Drug WarRant

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.

It’s been discussed a bit in comments, but it’s important to note once again just how horrible Newt would be.

Chris Moody Interview with Newt

Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?

I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.

I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.

Why shouldn’t the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?

Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.

I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.

Expand on what you mean by “aggressive.”

In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.

In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?

I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they’ve done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’ If you’re serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we’re going to have drugs in this country.

Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They’ve been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.

In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?

What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

It’s a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.

Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.

You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It’s not mine, but it’s internally logical.

Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We’ve spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we’ve spent? How can we reform our approach?

I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.

Sometime in the next year we’ll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we’re very serious about it.

I’d be happy to purchase a one-way ticket to Singapore for Newt Gingrich.

Representative Barney Frank isn’t too worried about Gingrich’s candidacy, and got in a pretty good jab:

“I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee,” the 30-year House veteran said. “He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater … It’s still unlikely, but I have hopes.”

Unfortunately, Frank, who has been a real friend to drug policy reform, has announced that he is retiring from the House this year.

He’ll be missed.

There’s a pretty cool guy named Carlo Garcia (who happens to be a friend of mine) who created quite a stir by spending a year giving a small amount to a different charity each day and blogging about it. (see Living Philanthropic). He got written up in the national press and his small gifts encouraged tons of others to give as well.

His latest follow-up on this successful project is Cyber Giving Monday. Take the concept of Cyber Monday (the online follow-up to Black Friday), but instead of buying more stuff that you may not need, make a difference to some useful organization. Then write about it and/or tweet about it to #CyberGivingMonday.

I think it’s a great idea and I’ve given a donation to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition for Cyber Giving Monday.

About Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

LEAP envisions a world in which drug policies work for the benefit of society and keep our communities safer. A system of legalization and regulation will end the violence, better protect human rights, safeguard our children, reduce crime and disease, treat drug abusers as patients, reduce addiction, use tax dollars more efficiently, and restore the public’s respect and trust in law enforcement.

LEAP’s goals are: (1) To educate the public, the media and policy makers about the failure of current drug policy by presenting a true picture of the history, causes and effects of drug use and the elevated crime rates more properly related to drug prohibition than to drug pharmacology and (2) To restore the public’s respect for police, which has been greatly diminished by law enforcements involvement in imposing drug prohibition.

LEAP’s main strategy for accomplishing these goals is to create a constantly growing speakers bureau staffed with knowledgeable and articulate current and former drug-warriors who describe the impact of current drug policies on: police/community relations; the safety of law enforcement officers and suspects; police corruption and misconduct; and the excessive financial and human costs associated with current drug policies.

LEAP’s voice is a powerful one that can do a lot. It’s amazing the impact a former police or Coast Guard officer or judge can have talking to a Kiwanis or Rotary club about the destruction of prohibition.

Join me in supporting LEAP, or make your own Cyber Giving Monday donation and talk about it here.

#CyberGivingMonday

Drone.

Looks like it may be time to freshen up the paint on my rooftop.

The LA Times discusses the potential expanded use of drones in the U.S. (you know, a variation of the kind of thing we’ve been using so successfully in Pakistan to kill children and friendly soldiers).

Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying terrorist hide-outs in Afghanistan, may soon be coming to the skies near you.

Police agencies want drones for air support to spot runaway criminals. Utility companies believe they can help monitor oil, gas and water pipelines. Farmers think drones could aid in spraying their crops with pesticides.

“It’s going to happen,” said Dan Elwell, vice president of civil aviation at the Aerospace Industries Assn. “Now it’s about figuring out how to safely assimilate the technology into national airspace.” […]

Police departments in Texas, Florida and Minnesota have expressed interest in the technology’s potential to spot runaway criminals on rooftops or to track them at night by using the robotic aircraft’s heat-seeking cameras. […]

“This is a tool that many law enforcement agencies never imagined they could have,” said Steven Gitlin, a company executive.

As Glenn Greenwald tweets: “Absolute rule: when you vest the Govt with a weapon, it will expand beyond its original application.”