Drug WarRant

OK, this is certainly interesting…

Remember that in-depth article at Huffpost about how we as a country are failing addicts that I discussed recently? Again, it’s nowhere near where we need to be headed (read “Chasing the Scream” for what we should be doing), but it was at least a wake-up call for some of the worst practices we have been conducting in this country.

Apparently, it struck a nerve.

Federal Government Set To Crack Down On Drug Courts That Fail Addicts

The federal government is cracking down on drug courts that refuse to let opioid addicts access medical treatments such as Suboxone, said Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, on Thursday.

Drug courts that receive federal dollars will no longer be allowed to ban the kinds of medication-assisted treatments that doctors and scientists view as the most effective care for opioid addicts, Botticelli announced in a conference call with reporters.

Again, this isn’t the actual solution, but it’s an awareness that is huge to be coming from the federal government.

In another moment of federal shifting…

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy Says Marijuana ‘Can Be Helpful’ For Some Medical Conditions

“We have some preliminary data that for certain medical conditions and symptoms, that marijuana can be helpful,” Murthy said during a Wednesday interview on “CBS This Morning” in response to a question about his stance on marijuana legalization.

While Murthy didn’t take the opportunity to endorse legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes, he did add that he believes U.S. marijuana policy should be driven by science and what it reveals about the efficacy of using the plant for medical purposes.

“I think we’re going to get a lot more data about that,” Murthy said. “I’m very interested to see where that takes us.”

That’s a good step, and once again has raised a lot of questions in the press about how it can continued to classified in Schedule 1.

Naturally, after some likely behind-the-scenes pressure, the statement appeared to be walked back slightly yesterday evening in a statement attributed to Murthy…

Marijuana policy — and all public health policies — should be driven by science. I believe that marijuana should be subjected to the same, rigorous clinical trials and scientific scrutiny that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applies to all new medications. The Federal Government has and continues to fund research on possible health benefits of marijuana and its components. While clinical trials for certain components of marijuana appear promising for some medical conditions, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the standards for safe and effective medicine for any condition to date.

Yet today, HHS’s twitter feed was actually promoting his original statements: Feds appear to stand by surgeon general’s comments that “marijuana can be helpful”

And federal drug policy tap dances its way along the edge of testing the idea of moving out of the dark ages. Next thing you know, they’ll admit that the earth isn’t flat.

Here’s a great little exercise in seeing how government agencies can dance and weave to avoid telling the truth, and to make implications that aren’t true.

It’s the ONDCP’s Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Marijuana

It’s really worth understanding how they operate, so you can know how to shine light on their actions.

What are some of your favorite fallacies, sleights-of-hand, and misdirections here?

Check out the 9 am panel tomorrow (February 3) at CADCA’s National Leadership Forum.

I’m sure the ghost of Harry Anslinger will be there smiling.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has been celebrating National Drug Facts Week (“Shattering the Myths”) with lots of things posted on social media.

As usual, the only “facts” they’re interested in are those that oppose drug use in any way, and even then they’re not really concerned about whether they are actually facts.

In one recent tweet, they were promoting their infographic page on drugged driving. Here are the facts as they present them:

Continue reading →

Rand Paul slams Bush ‘hypocrisy’ on pot

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) accused Jeb Bush of hypocrisy after The Boston Globe reported the former Florida governor was a heavy marijuana smoker while at an elite prep school. […]

“You would think he’d have a little more understanding then,” Paul told The Hill while en route to a political event in Texas.
“He was even opposed to medical marijuana,” Paul said of Bush, a potential rival in the 2016 Republican presidential primary. “This is a guy who now admits he smoked marijuana but he wants to put people in jail who do.

“I think that’s the real hypocrisy, is that people on our side, which include a lot of people who made mistakes growing up, admit their mistakes but now still want to put people in jail for that,” he said.

Yes, exactly.

Nice to see politicians calling out other politicians on this.

One bizarre moment in this article written by Alexander Bolton, though, was this passage:

The Globe cited a former classmate, Peter Tibbetts, who said he first smoked marijuana with Bush and also consumed cannabis, a concentration of the plant’s resin, in Bush’s dorm room.

Perhaps Bolton should Google “cannabis” and learn what it is before trying to define it to his readers.

There’s a new extensive article at Huffington Post worth reading: Dying To Be Free: There’s A Treatment For Heroin Addiction That Actually Works. Why Aren’t We Using It? by Jason Cherkis.

This article absolutely destroys the abstinence-only approach to addiction treatment that drives so much of U.S. drug policy and the treatment industry, showing how this approach actually leads to many of the overdose deaths we see, while failing to actually serve addicts.

It amazes me that people can read this kind of detail and still spout in comments that forcing people to quit cold turkey is the only way to go. It shows just how dysfunctional we have been as a society by pushing anti-drug propaganda to the point of destroying logic and reason.

It’s also sad that this probably ground-breaking article on addiction treatment in the U.S. still doesn’t even get to HAT (heroin-assisted treatment) and some of the better approaches to managing addiction that have been proven successful elsewhere.

While Holder’s recent announcement about limiting federal adoption of civil forfeiture got a lot of people excited, it was important to realize (as we did) that the impact was very limited.

The danger was that people would think that Holder’s memo constituted real reform, and that we could relax. Fortunately, real reform is still being pushed.

As Jacob Sullum reports:

Today Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) reintroduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, which would revise federal civil forfeiture law to give property owners more protection and reduce the profit incentive that encourages law enforcement agencies to seize assets. […]

The FAIR Act abolishes the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which allows police to evade state limits on forfeiture by using federal law to confiscate people’s property.[…]

The FAIR Act requires the government to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that property is subject to forfeiture. […]

In cases where the government argues that an asset is forfeitable because it was used to facilitate criminal activity, the FAIR Act puts the burden on the government to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the owner himself used the property for illegal purposes or that he “knowingly consented or was willfully blind to the use of the property.” […]

The FAIR Act would allow [structuring] forfeiture only when the owner “knowingly” sought to avoid bank reports of “funds not derived from a legitimate source.”[…]

In determining whether a forfeiture is constitutionally excessive, a court is supposed to consider not only “the seriousness of the offense” (as under current law) but also “the extent of the nexus of the property to the offense,” “the range of sentences available for the offense,” “the fair market value of the property,” and “the hardship to the property owner and dependents.” […]

The FAIR act expands the current guarantee of legal representation for property owners who cannot afford it from forfeitures involving primary residences to all forfeitures. […]

This is real reform, and it needs to happen.

We need to really keep up the pressure on our representatives to stop the practice of theft by law enforcement.

Press Release from the NSA: Gupta Nomination Concern

On behalf of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and the 3080 elected sheriffs nationwide, Sheriff John Aubrey, NSA President and Sheriff of Jefferson County, Kentucky wrote today to The Honorable Chuck Grassley to advise him of our strong concerns over the potential nomination of Vanita Gupta as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. NSA believes that Ms. Gupta’s previous statements on a range of issues make her ill-suited for this important post.

If Ms. Gupta is formally nominated, NSA urges Grassley to investigate her previous statements on the legalization of drugs. As recently as 2012, she wrote in the Huffington Post that “states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.” Decriminalization of all drugs—including heroin, LSD, cocaine, and more—would have disastrous effects on our communities and our citizens. Communities have been crippled by drug abuse and addiction, stifling economic productivity and destroying families. Ms. Gupta’s short-sighted statements on legalization and her apparent beliefs would put her at odds with the goal of public safety day in and day out. As the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, it is imperative that any nominee understand the challenges faced by law enforcement in protecting our communities.

Note the unwillingness to even engage in critical thinking – the automatic assumption that like the law of gravity – unable to be questioned, or alternatives considered.

Oh, and remember — they don’t make the laws; they just enforce them.

Right.

The media is often up for a juicy pot-related study, without requiring much critical thought.

The latest outrage-du-jour is that people are talking about marijuana… on Twitter.

Pro-marijuana ‘tweets’ are sky-high on Twitter

Analyzing every marijuana-related Twitter message sent during a one-month period in early 2014, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have found that the “Twitterverse” is a pot-friendly place. In that time, more than 7 million tweets referenced marijuana, with 15 times as many pro-pot tweets sent as anti-pot tweets. The findings are reported online Jan. 22 in the Journal of Adolescent Health and will appear in February in the journal’s print edition.

Most of those sending and receiving pot tweets were under age 25, with many in their teens, a demographic group at increased risk for developing marijuana dependence and other drug-related problems.

“It’s a concern because frequent marijuana use can affect brain structures and interfere with cognitive function, emotional development and academic performance,” said first author Patricia A. Cavazos-Rehg, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and scholar in the Washington University Institute for Public Health.”

OMG, people are talking about pot. And they’re not saying enough bad things about it.

Really? Is this what passes for psychiatric science?

This is the same researcher who did a smaller study last year to “assess the content of ‘tweets’ and the demographics of followers of a popular pro-marijuana Twitter handle,” and came up with the following conclusion:

Our findings underscore the need for surveillance efforts to monitor the pro-marijuana content reaching young people on Twitter.

For what possible purpose?

Perhaps Patricia A. Cavazos-Rehg should get a twitter account and just say a lot of bad things about marijuana to balance things out.

People are talking about marijuana. And they’re no longer willing to spout the false propaganda fed to them. You really think you can put the cat back in the bag?

We were one of the few reporting sites that showed restraint and skepticism regarding Holder’s announcement of forfeiture “reform.” Yes, it’s a good step, but it’s not a solution.

Jacob Sullum continues to report: Despite Holder’s Forfeiture Reform, Cops Still Have A License to Steal

But I worry that the widespread confusion about what Holder did will undermine reform efforts by creating the false impression that the problem has been solved. Legislation is necessary not only to prevent cops from evading state reforms but to give property owners more protection under state and federal laws. Ideally, legislators should require a criminal conviction prior to forfeiture and keep cops from getting part of the proceeds, a policy that perverts their priorities and fosters corruption. It would be a shame if such reforms were killed by complacency.

The Supreme Court’s massive blind spot – Radley Balko with some outstanding reporting on just how out-of-touch the Supreme Court is with what actually goes on in the criminal justice system.

What’s missing from that career trajectory is any real experience in criminal law. Of our current Supreme Court lineup, only two justices — Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor — have significant experience with criminal law. Both are former prosecutors. Alito spent time as an assistant U.S. attorney and a U.S. attorney. But even that misses a huge percentage of the criminal justice system: The overwhelming percentage of criminal cases in America are at the state and local level. Only Sotomayor has real experience with a local, day-to-day criminal justice system, and even that experience isn’t all that overwhelming: She spent four and a half years as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, thirty years ago.

Speaking of Sotomayor, she seems to be one of the only Justices even aware that there’s a Fourth Amendment problem…

Sotomayor to Justice Department Lawyer: ‘We Can’t Keep Bending the Fourth Amendment to the Resources of Law Enforcement’ — Sonia Sotomayor stands up for the Fourth Amendment in drug-sniffing dog case.

Sotomayor went so far as to suggest that the Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was flying off the rails due to its pro-police deference. Here’s a sample of what Sotomayor told the government lawyer:

I have a real fundamental question, because this line drawing is only here because we’ve now created a Fourth Amendment entitlement to search for drugs using dogs, whenever anybody’s stopped. Because that’s what you’re proposing. And is that really what the Fourth Amendment should permit?

…we can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement. Particularly when this stop is not—is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.

Precisely.