Drug WarRant

California Medical Assn. calls for legalization of marijuana

The group acknowledges some health risk associated with marijuana use and proposes that it be regulated along the lines of alcohol and tobacco. But it says the consequences of criminalization outweigh the hazards.

Lyman says current laws have “proven to be a failed public health policy.” He cited increased prison costs, the effect on families when marijuana users are imprisoned and racial inequalities in drug-sentencing cases.

DEA Global Holy Warriors Take On Iran – Jeralyn Merritt takes on the DEA

The DEA has become a menace. Someone needs to rein them in. A good starting point would be for Congress to start cutting their budget. They are supposed to be addressing drug crime in the U.S. not policing the world and creating international crime and terror plots. […]

It’s time someone put the brakes on the DEA’s global holy wars.

Some reactions to the latest multi-pronged crackdown by the feds.

Barack Obama, drug warrior by Debra Saunders at SFGate.

Nadelmann cannot understand why the Obama Justice Department is willing to alienate real estate agents, property owners, gun owners and the Democratic base. “Typically, as an advocate,” he said, “your best opportunities emerge when the other side overreaches.”

Bingo.

I’ve talked to folks in law enforcement who stew over medical marijuana businesses serving as fronts for criminal enterprises. But now the administration is threatening to go after cancer patients who own guns and small businesses that rent to marijuana shops. They are going after people whom they do not consider to be criminals.

That’s why some states decided to pass medical marijuana laws in the first place. They do not want the heavy boot of federal law enforcement stomping on the wrong people.

It’s a good point. This over-reach could very well be a tipping point.

James P. Gray: Going backward in drug war

Not only will this program be as hopeless as its predecessors, it is yet another continuing example of the arrogance, hypocrisy and bullying of the federal government in this area. […]

Thus, calling marijuana a “controlled substance” is the biggest oxymoron of our day. Prohibition leaves governments with no controls whatsoever over things like age restrictions, quality, quantity or place of sale. Those important issues are left in the complete control of Mexican drug cartels, juvenile street gangs and other thugs, which is where most of the customers will go once the dispensaries are closed down.

Here’s a ridiculous reaction from the Christian Science Monitor: Fed crackdown on California medical marijuana: Does Obama mean it?

A year ago, Californians voted against legalizing marijuana, and last week the Obama administration decided to help them mean it. […]

The Obama administration – after appearing soft on marijuana two years ago – is doing what state law enforcement refuses to do. And the Justice Department is being smart about it by going after large-scale growers, landlords who rent to large pot dispensaries, or banks that finance growers. […]

Keeping a lid on marijuana isn’t like Prohibition, as PBS documentary filmmaker Ken Burns points out. Alcohol has long been too widely consumed to ban completely. Pot smokers are a small minority. They are containable…

The big question now is whether President Obama will buckle to political pressure from pro-pot forces and ease up the federal pressure on California’s pot industry. A short-term clampdown won’t dampen the momentum of the pro-legalization crowd that uses almost any ruse on the public.

Marijuana may help PTSD. Why won’t the government find out for sure?

If this were any other drug, the researchers would probably be organizing or conducting trials now. But this isn’t a new chemical compound dreamed up by a pharmaceutical company. It’s marijuana, and the anti-marijuana forces in the federal government are powerful. […]

It is time for government officials to take this nation’s veterans off the medical marijuana battlefield. NIDA should grant the researchers’ request to purchase marijuana and allow the FDA-approved PTSD study of veterans to move forward. These brave men and women don’t have decades to wait for relief.

Once again, lazy press lap up the Drug Czar’s deceitful offerings and present them as scary facts.

Drugged driving report shows high toll among young

But a new report Kerlihowske [sic] pointed to includes a stark and surprising fact: In 2009, 3,952 drivers fatally injured in car crashes tested positive for drugs. That represents 18 percent of all fatally injured drivers.

Stark and surprising, huh? Unless you actually look at the report. No, I don’t mean reading the whole report. I mean unless you actually get as far as the second paragraph of the overview.

It is important to note that drug involvement means only that drugs were found in the driver’s system. Drug involvement does not imply impairment or indicate that drug use was the cause of the crash. Drug presence as recorded in FARS includes both illegal substances as well as
over-the-counter and prescription medications, which may or may not have been misused. Unlike alcohol data in FARS, there is no measure of the amount of drug present.

Hmmm, maybe not so stark and surprising. The surprising thing may be that it’s only 18% of any particular population that would test positive under those parameters.

And David W. Freean and Monica Dybuncio continued to parrot all the tricksy “statistics” of the Drug Czar without once questioning.

And data from 2005 to 2009 show that 42 percent of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were under 25, according to the statement.

What does that mean? That is the most meaningless statistic I’ve ever heard (and yet it sounds “scary” as though marijuana was the cause). Is it that people under 25 are more likely to get into crashes? True – check any insurance company’s rates. Or that people under 25 are more likely to use marijuana in general (and thus would be more likely to test positive regardless of when they had used it)? Also true. Is it that marijuana is a contributing factor to a significant number of fatal crashes for young people? Not based on this data, which doesn’t even measure that.

David Freeman and Monica DyBuncio: If you’re reading this, please take a moment to inject some facts into your coverage of this drugged driving thing that the Drug Czar is trying to promote. And be aware that the Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie.

None of us want impaired people out on the roads, regardless of the method of impairment. But scare stories based on manipulated statistics that divert attention from real problems do none of us any good, and could end up causing real harm.

Rand reconsiders pot-shop study after L.A. city attorney complains – L.A. Times

RAND Removes Its Own Pro-Marijuana Dispensary Study – Toke of the Town

That’s right – this is the study that RAND put together showing that crime went up in areas after dispensaries were closed, countering the nonsensical hype that dispensaries were “crime-magnets.”

It wasn’t a particularly controversial report to anyone with a lick of common sense, but it sent a message that drug warriors hated, so they fought the study, seizing on the limitations of the data. Now RAND had made it very clear when they released it that the study was not comprehensive, that it only covered a short time and didn’t track exactly the days that dispensaries actually closed, so it wasn’t like they were claiming this was some kind of blue-ribbon project, yet the L.A. City Attorney’s office managed to get them to yank it, at least temporarily.

I’m all for RAND making corrections when warranted, and if they can make the report even better, great. But we’ll be watching to see if they actually follow through and return the report in its proper form, rather than permanently trashing it (or changing the thrust of the research) because of political pressure.

In the meantime, the original report is available at ASA.

…

The recent major federal crackdown on dispensaries is getting a lot of press, and most of it is unfavorable to the feds.

An example is Jacob Sullum’s OpEd in the Chicago Sun Times: White House tramples California pot laws

President Barack Obama promised a more tolerant approach to medical marijuana, saying he would not “circumvent state laws.” Instead he has delivered a crackdown more aggressive than anything under George W. Bush, featuring more frequent raids, threats to landlords and banks, and ruinous IRS audits. Although his underlings pretend they are respecting state law, they clearly have no intention of doing so.

Sullum counters Sabet:

“The legalization advocates misread the tea leaves,” says Kevin Sabet, who served until recently as senior policy adviser to drug czar Gil Kerlikowske.

The administration’s assurances were considerably more explicit than tea leaves. Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, said “the policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law,” as opposed to “organizations that are [distributing marijuana] in a way that is consistent with state law.”

I do find it interesting that Sabet would use the analogy of reading tea leaves – the notion that drug policy should be some indecipherable plant matter that is interpreted by whatever charlatan has the carny tent.

Perhaps it’s time for him to start reading the stems and seeds.

…

With all the furor and angst over medical marijuana, and now a clear and entrenched medical marijuana community that’s not going to go away regardless of IRS audits, federal crackdowns, and the fantasies of the L.A. City Attorney… is this perhaps a momentum shift toward the real solution of full marijuana legalization?

NORML seems to think so. Feds Keep Fooling Around With Medical Marijuana: Full Cannabis Legalization or Bust!

Rather than pour millions of dollars and human energy into creating a legally and politically contentious policy that allows some cannabis consumers who can obtain a physician’s recommendation to be immune from state (but not federal) prosecution during a time of general Cannabis Prohibition, all cannabis consumers, patients, cultivators and sellers and their families should focus their full attention and resources to once and for all legalizing cannabis for all responsible adult consumers.

Of course, this is part of a fundraising pitch, but the sentiment is real.

I know that some felt that we should never have bothered with medical cannabis at all. Others felt that medical cannabis was an important thing in its own right, and also that it would help pave the way by reducing public fear of pot. That seems to have had some value as polls over the past years have shown a weakening of opposition to legalization.

The need for medical marijuana will not go away, nor will the medical marijuana movement.

But it does appear that this may be an opportunity to demonstrate how completely out of touch and corrupt the federal government is in relation to cannabis politics and use that to help the movement forward toward full legalization.

The title of this post is probably truer than most of the other coverage of this bizarre incident that you’ll see elsewhere.

What you’re probably going to hear is that Iranian terrorists were paying a Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador, among other things.

The convoluted story is probably much different. As the New Yorker notes:

At least six countries are part of the story: allegedly, an American who also had an Iranian passport travelled to Mexico to meet with a member of a drug cartel (who turned out to be a confidential D.E.A. informant) to recruit a hitman to kill a Saudi Arabian and maybe also attack the Israeli embassy in Argentina. (A map with pins in it would help here.)

I sometimes wonder just how much crime we could eliminate if the DEA wasn’t so busy facilitating it.

Needless to say, some are always anxious to claim direct connections between drug trafficking and terrorism, and will imply that Mexican DTO’s are ready to participate in such activities.

Silvia Longmire is properly skeptical, noting somewhat tongue-in-cheek:

Maybe Los Zetas are crazy enough to do it, but for $1.5 million dollars? Add a couple of zeros to that figure, and maybe it’s a better possibility.

Update: Glenn Greenwald properly ridicules The “very scary” Iranian Terror plot

The most difficult challenge in writing about the Iranian Terror Plot unveiled yesterday is to take it seriously enough to analyze it. Iranian Muslims in the Quds Force sending marauding bands of Mexican drug cartel assassins onto sacred American soil to commit Terrorism — against Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel — is what Bill Kristol and John Bolton would feverishly dream up while dropping acid and madly cackling at the possibility that they could get someone to believe it. […]

To begin with, this episode continues the FBI’s record-setting undefeated streak of heroically saving us from the plots they enable. From all appearances, this is, at best, yet another spectacular “plot” hatched by some hapless loser with delusions of grandeur but without any means to put it into action except with the able assistance of the FBI, which yet again provided it through its own (paid, criminal) sources posing as Terrorist enablers. The Terrorist Mastermind at the center of the plot is a failed used car salesman in Texas with a history of pedestrian money problems. Dive under your bed. “For the entire operation, the government’s confidential sources were monitored and guided by federal law enforcement agents,” explained U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and “no explosives were actually ever placed anywhere and no one was actually ever in any danger.’”

Working on researching a couple of things right now that may result in posts later. Talk amongst yourselves.

Query for discussion if you wish: With OWS and the Tea Party (and their likely overlapping interests), with government crackdowns on medical marijuana at the same time as Fast and Furious investigations, and much more, is there a potential general groundswell of unhappiness with the status quo that could result in a more powerful grass roots interest in drug policy reform? If so, how best to light that spark?

Wow – won’t this be fun…

The 3rd World Forum Against Drugs
Stockholm, Sweden – May 21-23, 2012

World Federation Against Drugs is rooted in the Swedish experience with the drug abuse epidemic and the resulting balanced and restrictive Swedish drug policy that enjoys broad support across the political spectrum in Sweden.

No, I won’t be attending.

Gil Kerlikowske will. It’s sad to see the U.S. practically tripping over itself to be connected with the oppressive Swedish drug policy regime.

Here’s the part that really pisses me off.

There will be three main themes:
» Human rights and the right of the child to be protected from illicit drugs
» Illicit drug use and trafficking problems of Latin America
» Primary prevention and its role in drug policy

Human rights and the right of the child to be protected from illicit drugs. Really? And what is it about restrictive drug policies that actually protects children from illicit drugs? Are criminals more likely to demand proof of age than legitimate businesses?

And what about the children killed in Mexico? Or those who die from heroin overdoses in this country? How have restrictive drug policies helped them? Or the millions who have lost their fathers to the criminal justice system? Or the teenagers being recruited into drug gangs?

And… human rights? Locking up people for using a plant is human rights? Busting down their doors and shooting their dogs? Frisking black men, maybe? Or pulling over hispanic drivers and ripping apart their cars while everyone driving by watches?

We’ve talked about Calderon and his suggestions of pursuing “market alternatives” before. And at the same time we’ve noted that he is a destructive drug warrior, certainly not on the “side” of legalizers.

I think the following exchange makes it crystal clear.

Is it true that you would like to see America legalize drugs?
I can hit the criminals, I can put them in jails, I can take control of their structures, I can rebuild the social fabric. But if Americans don’t reduce the demand or don’t reduce at least the profits coming from the black market for drugs, it will be impossible to solve this problem.

So the answer is yes?
I want to see a serious analysis of the alternatives, and one alternative is to explore the different legal regimes about drugs. Even in the U.S., you can see states in which marijuana is … if that is not legal, I don’t understand what legal means. No? Marijuana has some kind of “medical” use, for instance, no?

You’re putting air quotes around medical?
It’s like the “medical” use of tequila. You have a cold, you can drink one or two tequilas. If you don’t fix the cold, at least you forget the cold, no?

Would you ever consider legalizing drugs in Mexico?
For Mexico, it will be useless to do so, because the objective is to reduce the price and the price is determined by the American market.

This isn’t a guy who sees the value in drug use, or wants legalization, or cares a damn about whether drug users are jailed. He simply sees the economic reality that as long as drugs are desired and illegal in the U.S., people will die in Mexico.

This is a fact, regardless of your views about drugs, and yet it is forbidden to discuss among the “serious people” in the United States.

A must-read from one of the Advisory Council members of my Prohibition Isn’t Free Foundation (and one of the top political writers today).

Glenn Greenwald: Steve Jobs and drug policy

America’s harsh prohibitionist drug policies are grounded in the premise that the prohibited substances have little or no redeeming value and cannot be used without life-destroying consequences. Yet the evidence of its falsity is undeniable. Here is one of the most admired men in America, its greatest contemporary industrialist, hailing one of the most scorned of these substances as integral to his success and intellectual and personal growth.

There’s a whole lot going on right now in drug policy, so I’m going to give you some more links and reading.

Scalia Criticizes Scope of Federal Drug Laws

In an unusual hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the expansion of federal drugs laws, saying the large number of federal drug cases necessitated an expansion of the federal judiciary that had diluted its quality.

“It was a great mistake to put routine drug offenses into the federal courts,” he told the committee, adding that routine drug cases belong in state courts, where the vast majority of criminal cases are heard.

If you missed the excellent Prohibition series by Ken Burns, you can watch it online at PBS

While most of the media coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada decision to protect the status of Insite from the Harper government’s attempts to shut it down, there were a few ridiculous nay-sayers, such as the editorial board of the Toronto Sun: What Have Judges Been Smoking?

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to legalize shooting galleries for junkies, thereby making them exempt from laws covering the trafficking, possession, and use of illegal drugs, makes us wonder if these judges had been smoking the drapes.

It was not a rational decision.

It opens the door to legalized drug dens across the country, leaving Prime Minister Stephen Harper unable to even trigger the Notwithstanding Clause in the Charter to stop this insanity from advancing. […]

How the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, could be conned into believing the Insite project “saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area” should be absolutely mind boggling to the vast majority of Canadians. […]

Canada will rue this day.

Julio Montaner sets the record straight in this OpEd in the National PostThe science is in, Insite saves lives

A nice, introductory article to The Economics of Drug Prohibition

Not only does prohibition increase the marginal benefits of violence, but it also decreases the marginal cost of violence.

Some coverage of the recent federal crackdown

Federal crackdown on medical pot sales reflects a shift in policy (LA Times)

“They’re wasting money they don’t have,” [Sen. Mark] Leno said. “This is not the issue of the day. This doesn’t create jobs. This does not keep the security of the nation intact. It doesn’t clean the environment.”

U.S. targets pot suppliers who profit in state (SFGate)

Prosecutors target California’s marijuana trade

Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that marijuana legalization advocates had “misread the tea leaves” when they predicted that Obama would be friendly to their policies.

US: California pot crackdown targets large dispensaries (MSNBC)

As for using marijuana as medicine, Sabet said the proper path should be one where components of marijuana are studied and possibly approved by the Food & Drug Administration for use in pharmaceuticals.

Judge rules for pot dispensaries as feds threaten major crackdown

“This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office,” said Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president’s drug czar.

Kevin Sabet is everywhere. Clearly on a big recent push to get media coverage as part of his career development.

If you’re interested in more Kevin Sabet, he’s interviewed in a podcast by Sylvia Longmire at Mexico’s Drug War blog. I’ve just recently learned about Longmire and while I’d consider her far from being on the side of us “legalizers” (though she does support legalizing marijuana), I’ve found her to have an open mind and willingness to learn and be persuaded, so please keep that in mind if you choose to comment at her blog.

I received an interesting comment today back at the post for Book Review: ‘Eternal Battle Against Evil’ by Paul R. Chabot. It appears not to be from a regular reader of this site — likely got here because of Google… If you google Paul R Chabot, my book review is the very first item. If you Google Eternal Battle Against Evil, it’s the second (not bad in such a short time).

Here’s the comment:

objective

Guither’s review is less than objective and wonder what credentials he possesses to evaluate and comment on drug strategy and Chabot’s book. Chabot has been on the front lines and understands the issues regarding ilicit drugs their abuse. Secondly, I wonder how many books Guither has written himself. As far as I am concerned, his comments and three dollars will buy you a cup of Starbucks.

Thanks for stopping by, objective. Regarding my credentials to evaluate and comment on Chabot’s book… all I really needed was a working brain. It wasn’t hard, because Chabot didn’t have a logically working argument.

As far as the number of books I’ve written, if my review had been about the ease or difficulty of writing books, then that might have been relevant. It was not. I have, by the way, written over 4,700 blog posts about drug policy, which gives me a little bit of experience about writing and some expertise on drug policy.

As far as my comments and $3 buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks, you’re absolutely right. And in about 2 weeks, the same price will buy Chabot’s book on eBay.

Thanks for playing.

….

objective’s comment does remind me of a rather interesting point regarding “credentials.”

In a superficial way, on paper it appears that Paul Chabot has better “credentials” than me to discuss drug policy.

Chabot: Iraq war veteran, Experience with Office of Naval Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Commissioner to the State Parole Board, 15 years law enforcement experience, White House Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement, Justice and Drug Control Programs, Masters in public administration and a Ed.D in executive leadership…

Guither: Master of Fine Arts degree, performance artist and teacher of Arts Administration, who blogs about drug policy on the side.

You can see why a media outlet might be more interested in interviewing him than me.

And yet, I have far superior credentials for discussing drug policy. My knowledge is better than his, my understanding of the various factors, including economic, social, legal, etc. is far beyond his, and my analytical sills are far superior. He certainly knows more than I do about the organizational structure of the AF-DTO, but that’s about it.

Of course, part of the credentials having to do with working with the drug czar is really a negative. They’ll bring in just about any moron who has drunk the drug war cool-aid to work/advise/intern there (in fact, intelligence is usually a handicap). That’s why there are so many ridiculously stupid ex-ONDCP staffers out there commenting on every drug war story.

…

A surprise google tidbit was pointed out by one of my students this week… If you go to any standard google search bar and start to type something, a drop down of suggestions shows up. If you merely type “Pete” and then a space (to set it apart from “Peter”), my name is currently the sixth one to show up in that drop down list… after Sampras but before Townshend.