think.

Now even conservative publications like the Bakersfield Californian are jumping on the cause:

The governors of Washington and Rhode Island last week sought to clear up the legal gray area created by the decriminalization of medical marijuana in their states by asking the federal government to reclassify the drug. Gov. Jerry Brown ought to join them. […]

Sixteen states have adopted medical marijuana laws. The other 14 should join the effort initiated by Washington and Rhode Island — and it should start with Brown.

In a sad irony, to have the next cannabis rescheduling petition come from government entities rather than citizens, gives it more weight — or at least makes it harder for the DEA to sit on it for years, bat it around for more years, and then finally spit out a denial that’s hardly more than “Get out of here, you’re bothering me.”

This scheduling petition could lead to a crack in the fed’s armor.

And make no mistake about it, keeping marijuana in Schedule 1 is of ultimate importance for the feds. They need that to be able to continue to exert the control they wish in terms of foreign policy, pharmaceutical policy, and a lot of other policy. Breaking it out of Schedule 1 will crack their death grip on it and make it easier to move toward an eventual goal of legalization.

Schedule 2 in and of itself is not the goal. Oh, sure, Schedule 2 would help ease the path for more research (which would be wonderful), but it’s not going to solve the fed-state conflict or the plant-pharmaceutical conflict.

The Bakersfield Californian imagines:

A reclassification of the drug could potentially lead to marijuana being dispensed by pharmacies, which would be safer than, and preferable to, the hodgepodge system of dispensaries, doctor “recommendations,” patient cards and uneven enforcement that has resulted in illicit, back-door distribution to recreational users and unnecessary difficulties for legitimate medical users.

Yes and no. It’ll definitely help states come up with better systems, but the conflicts and problems won’t go away until we’re able to come up with a complete policy of state-regulated legal marijuana for both medical and recreational use that can’t be touched by the feds.

The Governors’ rescheduling petition is just one more useful tool in our fight against the federal government’s unilateral and undemocratic attempt to control cannabis policy for the world.

I like to think of myself as an effective drug policy reform advocate, but I realize that as an individual, my impact can be limited, so I like to check out what organized groups are doing for drug policy reform.

Imagine my surprise, when reading an article in the Huffington Post, that I apparently had missed one.

Since day one, the Obama Administration has been engaged in an unprecedented government-wide effort to reform our nation’s drug policies and restore balance to the way we deal with the drug problem. We have pursued a variety of alternatives that abandon an unproductive enforcement-only “War on Drugs” approach to drug control and acknowledge we cannot arrest our way out of the drug problem and, further, that drug addiction is a disease of the brain, not some “moral failing.”

Wow. Who knew?

But a government official says so, so it must be true.

So the candidate who ran on reform and then failed to really reform much of anything except some rhetoric is now, with an election coming up, realizing that reform is a popular notion, and wants to run on reform again.

Pappy O’Daniel: Goddam campaign is lagging! We need a shot in the arm. Hear me, boys? In the goddam arm! Election held tomorrow, that sumbitch Stokes would win in a walk!

Junior: Well he’s the reform candidate, Daddy.

Pappy O’Daniel: …Yeah?

Junior: A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some.

Pappy O’Daniel: I’ll reform you, you soft-headed son of a bitch! How we gonna run reform? We’re the damn incumbent! Is that the best you can come up with? Reform?! Weepin’ Jesus on the cross. That’s it! Start drafting my concession speech right now.

Remember Mark Souder? Well, back in 2006, he and Senator Hatch and Senator Biden were desperately trying to introduce some major biological warfare into the drug war – namely, the use of mycoherbicides for drug crop eradication.

At that time, we were able to stop them from implementing active field studies of mycoherbicides in Colombia and Afghanistan. But they still managed to push a pro-mycoherbicide provision… into the ONDCP reauthorization.

SEC. 1111. REQUIREMENT FOR SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF MYCOHERBICIDE IN ILLICIT DRUG CROP ERADICATION.

(a) Requirement.–Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to the Congress a report that includes a plan to conduct, on an expedited basis, a scientific study of the use of mycoherbicide as a means of illicit drug crop elimination by an appropriate Government scientific research entity, including a complete and thorough scientific peer review. The study shall include an evaluation of the likely human health and environmental impacts of mycoherbicides derived from fungus naturally existing in the soil.

Well, the study was actually done, and the results were just released.

From the summary:

On the basis of its review, the committee concluded that the available data are insufficient to determine the effectiveness of the specific fungi proposed as mycoherbicides to combat illicit-drug crops or to determine their potential effects on nontarget plants, microorganisms, animals, humans, or the environment. The questions normally asked before a fungal pathogen is registered as a mycoherbicide in the United States have not been adequately addressed. […]

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Studies of the cannabis, coca, and opium poppy mycoherbicides that have
been published or were made available to the panel are preliminary, exploratory, and insufficient to determine their suitability for controlling illicit-drug crops. The available data do not answer all the questions normally asked before a fungal pathogen is registered as a mycoherbicide in the United States. The rigorous, lengthy testing required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not yet begun, and conducting the research is not a guarantee that a registered mycoherbicide product will result. Mycoherbicides for the control of illicit-drug crops will face additional difficulties in that the people cultivating the crops will be working to prevent the mycoherbicides from having their intended effects.

Potential Impediments

International Approval and Cooperation: Mycoherbicides proved to be safe and effective might not be approved for use in other countries. At least some tests of the mycoherbicide strains must be performed in the countries where the mycoherbicides might be used or in other countries that have similar climatic and environmental conditions. The testing requires the approval and cooperation of those countries and has been difficult, or impossible, to obtain. Country-specific requirements for such applications must also be satisfied.

Difficulties in Implementation: Commercial success of mycoherbicides developed to control weeds requires collaboration with the growers. Farmers who welcome attempts to control unwanted plants will tolerate aerial application from aircraft flying at low altitudes and at low speeds or from ground-based equipment, as needed, for the effective application of mycoherbicides, and they will permit or assist in the on-the-ground monitoring needed to assess the efficacy of the mycoherbicide. The proposed mycoherbicides for illicit-drug crops would not have similar cooperation from their growers, and this would constrain aerial application methods and limit on-the-ground monitoring. Technology for
the effective application of mycoherbicides from high altitudes has not been developed.

Difficulty in Assessment of Effectiveness: The available data indicate that that proposed mycoherbicide strains are unlikely to kill large numbers of the target plants quickly. The combination of lack of rapid, aggressive action with little or nonexistent on-the-ground assessment would make it difficult, or even impossible, to determine the effectiveness of the mycoherbicide applications.

Development of Countermeasures: Producers of illicit-drug crops have an incentive to prevent damage to their crop yields and should be expected to develop countermeasures that reduce the efficacy of the mycoherbicides. Such countermeasures could include the use of fungicides or soil fumigants to kill the mycoherbicide strains directly or the cultivation of plant varieties that are resistant to the mycoherbicides.

Unavoidable Risks

Risks to Legal Crops and Native Plants: Cannabis, coca, and opium
poppy are grown in several countries for licit uses and are part of the native flora in some regions. Plants in those settings could be vulnerable to the mycoherbicides. In addition, the mycoherbicides could spread beyond the geographic range of the illicit crops.

Risks to Nontarget Organisms: The mycoherbicide strains could have
direct and indirect effects on other plants, microorganisms, animals, or the environment. Those effects cannot be completely characterized even if research is performed to learn more about the infectivity and toxicity of the strains, if any, to nontarget plants and organisms. Mycoherbicides consist of living organisms that interact with and adapt to their environment, and it is difficult to predict how they might behave when released in substantial numbers into an ecosystem.

Didn’t give Congress quite the ringing endorsement some were hoping for.

Federal Marijuana Classification Should Change, Gregoire and Chafee Say – New York Times. It should more than change, but this is another good step. Keep the pressure on the feds – this time from governors.

Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society is doing a series of interviews with Rick Doblin of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS).

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three (coming)

Civil Liberties Oversight Board Still Dormant
In 2007, Congress established an independent agency to “analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties”; and to “ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism.”

Almost five years later and two people have been nominated for the agency (not even a quorum) and nobody confirmed.

In related news… Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely

Teaching Good Sex

Interesting read that is peripherally related to drug policy. It drives home how horrible the teaching is that we provide for the vast majority of kids when you see a few brave souls doing it the way it should be done.

NIDA Teens presents: Space Wrangler!

Hey, all you black people in jail for drugs. Don’t frown – the Drug Czar has your back! He’s declared the drug war over! So smile, sit back in your cell and relax. The Drug Czar also knows that we can’t arrest our way out of drug problems, so for the 1.6 million people that are arrested on non-violent drug charges this year – don’t worry, be happy – you’re just part of a balanced approach!

Drug Czar Says African Americans Are More Affected by the ‘Drug Problem’ — Here’s Why That’s Propaganda by Tony Newman at Alternet.

Extremely disturbing filing by federal attorneys in the Julian Heicklen case. Heicklen is being charged for passing out flyers about jury nullification.

In response to Julian Heicklen’s motion to dismiss his indictment on First Amendment grounds, federal attorneys have filed a response with the court. Here is the federal government’s position: “[T]he defendant’s advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred” [emphasis added]. This is really astonishing.

Ray Fisman at Slate bring us Narco Economics. A new study that could help Mexico win its war on drug traffickers.

This article spends most of its time discussing the interesting concept of “forensic economics” being explored by student Melissa Dell, really mostly an academic exercise at this point, having to do with the effect of channeling routes through Mexico (controlling or not controlling towns/roads) on drug trafficking organizations.

But Fisman sees this and, having completely slept through Economics 101, comes up with a completely nonsensical conclusion:

Once you add up these various effects, it’s easy to see how Mexico’s drug war has cost more than 40,000 lives over nearly five years, and counting. It’s also easy to understand calls to bring the war to a halt: For all the human tragedy and billions in economic cost, traffickers merely reroute their smuggling operations around the piecemeal interventions of the police and military. Yet that is precisely the point of drug-interdiction efforts—not to eliminate all drug trafficking, but to raise its costs. Raising costs squeezes the margins of Mexican smugglers who, like all good businessmen, will scale back their operations, thus reducing the supply that reaches the U.S. market.

What???

Let’s see that again:

Raising costs squeezes the margins of Mexican smugglers who, like all good businessmen, will scale back their operations, thus reducing the supply that reaches the U.S. market.

I’ve tried re-reading the article to discover if Fisman is really being sarcastic instead of stupid, but I find no evidence to support that (feel free to set me straight if I missed something).

Let’s try the Economics for Dummies approach.

• If there is demand, supply will follow.
• Rising costs don’t result in reduced supply, but rather are passed on to the consumer.
• The higher the price, the higher the quantity that will be supplied.
• Squeezing suppliers merely results in pushing for more ruthless suppliers to rise to the top to take advantage of higher prices (black market economics)

Drug traffickers are used to having 10-20% of their product seized in the normal course of business and they simply plan to supply more to make up for it (at the source, the cost is ridiculously low). And yet, somehow making their route… inefficient is going to do them in?

Fisman then makes it even worse by using a variation on the ridiculous “more people dying means we’re winning” meme.

And even the rise in local violence may ultimately have a silver lining. The increased factional violence that has accompanied government crackdowns may ultimately weaken all of the government’s adversaries. And it’s not just rival cartels that take advantage of weakness to attack—it’s also led to a splintering among the dominant cartels as lower-level commandants split off to compete with their former bosses.

Gee, that might actually work long-term if the laws of economics were repealed and there were no black market profits involved in the drug trade. But since that’s unlikely, then all it means is a continual shifting of power to fill each vacuum that occurs.

When I took economics in college, it was at 8 am. I’m not a morning person and found it to be excruciating. I often fell asleep. Yet somehow I managed to get through that class without being entirely clueless.

Count the Costs is an international organization that focuses on the costs of the war on drugs. They have just released an environmental briefing (pdf) discussing the costs of the war on drugs to the environment.

Send this to all your friends who are active in environmental issues. In general, environmental groups have been friendly to drug policy reform (despite governmental attempts at misdirection), but awareness of the depth of destruction caused by the drug war could cause them to increase their support even more.

Denver Post: Report shows fewer traffic fatalities after states pass medical-pot laws

The passage of state medical-marijuana laws is associated with a subsequent drop in the rate of traffic fatalities, according to a newly released study by two university professors.

The study — by University of Colorado Denver professor Daniel Rees and Montana State University professor D. Mark Anderson — found that the traffic-death rate drops by nearly 9 percent in states after they legalize marijuana for medical use. The researchers arrived at that figure, Rees said, after controlling for other variables such as changes in traffic laws, seat-belt usage and miles driven. The study stops short of saying the medical-marijuana laws cause the drop in traffic deaths.

“We were pretty surprised that they went down,” Rees said Tuesday.

I’m not. But then again, I’ve been spending years looking at cannabis and driving studies.

Now keep in mind that this study shows correlation, not causation, but it appears to be a very powerful correlation, in that it completely undermines the prohibitionist argument that legalization is certain to result in an Armageddon of fiery crashes on the highways.

I’m waiting for the inevitable complaint from the usual suspects about how both sides in the legalization debate are pushing statistics that don’t fully prove causation when we mention this study. But the clear difference is that this is an actual study that is specifically tracking data that is relevant to changes of use connected with legalization, whereas the drug czar either pulls stuff out of his ass, or lies about the import of completely irrelevant statistics.

Driving shouldn’t even be part of this legalization debate. There are so many other aspects of legalization that make the driving issue miniscule in comparison. But we have no choice, because every time we mention legalization, the prohibitionists are out there preaching vehicular doom and gloom.

So, why did the study find the roads safer after medical marijuana was passed? Are stoned drivers actually safer than straight drivers? Probably not. It’s the substitution factor.

Rees said the main reason for the drop appears to be that medical-marijuana laws mean young people spend less time drinking and more time smoking cannabis. Legalization of medical marijuana, the researchers report, is associated with a 12-percent drop in the alcohol-related fatal-crash rate and a 19-percent decrease in the fatality rate of people in their 20s, according to the study.

The study also found that medical- marijuana legalization is associated with a drop in beer sales.

“The result that comes through again and again and again is (that) young adults . . . drink less when marijuana is legalized and traffic fatalities go down,” Rees said.

Exactly. The truth is that the majority of drug users are not poly-drug users and changes in a drug’s status can result in switching. Despite the fact that alcohol and cannabis are very different in their effects on the body, they both fill a similar recreational niche, and there are many casual users who would prefer the many superior aspects of pot if it were legal.

Once that switch is made, the differences are astounding. I think back to my college years when the drunks came home and, after terrorizing some poor freshman, put their fist through a wall, while the stoners were affably listening to Pink Floyd and discussing philosophy. As George Carlin used to say, you don’t puke on your shoes. And you aren’t as likely to end up in fiery crashes.

Hey, I’m not against alcohol. I’m a big fan of Lagavulin 16 or a good Tanqueray and Tonic. And all drugs should be used in moderation.

But there’s no doubt that, when misused, alcohol is a phenomenally more dangerous drug than cannabis. And that’s especially true on the roads.

Alcohol releases inhibitions and causes people to act more recklessly even as their impairment increases, while making them feel invincible. Cannabis, on the other hand makes people almost paranoically aware of their impairment, resulting in increased caution, sometimes to extremes.

As I’ve been fond of joking:

The drunk driver speeds through the stop sign without seeing it.
The stoned driver stops and patiently waits for it to turn green.

Here is my own personal and completely unscientific view of the relative dangers of drivers (obviously, these are very broad generalizations, but I think they serve to make the point).

The most dangerous I’ve ever been behind the wheel of a car was from being tired. That doze off and sudden wakening while driving… I feel so much safer these days now that I’ve learned to pull over somewhere and take a quick nap whenever I feel that tired.

Do I want people to drive while stoned? No. Of course not. Nor do I want them to drive tired or distracted. And I really think that my 95-year-old Uncle should stop driving (I’d ride with a stoned driver instead of him any day.)

If legalization of marijuana means that some of those who currently misuse alcohol switch to pot, we will save lives. And that’s a fact.