Drug WarRant

Steve Elliott nails it in The Great ‘Marijuana’ Debate: What’s In A Word?

There are those within the cannabis movement who will tell you with a straight face that the reason the plant is still illegal is because it is called “marijuana.” That’s overreaching wildly.

And you have to ask yourself: How much chance do we stand of changing the minds of the general public about cannabis, when we spend most of our energy fighting amongst ourselves about what to call the damn stuff?

Yes, I personally know of activists that spend way more time and energy attacking other activists — with whom they should be strategizing — for using the word “marijuana”!

This creates another problem, as well. When members of the public at large see some members of the cannabis community shushing and shaming other members for using the word “marijuana,” that sure makes the whole enterprise look iffy to an outsider.

Steve does a great job of looking at the history of the words and the silliness of fighting for one over another.

Yes, I try to use “cannabis” when I’m writing formally, but there’s no way I’m going to stop using “marijuana.”

Just a fun little video segment on a somewhat controversial radio ad featuring stoned students promoting a greasy burger joint. Talk about reaching your target audience!

Narconon, part of the Scientologist empire, is one of the more bizarre and unprincipled outfits profiting from the marijuana treatment scam.

Their latest effort has me mostly scratching my head in puzzlement.

In this press release by the organization I love the way they try to look like they’re the balanced source of factual information

There is so much controversy over the long term and short term effects of weed that it can be hard to get at the truth. Well-financed figures on both sides display their opposing views about the drug’s harm or safety. If a person, young or old, wanted the facts on weed, where would they turn?

Now Bobby Wiggins, a spokesperson and drug educator for Narconon International, explains one of the key problems related to the effects of weed consumption in a clear, three-minute YouTube video. Mr. Wiggins has educated hundreds of thousands of children on the dangers of drug use and recorded the video about the long-term effects of weed to continue the education about the effects of weed use on a broader scale.

In the video, Mr. Wiggins claims that marijuana depletes your magnesium levels, putting you on downward-tracking cycle of highs and lows.

My first thought was that, if this is true, there’s an obvious and easy solution — eat vegetables, beans and nuts that contain magnesium to restore magnesium levels (or use supplements). But is it true?

I haven’t found any reliable information on cannabis and magnesium levels, other than magnesium deficiency in plants, which can cause a yellowing in the older leaves.

I’m assuming this is just more Narconon quackery that they’ve pulled out of their ass. Perhaps we’ve done such a good job of debunking all the normal marijuana scares that they felt the need to make up a new one. Does anybody know anything else on this?

I’m generalizing, of course. I know that there are good prosecutors and state’s attorneys out there who are interested in finding justice. I’ve even heard of one.

And yet, for the most part, particularly given the news I cover, the overwhelming view I tend to get of prosecutors is the justice-be-damned, power-hungry official who is looking to maximize convictions and make themselves look good.

A lot of this has been attributable to the drug war, where it became impossible, due to the sheer number of cases, to actually provide a jury trial for all defendants. Prosecutors soon discovered that they could ramp up their convictions without spending a day in court as long as they had enough “tools” in their arsenal to force a plea. Soon, prosecutors realized that having these “tools” made them the equivalent of God — judge, jury, and executioner, and they lobbied for more of them, with legislators eager to rush to their cause and pass more “pile-on” laws, particularly in drug cases.

Now that they have this power, they won’t easily give it up.

Case in point. Proposal to shrink drug-free school zone draws ire

A proposal by Gov. Deval Patrick to shrink the drug-free zone around Massachusetts schools is drawing fire from police and prosecutors who say they need the 1,000-foot area and the tougher prison terms that go with it.

We’ve talked about these drug-free zones before. The 1,000-foot zones are absolutely ridiculous, particularly in inner cities where there’s almost no place that isn’t inside one of these overlapping zones. They do absolutely nothing to deter drug sales to children since most people don’t know if they’re in a zone or not (which may include their living room) and there are separate laws against selling drugs to children. The only purpose they serve is as a “pile-on” charge.

And prosecutors don’t even seem to care to hide that fact anymore.

Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz said prosecutors already use discretion when adding a school zone violation to a suspected drug dealer’s charges and generally don’t use the law for first-time offenders with small amounts of drugs a safe distance away from schools. But he said the law gives prosecutors leverage in getting suspected drug dealers to plead guilty to other charges and to give authorities information about larger dealers.

“Why would we want to take away that tool for prosecutors instead of giving them more tools?” Cruz said.

Maybe because justice is about something different than giving prosecutors more power. And maybe someone should let him know that the role of prosecutor is to serve the people, not to rack up conviction numbers.

Of course, we also need to do a better job of educating people about how our justice system is supposed to work, and that adding more laws and more sentences doesn’t make us safer.

Yellow Journalism in action. Check out this article in the Daily Mail: Legal but lethal: So-called ‘legal highs’ are every bit as deadly as heroin and cocaine. It’s so quintessentially Daily Mail in tone. Actually, the research done for the article is relatively impressive — assuming any of it is to be believed — and I may have learned something. But the breathless melodramatic automatic condemnation of anything drug-related makes the article almost unreadable.

---

The General’s Drug Problem in USA Today is an interesting article about the apparent rampant use/addiction to prescription drugs in the military.

Standing before a packed hall of 700 military doctors and medics here, the deputy commander of the nation’s elite special operations forces warned about an epidemic of chronic pain sweeping through the U.S. military after a decade of continuous war. […]

An internal Army investigation report released Tuesday revealed that 25% to 35% of about 10,000 soldiers assigned to special units for the wounded, ill or injured are addicted to or dependent on drugs, according to their nurses and case managers. Doctors in those care units told investigators they need training in other ways to manage pain besides only using narcotics.

I suppose they could try cannabis.

---

Coca-chewing Bolivians press for end to UN ban

Article about the Bolivian protests against the United States for opposing the amendment that would remove coca chewing from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The real kicker is in the closing paragraph.

The US embassy, in a statement reaffirming US opposition to the proposed amendment to the UN convention, said it was willing to work with the Bolivian government “out of respect for these millennial practices.”

Translation: We know it’s not enforced and there’s no way to enforce it, but we want to have it on the books so we can use it against you whenever we want to complain that you’re not doing enough in the drug war.

---

Increased Violence as a Drug War Metric by Steven Taylor at Ouside the Beltway. I can’t even count the number of times we’ve seen someone say that the violence in Mexico is a sign that we’re winning. Here’s another one:

Via the BBC: Hillary Clinton backs Mexico drug war comes the following:

The Mexican authorities argue that the rising violence shows that the gangs are being weakened and turning increasingly on each other, but critics argue the use of troops has only served to provoke increasingly gruesome murders.

Taylor usefully provides a chart to show how well we’re doing.

That’s a whole lotta “success” there.

---

Scott Morgan reminds us: If You Have Drugs, Don’t Agree to a Police Search. For obvious reasons if you read the article. And actually, the same is true if you don’t have drugs. Never consent to a search. There are tons of good reasons not to consent regardless of whether you have drugs.

Scott says: “It seems like such a simple concept, but for some irrational reason, a lot of people still don’t get it.” Exactly. I still run into people like that all the time. They somehow think that it’s better not to antagonize the officer and let them search. But every defense attorney will tell you two things: Never consent to a search, and shut the f#ck up.

(I think I’d have a harder time with the second one, actually. I’d have a desire to try to “convert” them.)

---

This is an open thread (as if that made any difference).

I know a lot of you are deeply disappointed that Obama didn’t suddenly shed all his skin, emerge from a cocoon as some new kind of species and suddenly proclaim, after devouring his press secretary, that the U.S. government should pursue legalization of all drugs.

Well it wasn’t going to happen. However, what did happen had some real value.

Seeing this headline at CBS Political Hotsheet ain’t bad:

Obama: Drugs Should be Treated as a Public Health Problem

However, acknowledging that the “war on drugs” has not been effective, Mr. Obama said he thinks of drugs as “more of a public health problem.”

And then, CBS reporter Stephanie Condon quoted the entire question from retired deputy sheriff MacKenzie Allen.

…

Los Angeles Times:

In his second sit-down with YouTube, Obama again learned that the most popular questions as voted on by users of the online video hub were about the legalization of marijuana.

“This is an entirely legitimate topic for debate,” Obama said after initially chuckling about the subject matter coming up again.

The question posed to the president specifically asked him whether all drugs should be legalized and regulated, “thereby doing away with the violent criminal market as well as a major source of funding for international terrorism.”

“I am not in favor of legalization,” Obama said in response. But he said he thinks Americans should look at drugs more as a public health problem than a legal issue.

It’s going to be a lot harder for Kerlikowske now that Obama has shown that “legalization” is in his vocabulary.

…

San Francisco Chronicle: Obama: Legalizing drugs a “legitimate” topic of debate

…

And over and over again in tomorrow’s media, you’ll likely see that excellent question from LEAP.

Not a bad day’s work. Good job on voting.

And I second Scott Morgan’s comment:

Let me begin by saying that the substance of the President’s answer is inconsequential insofar as nothing more than this could possibly have been expected. The greatest significance of today’s event lies in the fact that a pro-legalization police officer overwhelmingly won the popular vote on YouTube and compelled a response from the President of the United States. By acknowledging the legitimacy of this discussion, Obama helps us to dig an even deeper grave for the dying notion that there is anything frivolous or unserious about arguing for an end to the War on Drugs.

The banal pot-jokes and rank stereotyping that have often tainted mainstream discussion of the legalization movement have no place in this conversation, and the President’s words should serve to discredit those who’ve voiced distracting insults instead of potential solutions. Whatever else the President may put forward, his singular decision to accept and defend our advocacy as “entirely legitimate” is a leap forward, both for the discussion as a whole and for Obama himself.

I will address in a separate post the appropriate criticisms of his specific remarks (of which there are many), but let us not fail to find any promise in today’s events simply because we expect much more. This is a heroic accomplishment by our friends at LEAP and really the entire drug policy reform community, which has achieved blinding visibility in recent years and shattered the presumption of public deference that has long sheltered the drug war from mainstream opposition.

It now seems likely that President Obama will be asked to answer the top vote-getter at YouTube (today at 2:30 pm EST)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbz9lnVbrwc

Here is my prediction of his non-answer (note that I waited to post this until shortly before so he couldn’t steal it!)

Thanks for your question, and for your valuable service to our Nation. I understand that the specifics of how we deal with the scourge of drugs and related violence can be a divisive issue. In the past, we have not focused enough on treatment and prevention, which is why my National Drug Control Strategy calls for a balanced approach to drug policy, and I’ve backed that up with a significant increase in funding for treatment efforts.

Hearing the concerns of the men and women in blue is important to me. As I talk to law enforcement groups around the country, they tell me about the horrific impact of drugs on the children in their communities, and it makes me even more certain that we cannot and will not surrender in this critical fight.

Note: This is not his answer. It’s my prediction of his answer.

Update:

Here it is. If you only listen to the first 11 words of his answer, it’s a great answer, and the best we could hope for…

President Obama: “Well, I think this is an entirely legitimate topic for debate.”

Here’s that version:

Here’s the actual full answer:

Over at the Drug Czar’s “blog,” the ONDCP has their own additional take on the State of the Union address.

Drug use affects millions of Americans and their families. Drug use and its consequences strain our economy, our healthcare and criminal justice systems, and harm the well-being of young people, service members and our Nation’s veterans. As we work together to address our Nation’s shared challenges, the health, well-being and stability of our citizens will be the basis for strengthening our economy and our country overall. A healthy and productive workforce will foster competitiveness and innovation within our neighborhoods, towns and communities. Prevention and treatment for substance abuse disorders, including drugs and alcohol, will ensure that our fellow citizens can contribute to our shared successes, and that America’s future generations will continue to lead the world in innovation and ingenuity.

It’s got some poetry, but it’s not quite in tune, so I thought I’d take a stab at it…

The drug war affects millions of Americans and their families. The drug war and its consequences strain our economy, our healthcare and criminal justice systems, cause worldwide violence and corruption, and harm the well-being of young people and our Nation’s veterans. As we work together to address our Nation’s shared challenges, the health, well-being and stability of our citizens will be the basis for strengthening our economy and our country overall. However, that cannot happen as long as we declare war on our own people, fill our prisons to capacity, and turn the safety and distribution of certain drugs over to criminal networks. Ending the drug war, restoring personal liberty, and providing help for those who need it will ensure that our fellow citizens can contribute to our shared successes, and that America’s future generations will continue to lead the world in innovation and ingenuity.

From an interview with the Texas Tribune

TT: You said in El Paso recently that decriminalization, or legalization of some illegal drugs is not an option, that is off the table. Why?

Kerlikowske: Well, one the administration’s stance is opposing legalization. When the president was a candidate, he opposed legalization. We don’t see any evidence that legalizing drugs and making them more widely available would be a help to anyone in this country.

Well gee, if you can’t see it, it just must not exist.

The second part is that, just from a common-sense standpoint, our No. 1 growing drug problem in the country, including fatalities, is prescription drugs. Well, prescription drugs are highly regulated, highly taxed, highly controlled, and yet we are completely incapable of keeping them out of the hands of kids, out of the hands of people abusing drugs and the evidence is very clear when it comes to fatalities and when it comes to emergency department visits.

No, that’s not common-sense. Making those prescription drugs illegal wouldn’t solve the problem of people abusing those drugs either. The issue isn’t whether legalization will end the drug problem. It won’t. We never said it would (although it’ll help in many ways). What it will do is end the drug war problem.

TT: A lot of people here in Texas say the United States is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico. Can you be a little bit more specific on why legalization would not quell the violence in Mexico?

Kerlikowske: I think the RAND Corporation study not only says that legalizing drugs would not reduce the violence in Mexico but the chaos could actually increase the violence in Mexico.

RAND has put out some pretty ridiculous things regarding the drug war, but I don’t believe that even they came close to such an outrageous statement.

Just to show how ridiculous that statement it, let’s turn to Mark Kleiman. Kleiman and I disagree on an awful lot regarding drug policy, and quite strongly.

But in this recent post about the Border Patrol agent who was fired for saying that legalization would end the violence in Mexico, Mark clearly and correctly states:

If selling cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine were made legal, there would be no illegal business in smuggling them into the United States from Mexico. If that illegal business were to disappear, the level of violence in Mexico would fall. So much is elementary and not subject to dispute by any rational person.

Exactly. But then, the position of drug czar is not really a rational one.

The President gave a speech tonight. I missed it, cause I was watching season four of my boxed set of Farscape DVDs.

However, I did a quick search of key words in the prepared text:

• “Drug policy” – 0
• “Drug war” – 0
• “Marijuana” – 0
• “Cannabis” – 0
• “Hemp” – 0
• “Cocaine” – 0
• “Coca” – 0
• “Heroin” – 0
• “Legalization” – 0
• “Decriminalization” – 0
• “Prohibition” – 0
• “Mexico” – 0
• “Cartel” – 0
• “Bolivia” – 0
• “Prison” – 0
• “Incarceration” – 0
• “Mandatory minimums” – 0
• “SWAT” – 0
• “Drugs” – 1 (prescription drugs)
• “Afghanistan” – 1 (no talk of drugs)
• “Colombia” – 1 (trade)

Isn’t it nice to know that drug policy is such a small issue that it has no relevance to the state of the union?

Remember, the very last place to expect or look for action or even acknowledgment regarding drug policy reform is from the people who were gathered in the Capitol tonight.

It will come from you, from your friends, from your acquaintances, from you reaching out to ordinary people who will tell their friends.

A few days ago, I had a group of friends and acquaintances over to my house for a friendly gathering with good scotch and good cheese. At one point, I mentioned that I had some knowledge of drug policy, and for the next 30-40 minutes, we talked about the drug war. I told them about asset forfeiture and a host of other drug war atrocities, and they got angry. We still had a great time that evening, but there are now 10 more people who want to do something about this.

That’s how it’s done. Not by electing a President.