Drug WarRant

This controversial billboard has recently shown up in Chicago, causing quite a furor.

I decided to make it a little more realistic…

After all, Obama admitted to drug use, and had he been arrested, that would likely have been the end of his political hopes.

This one is from Medaille College in Buffalo, New York, where Chris Ripley, Photo Editor has an OpEd titled Legalization would be a detriment to our society: Should New York state dance with ‘Mary Jane?’

Cute subhead, Chris. I don’t think the media’s ever thought of using ‘Mary Jane’ that way, before.

Compelling writing usually begins in the first sentence, and this one doesn’t disappoint:

As I was thinking about what to write for this article, I only knew what was bad about this drug and that it is not good for you. When I was growing up my parents always told me: ‘do not do drugs and never talk to strangers,’ and to this day I really don’t do either.

But wait…. I’m a stranger…

My mother told me stories about people she knew that did drugs and that their lives were severely effected by the use of them. Drugs harm your body as well as makes you do things that you are not suppose to do. I always believed this because my mother is a very convincing person and what she said was the law when I was younger. So basically fear is what makes me not do drugs.

I checked — Medaille College does have an English major with actual faculty. I assume at some point, they discuss things like grammar. Apparently young Chris hasn’t experienced that yet. He has experienced fear, however, from his mother. Apparently, however, the rest of the student body had different mothers.

As I entered college, things like sex, drugs, and alcohol became very easy to come by and take part in.

And now we have learned a rather disturbing fact about the lack of discrimination on the part of the Medaille women.

I know people that smoke marijuana and I have seen people smoke it, but what I do not understand is the reasoning behind why they want to do it.

Me being a person that questions a lot about life [with the apparent exception of what his mother tells him], I asked people what it was like and why they do it. The answers I get are all the same. They say, “It makes me feel good, and it helps me relax,’ or ‘It helps me calm down and take me away from here.’

Well that sounds like a vacation to me, and a very dirty vacation. If I wanted to go somewhere that was relaxing and calms me down, I wouldn’t choose marijuana.

Ah, but you can’t go to the Bahamas every Friday night. In fact, in Buffalo, New York in the winter, there aren’t too many places to go to relax and calm down. Plus, marijuana is cheaper than taking a trip.

He goes on to talk about the tar in smoke, and then notes:

I have many allergies and have asthma, I feel like smoking would just cause me more of problem then that great feeling that you get if you were to take a hit. Or maybe it is just the fear of something bad happening to me that I cannot control.

Well, then, Chris. It seems very clear that you should not smoke marijuana. You aren’t interested in it, you don’t like smoke, and you’re afraid of your mother.

Some other people, however, are interested in it, don’t mind smoke, and aren’t afraid of your mother.

So back to the point of why I am telling you my opinion on smoking marijuana. Well, America is at a point that people are fighting for the legalization of marijuana. If you haven’t figured out by now, I think it is a very foolhardy idea to legalize marijuana.

You may think that, but you haven’t given a single reason why. And you haven’t begun to touch on the costs of prohibition or any actual benefits from keeping it illegal.

We as a nation cannot handle this drug,

No, you as an individual can’t handle this drug.

… and it would be very detrimental to us as a nation.

Why? For what reasons?

If you really want to have a good time, keep it off the streets and don’t smoke marijuana.

I’m not sure I want to take Chris’ suggestions for calming vacations if his idea of a good time is “keeping it off the streets.”

Drug Courts: Martin Sheen Defends Them in Congress. But Do They Work? – outstanding article by Maia Szalavitz in Time Magazine.

I think Maia does a great job of really laying out the issues regarding drug courts – pointing out that yes, drug courts can be better than long prison sentences (both in effectiveness and cost) for serious drug addicts. But there are a ton of negative factors, including a lack of oversight, a tendency to “widen the net” of the drug war, and forcing people who are not addicts to admit that they are.

U.S. law would label Mexican drug cartels “terrorist organizations” – a really bad idea

The bill proposed by Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) would authorize U.S. law enforcement agencies to use extreme measures to isolate the cartels and capture their leaders.

Mexican political leaders have been warning that any U.S. intervention in their drug war could trample Mexico’s sovereignty.

This week, Jorge Alberto Lara Rivera, Mexico’s assistant attorney general, said that if U.S. law enforcement operations continue in Mexico without the government’s consent, “that would make us reevaluate many issues in our relationship,” according to Mexican media reports.

Mexican government officials say they still control their own country despite a war on drug trafficking that has claimed about 36,000 lives since it started in December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon called in troops against the cartels.

McCaul says more serious efforts are needed by the United States as the drug cartels turn their weapons against U.S. law officers.

“Mexican drug cartels are terrorist organizations, and this designation will provide the necessary tools to effectively advance the national security interests of both Mexico and the United States,” he said.

Drug laws ‘may make matters worse’

Police efforts to fight drug gangs tend to lead to more violence and an increase in murders, according to a new international study.

The authors, writing in the International Journal of Drug Policy, admit they were surprised by their own findings.

Of course, we’re not surprised by this at all. And we’ve talked about a preliminary version of this report before.

S.F. pot case tossed as video contradicts police – this is another case beyond the original scandal, showing the pervasive extent of the violation of citizens’ rights.

National Cancer Institute scrubs “anti-tumoral effect” of cannabinoids from website from NORML. The government frantically stepped in to change the positive summary on the cover page at the NCI site (twice), forcing people visiting the site to go to the Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies section to find the information about cannabis and tumors.

NCI offers a rather weak explanation for its quick revisions.

Traffic fatalities fall to lowest level since 1949 (CNN)

The number of traffic fatalities continued its welcomed downward trajectory last year, falling 3% to its lowest levels since 1949, and a 25 percent drop from 2005, according to U.S. Department of Transportation estimates released Friday.

Reuters

“If you think about driving on an American road on a Friday or Saturday evening about 16 percent of the vehicles – one in six of the cars – (the driver) will be under the influence of an illicit or licit drug,” Gil Kerlikowske, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said.

We must be doing something right!

[Note to prohibitionists. If you’re going to misuse correlation as causation in every other aspect of the drug war, then we might as well throw this back in your face.]

No, of course I don’t believe that increased numbers of people who test positive for the presence of a drug (which is far different than Kerlikowske’s lie of “under the influence”) is the reason for reduced traffic deaths. But the facts sure don’t help the implied argument that there’s a massive increased epidemic of deaths from drugged driving that the ONDCP is trying to push.

More Black Men in Prison Today Than Enslaved in 1850

Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, told an audience at the Pasadena Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, “More African-American men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, before the Civil War began.” […]

Alexander discusses how convicted felons are subject to forms of discrimination reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. This includes being denied the right to vote, automatically excluded from juries and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education and public benefits, much like their parents or grandparents.

I fought for the end of Prohibition II, son.

Via Drug Policy Alliance:

Washington, D.C. – At a briefing on Capitol Hill Thursday, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) will enlist actor Martin Sheen and others to respond to two new critical reports: the Drug Policy Alliance’s Drug Courts are Not the Answer: Toward a Health-Centered Approach to Drug Use (www.drugpolicy.org/drugcourts) and the Justice Policy Institute’s Addicted to Courts: How a Growing Dependence on Drug Courts Impacts People and Communities (http://www.justicepolicy.org/drugcourts).

The briefing also follows a recent exposé, by weekly public radio show This American Life, of a Georgia drug court that has tied up people in the criminal justice net for years – often for cases that elsewhere would have resulted in short probation terms. After forging two checks on her parents’ checking account when she was 17, one for $40 and one for $60, for example, Lindsey Dills ended up in the Glynn County drug court for five and a half years, including a total of 14 months behind bars – and then, when she was finally kicked out of drug court, she faced another five-year sentence for the original offense, including six months in state prison. Another Glynn County drug court participant, Kim Spead, was incarcerated (at a cost of $17,000) for failure to pay $1,500 in fees – even though she had successfully graduated the program nearly two years earlier.

“The drug court phenomenon is, in large part, a case of good intentions being mistaken for a good idea,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy state director in Southern California for the Drug Policy Alliance, who contributed to the report. “We’re concerned – and the data show – that many people who enter a drug court may actually wind up incarcerated for more time than if they had not entered drug court to begin with and that many people who end up in drug court do not have a drug problem but are being ordered to drug treatment anyway, filling up limited space that should go to people who actually need and want treatment.”

“Drug courts have helped some people, but they have also failed many others and focused resources on people who could be better diverted to less resource-intensive options, like probation, and/or received drug treatment outside the criminal justice system,” Dooley-Sammuli added.

I’m sure that there are some people who have been helped by drug courts, but I’m glad that they are undergoing scrutiny. For too long, there’s been this “drug courts are good” feel-good viewpoint that seems to have prevented critical analysis. Certainly drug courts are not good in all situations and they are certainly not the solution to the “drug problem.”

What I find amusing is that the National Association of Drug Court Professionals is bringing out Martin Sheen to talk about how drug courts saved his son Charlie Sheen’s life.

The idea of having a policy for the entire country based on what works for Charlie Sheen is freakin’ hilarious.

You may have noticed that there’s a new ad up on the site (at right), for the excellent DVD: 10 Rules for Dealing With Police from Flex Your Rights.

It’s both fun and extremely useful, and it should be shared with all your friends.

If you don’t have a copy yet, here’s a great opportunity. And now, anytime someone buys a copy through that ad, Drug WarRant gets a cut! An easy way to show your support while getting something very valuable for yourself.

That’s the subtitle of this excellent article in Psychology Today: Tylenol and the War on Drugs

The article starts off about the recent realization by the FDA that pharmaceutical policy was setting people up to die of liver disease if they overused Vicodin, because it is intentionally laced with acetaminophen.

It goes on to logically tie that to the intentional poisoning of alcohol during Prohibition 1.

This is clearly the domain of the sado-moralist. They’re always around making sure that people get harmed rather than high.

Join Together has been a useful online publication for news and information of interest, particularly for those in the prevention and treatment arenas.

Join Together’s point of view is pretty far from that of Drug WarRant, yet I’ve often found their drug policy news coverage useful, and have often found robust discussions in their comments.

This afternoon, I received this note:

Dear Reader,

I am very happy to announce that effective next Monday, April 4, Join Together will become part of The Partnership at Drugfree.org. You will continue to receive your Join Together news as usual, with a fresh look, and have immediate access to the extraordinary resources that The Partnership at Drugfree.org has created for parents and communities.

Stable, long-term funding for free services like Join Together is always hard to achieve. You and more than 50,000 other leaders in prevention, treatment and policy throughout the country have relied on our daily news to stay current with research, policy, and practice. We have worked hard to not let you down.

That is why I am so pleased that Steve Pasierb, the President of The Partnership at Drugfree.org, and his colleagues have exciting plans to expand and improve Join Together in the coming years, while retaining the independent voice and commitment to evidence over ideology that has been the foundation of our relationship with you. [emphasis added]

Why do I find that hard to believe? I’ll admit that JoinTogether’s recent connection to CASA didn’t turn then into Joe Califano, but becoming a subsidiary of a blatant propaganda organization like drugfree.org, and believing that you’ll retain editorial integrity, seems awfully naive.

Why do you think drugfree.org has the resources to take on this operation, while they were unable to get the resources on their own? The difference is precisely because The Partnership pushes ideology over evidence, and there are a lot of interests out there that are happy to fund that.

Current Join Together staff members will remain at the Boston University School of Public Health. They will work in a new collaboration with the team at The Partnership at Drugfree.org to ensure a smooth transition of our news service and website content and to develop new joint projects to expand and strengthen Join Together screening and education services.

We will publish in our current format through Thursday, March 31. To allow for testing of the new online systems, we will not publish a daily newsletter on Friday. On the following Monday, April 4, Join Together will relaunch with a new home at www.drugfree.org and a new email design.

Thank you for your ongoing support of Join Together.

Sincerely,

David Rosenbloom
Director
Join Together

R.I.P.

Over the weekend, the Mexican attorney general stated: “The controlled trafficking of weapons is not authorized under the Mexican national legislation. An operation that would contemplate this would not have been acceptable to the Mexican government, and it will never be under any circumstance.” The Mexican Attorney General also stated that it’s conducting its own investigation to identify “the crimes that could have been carried out on Mexican territory.” CBS

That’s right, the gun cartel they’re investigating is the ATF.

…agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms say over the course of a year and a half, superiors ordered them to allow thousands of weapons to cross into Mexico as part of a failed plan to gain intelligence and take down a major drug cartel.

I wonder if Mexico will try to extradite ATF superiors. That would be interesting… Right now, though, they’re actually waiting for the U.S. government’s own internal investigation.

A note to the ATF… You really called this operation “Fast and Furious“?

I hate to tell you this, but you’re no Vin Diesel and Paul Walker by a long shot.

Perhaps you should have called it “Blue Streak“… although that’s probably too generous as well. Even Martin Lawrence’s character succeeded despite the bumbling.