Drug WarRant

CNN

The “Just Say No” generation was often told by parents and teachers that intelligent people didn’t use drugs. Turns out, the adults may have been wrong. […]

Researchers discovered men with high childhood IQs were up to two times more likely to use illegal drugs than their lower-scoring counterparts. Girls with high IQs were up to three times more likely to use drugs as adults. A high IQ is defined as a score between 107 and 158. An average IQ is 100. The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

This is not a surprise to me. And no, of course, it doesn’t in any way prove causation. It’s the prohibitionists that like to latch on to any correlation and claim causation.

Of course, Jennifer Bixler at CNN still finds a way to completely mess up the story. I’m not sure, for example, why she uses “men” and “girls” in the paragraph above.

And then, rather than looking at the “use” of drugs as the study refers (it asked participants whether they had used drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, or heroin in the past year), she focuses on a completely anecdotal “abuse” of drugs.

That seems to ring true for one of my childhood classmates. Tracey Helton Mitchell was one of the smartest kids in my middle school. But, by the time she was in her early 20’s, Tracey was a heroin addict.

The comments are… entertaining.

Here’s David Bratzer’s video talking about his run for school trustee. Really nice to see this kind of perspective openly advocated in terms of drug policy reform providing a positive value for children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzYTPsPlvHs

(This was already posted in comments, but I wanted to have it get some more visibility. You can follow David’s campaign online.)

With my sister visiting, I missed the opportunity to post on Veteran’s day — and I know we have a lot of veterans who visit here and are ardent drug policy reformers.

So here’s an editorial from The Province that nicely expresses my views.

Today we remember those who have been lost in war, and give thanks to those who served our country to protect our way of life. We do this to honour their sacrifice and bravery and not to glorify war. The loudest cries denouncing the horror, the waste and the stupidity of war have always come from the veterans themselves.

Now the soldiers of another war — the War on Drugs — are raising their voices in opposition to that conflict so foolishly being waged by politicians. Current and former police officers keep emerging to say that just like with other wars, the War on Drugs is producing millions of mostly young victims, causing terrible violence and is costing us billions. […]

Polls show that only 12 per cent of British Columbians support current marijuana laws. It’s time for politicians to listen to experts, hear from voters and show some courage.

The Guardian has a very powerful editorial: The war on drugs and the shameful silence of our politicians

This week a major international summit on drugs will be hosted by Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords. No one from Downing Street will attend. No front line British politicians will be there to listen and learn from international medics, academics, politicians and economists who will reflect on lessons learnt from, and debate new approaches to, the “war on drugs”.

Privately, senior politicians have encouraged the hosting of the event and told organisers that they are sympathetic to a new discussion about drugs legislation – but only once public opinion has shifted. They signal privately that there is a need for change, but do nothing to lead that debate.

The editorial goes on to talk about the taboo that exists regarding talking about reform.

The taboo shows no sign of being broken by Britain’s spineless political class, despite this generation of leaders being the first to have widespread, first-hand experience of illegal drugs. They will undoubtedly have come across cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy throughout their university, social and professional lives. Some of their best friends – and colleagues – will have taken them. […]

Instead, the leading voices in calling for a new discussion about the war on drugs are coming from Latin America. In today’s Observer, Colombia’s President Santos speaks eloquently about the price his country has paid as a drug “producing nation” servicing the demand for illicit drugs in “consumer nations”, principally in Europe and the US.

The Guardian pulls no punches…

It is unconscionable for the leaders of the largest consuming nations – the US, UK and Spain – to remain silent any longer. […]

The war on drugs has failed. When policies fail it is incumbent on our leaders to look for new ones. They show no signs of doing so – even as Latin America’s body politic is threatened by the tentacles of the narco gangs who pay off politicians, judges, journalists and policemen – or just kill them, so that they can better transport drugs to us.

Prohibition has failed. As we noted last year: “If the purpose of drug policy is to make toxic substances available to anyone who wants them in a flourishing market economy controlled by murderous criminal gangs, the current arrangements are working well.” Milton Friedman was right, 20 years ago, when he said: “If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true”.

Just a few random updates based on questions I’ve received regarding site issues for those who are interested.

Continue reading →

With a number of the GOP Presidential candidates imploding, unfortunately it doesn’t seem to mean that the media will give more credence to Paul or Johnson.

On the other hand, it has apparently bizarrely given Newt Gingrich a renewed hope that he could be a legitimate candidate.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft reminds us of Newt’s past…

Newt Gingrich, via the New York Times, said in 1995, while he was weighing whether to run for the Presidency:

Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Friday that he would ask Congress to enact legislation imposing the death penalty on drug smugglers, and he suggested that mass executions of people convicted under such a law might prove an effective deterrent.

…”The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, ‘Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?’ the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically.”

Mr. Gingrich said his proposal, which he said he would make in a bill to be filed next month, would impose a mandatory death penalty on people convicted of bringing illegal drugs into the United States.

Why? because he loves children.

I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

Yeah, Newt’s definitely one of the crazies.

A few more links because there’s a lot of interesting stuff out there.

I don’t have much time to comment on stories right now between some work commitments and my sister being in town to visit me. It’s great to have her here and I’m going to enjoy spending time with her.

Cato Unbound is starting a series titled “If not now, when? The slow rise of of marijuana reform”

It features essays by Paul Armentano, Norm Stamper, Allen St. Pierre (coming), and Morgan Fox (coming), plus a conversation to follow.

Report: Mexico Commits Rights Abuse in Drug War

No surprise there. And of course, it’s not just Mexico. The drug war always leads to abuse…

Former Narcotics Detective Admits Drug Planting Common

And when it comes to the drug war, governments seem not to care about international law.

New report on corporal punishment for drug users

Thousands of drug users and alcohol consumers – and people found in possession of small amounts of drugs and alcohol – are subjected to judicially-sanctioned caning, flogging, lashing or whipping each year, says a new report.*

In the landmark study, the non-governmental organisation Harm Reduction International finds that over forty states apply some type of judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences. The vast majority of these sentences are handed down in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Iran and Saudi Arabia. According to the report, such state-sanctioned violence is in clear violation of international law. The report will be launched today in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Does Occupy Wall Street Have a Drug Problem? – an interesting article by Jed Bickman on balancing a human-based approach with a public-relations challenge.

California Dispensaries Moving to Block U.S. Marijuana Crackdown

SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for the medical marijuana industry said on Monday that they would seek court orders to halt a threatened federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries, their landlords and marijuana growers.

In legal motions to be filed on Tuesday, marijuana distributors and some medical patients will ask federal judges in four districts to issue temporary restraining orders to prevent federal prosecutors from taking action, lawyers and a lobbyist for the industry said at a news conference here on Monday. […]

Asked to comment on the suits, Benjamin B. Wagner, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of California, issued this statement: “Unless and until ordered otherwise, we will continue to do our duty in enforcing federal narcotics laws.”

Joint Statement of the President of the United States and the President of Portugal. Apparently the one truly relevant topic of discussion for these two countries (differences in approach to the drug war) is just about the only thing they didn’t discuss.

Bolivia: DEA not welcome back despite normalization of ties with Washington

BOGOTA, Colombia — Bolivian President Evo Morales said Tuesday that U.S. drug agents are not welcome back in his country despite the newly announced normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington.

Morales told reporters during a regional summit in the Colombian capital that it is a question of “dignity and sovereignty.”

This is why I like Morales.

Excellent and powerful OpEd by Arthur Rizer and Joseph Harman in The Atlantic: How the War on Terror Has Militarized the Police

The most serious consequence of the rapid militarization of American police forces, however, is the subtle evolution in the mentality of the “men in blue” from “peace officer” to soldier. This development is absolutely critical and represents a fundamental change in the nature of law enforcement. The primary mission of a police officer traditionally has been to “keep the peace.” Those whom an officer suspects to have committed a crime are treated as just that – suspects. Police officers are expected, under the rule of law, to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, even the “bad guys.” For domestic law enforcement, a suspect in custody remains innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, police officers operate among a largely friendly population and have traditionally been trained to solve problems using a complex legal system; the deployment of lethal violence is an absolute last resort.

Soldiers, by contrast, are trained to identify people they encounter as belonging to one of two groups — the enemy and the non-enemy — and they often reach this decision while surrounded by a population that considers the soldier an occupying force. Once this identification is made, a soldier’s mission is stark and simple: kill the enemy, “try” not to kill the non-enemy. Indeed, the Soldier’s Creed declares, “I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.” This is a far cry from the peace officer’s creed that expects its adherents “to protect and serve.”

Study: Whites More Likely to Abuse Drugs Than Blacks

Black youth are arrested for drug crimes at a rate ten times higher than that of whites. But new research shows that young African Americans are actually less likely to use drugs and less likely to develop substance use disorders, compared to whites, Native Americans, Hispanics and people of mixed race.

Obama unwise to ignore marijuana petition

Nicely done OpEd by Junior Ian Huyett at Kansas State.

Nice to see the DOJ take a little heat in Congress. Thanks to Rep. Steve Cohen.

The Justice Department again came under fire for its enforcement of marijuana laws Wednesday, as a Democratic House member pressed Laurie A. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, on the level of DOJ grant funds that are used to enforce those statutes.

“Marijuana is not the problem,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), said at a House Judiciary subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security oversight hearing. “It’s turning a whole generation of young people against the system and that’s something we can’t afford.”

Robinson said her office would look into how many Byrne law enforcement grants are used to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for enforcement of cannabis possession laws.

Cohen pressed Robinson to justify the federal government’s role in encouraging the enforcement of laws that the congressman said disproportionately affects people of color and tarnishes the records of young people for their entire lives.

Congressman’s Daughter Seeks Injunction Against Federal Crackdown on Medical Marijuana

Daughter has cancer and finds marijuana to be the best relief for chemo nausea. Her Congressman father says he supports his daughter, but opposes her ability to get her medicine legally. I find that incomprehensible.

Those looking for a serious answer from the White House “We The People” petitions have now been joined by another disgruntled group of answered petitioners – those looking for verification of government knowledge of extra-terrestrials.

Searching for ET, But No Evidence Yet

Of course, the government denied any knowledge, and I’m not a real follower of this topic, so can’t address whether or not the government’s response was outrageously and clearly wrong like it is on marijuana.

And maybe it’s my closeness to the subject, but doesn’t it seem like the government actually gave a more serious and respectful answer to the question of ET than that of MJ?

Does the government find UFO’s less worthy of derision than pot?

Sure seems that way.

My new favorite petition at the White House:

We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.

Since these petitions are ignored apart from an occasional patronizing and inane political statement amounting to nothing more than a condescending pat on the head, we the signers would enjoy having the illusion of success. Since no other outcome to this process seems possible, we demand that the White House immediately assign a junior staffer to compose a tame and vapid response to this petition, and never attempt to take any meaningful action on this or any other issue. We would also like a cookie.

(already has 7,000 votes)