StoptheDrugWar.org

The Washington state Senate Friday passed SB 5516, the 911 Good Samaritan Act, on a vote of 47-1. One member was absent. The bill now goes to the House.

The measure provides immunity from prosecution for drug possession offenses for overdose victims and people who seek medical assistance for overdose victims. It does not grant immunity from prosecution for drug distribution offenses.

It also allows expanded access to naloxone, a powerful opiate antagonist that can bring people back from the brink of death from overdoses in a matter of moments.

The bill comes as the number of drug overdose deaths in Washington state have increased from around 403 in 1999 to 707, or nearly two a day, in 2006. Drug overdose is now the second leading cause of accidental death in the state, second only to traffic accidents.

The bill was opposed by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, who argued that because there was no budget for publicizing the bill, it would not affect drug-taking behaviors, and thus would be no more than another complicating factor in drug prosecutions.

Drug overdose fatalities now outrank traffic accidents as the leading cause of accidental deaths in more than a dozen states. But only one state, New Mexico, has approved a Good Samaritan law. Now, perhaps Washington will be next.

Tim Lynch at the Cato Institute has a nice piece in The Washington Times calling for the total elimination of the drug czar's office. It costs American taxpayers $400 million a year just to have these guys walk around cheerleading for the drug war, and they're not even good at it.

If drug czar Gil Kerlikoswke is serious about ending the war mentality that has long defined our nation's anti-drug crusade, he should begin by firing himself Michael Douglas-style, and walking off into the sunset. I'm sure Cato could find a desk for him.

Ibogaine advocate Howard Lotsof, 66, died January 31 in Staten Island, New York. Liver cancer killed him.

In 1962, Lotsof, a Bronx native, was strung out on heroin when he ingested a sample of the West African psychoactive substance ibogaine. Rocked by the hallucinatory experience, Lotsof was even more stunned when he realized that after ibogaine he no longer felt compelled to use heroin.

For 20 years after that, Lotsof went about his life in the television and movie business, but when an accident cut that career short, he returned to ibogaine and began working to make it available as an addiction treatment. In 1986, he founded a company, NDA International, and began treating clients in Amsterdam.

Lotsof originated numerous patents for ibogaine in treating addictions and provided data to the National Institute on Drug Abuse that laid the groundwork for still ongoing research on ibogaine and its use as an anti-addictive substance. More than 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers on ibogaine have been published so far.

Thanks almost entirely to Lotsof and his supporters, including Dana Beal and Cures Not Wars, an international network of ibogaine clinics is now in place and treating addicted clients. Lotsof was not a doctor or scientist—his college degree was in film—but an outsider who still managed to bring ibogaine in from the cold and win it academic and scientific respect.

He will be missed.

If you thought the cops had run out of dumb drug war ideas, you were so wrong:

BELLEVILLE -- The Belleville Police Department has a new tactic in fighting the drug trade in the city -- signs pointing out to the public houses and apartments where police say drugs are sold.

A sign placed outside an apartment building Wednesday at 322 W. H St. said in bold, red letters: "Warning! Drug House; Enter at your own risk." An arrow on the sign points to the building, and the address is attached to the bottom of the sign. [Belleville News Democrat]

Are you serious? It kinda sounds like they're saying it's ok to go in there if you're willing to accept the risk. But here's where it gets really ridiculous:

The police have only two signs, and when they use them at a location, it'll likely only be for a day, and only during daytime hours.
…
When asked whether he thinks the signs will advertise where people can buy drugs, Sax said that those buying the drugs probably already knew to get them there in the first place.

No, I don't think that's how it works. Criminals don't all automatically know each other. I might be smart enough not to go knocking on doors at designated drug houses, but I'm not addicted to crack. If there's actually someone actively selling drugs inside, you shouldn’t be advertising it, and if there isn't, you shouldn't be humiliating the families of drug offenders who've already been arrested or run out of town.

What I really don't get about any of this is why police would even consider putting up signs that make them look like incompetent idiots. Is it supposed to make anyone feel safer that the police know where the problem houses are, but can't seem to do anything about it other than put up temporary signs?

The irony here is that marking locations where drugs are sold and warning people to enter at their own risk isn't actually a bad idea at all. But if it's going to work, you have to begin by regulating these businesses.

For a whole year now, the new administration has been proudly insisting over and over again that they're taking drug policy in a new direction, abandoning the "drug war" approach and prioritizing treatment instead of more arrests and incarceration. Apparently, someone forgot they'd have to release a budget for all this, which would kinda blatantly expose the illusion that anything's changed:

Anyone can just plainly see the two towers of "Domestic Law Enforcement" and "Interdiction," that together dwarf the resources to be spent on treatment. What the drug czar's office is calling a "Balanced Approach to Drug Control" is so obscenely imbalanced that anybody who knows how to read a bar graph could see it without having to put their contacts in.

We're still spending twice as much on the war as we are on treatment for the actual people our drug policy is supposed to help. The urge to describe this as "balanced" is just the trademark dishonesty we've come to expect from the drug czar's office anytime they're required to sum up their agenda in one sentence.

The whole situation is even more appalling when you consider the phenomenal lengths this administration has taken to convince everyone that their drug policy priorities aren't like this. I suppose it's a measure of success for our movement that we've at least made it unacceptably controversial for the White House to take any pride in its drug war spending, but that's still an early stage in the long battle to take interdiction off the table and leave enforcement to the states.

If Obama hopes to placate the public's growing disgust with the drug war status quo, he'll have to pay much more than lip service to the reform of our drug policy. Everything people hate about the war on drugs must be changed; the swelling prison population, the persecution of the sick, the subsidization of widespread violence, the vast corruption and the perpetual recycling of so many ridiculous lies all must come to an end or else the people refusing to end it will be blamed hard for the damage it keeps causing.

The public relations holiday that followed Obama's improved policy on medical marijuana is officially over and the reluctant support he enjoyed from so many reformers in 2008 will be hard to come by if the drug war is uglier in 2012 than it is today.

As I discussed last night, yesterday's special YouTube Interview with the President conspicuously -- though predictably -- excluded the top-rated questions from the contest, all of which had to with legalizing marijuana. So now everyone's calling out YouTube for censoring their own forum, the whole purpose of which was to ask Obama the questions that got the most online votes.

Since YouTube publicly credited itself with deciding which questions were asked, I guess it's only fair that they take the blame for blatantly ignoring the single biggest constituency that participated in their forum. But let's not forget that it's the President himself who has twice failed to form even one intelligent sentence in response to the marijuana questions that continue to dominate these forums. He's proven that he can't or won't discuss this issue seriously, so if YouTube sought to avoid another embarrassing controversy, it's at least partially the President's fault for setting such pathetic precedent.

I don't usually cover celebrity pot-bust stories, but the repeated harassment of Willie Nelson's tour bus is ridiculous and it needs to stop:

The strong odor of marijuana wafting from the window of a Willie Nelson tour bus led to six members of the country singer's entourage getting busted in Duplin County for possession of marijuana and three-fourths of a quart of moonshine, law enforcement officials said. [News Observer]

Seriously, if anyone has a problem with what a bunch of aging musicians do in their tour bus, then don't go in there. If these guys were a legitimate threat to public safety, it shouldn't take a probable cause search to catch them. If they'd run a Church choir off the highway wasted on shrooms and moonshine, that would be a different story, but they're super old and it's clear by now that they can be trusted.
 
To dispel any confusion, I propose federal legislation clarifying the right of Willie Nelson and his associates to do whatever they feel is necessary in order to have an awesome time. The smell of potent cannabis emanating from their tour bus should be interpreted as a sign that everything is fine.

Another online Q&A contest concluded Monday without any straight answers from the President about why marijuana remains illegal. YouTube, which sponsored the forum, declined to ask the President a single marijuana-related question, despite overwhelming public demand.

As was the case with every previous online forum of this sort, questions about marijuana legalization were not only prominent, they were by far the most popular vote-getters.

These are the top three highest-rated questions from the entire contest:

"Mr. President, When you asked the country to give you questions, one of the most asked was "Are you going to legalize Marijuana". When you read it, you laughed like it wasnt serious. Why is that?"
None, Florida
1,906 Votes

"What are your plans for cannabis legalization?"
Anonymous, Oklahoma
1,783 Votes                         

"Why don't you legalize marijuana, it seems like a great way to gain tax money, and people should have to right to use it if they please, and it would cripple gang activity? Do you plan to?"
Lussy Picker, Kentucky
1,766 Votes             

Sadly, none of these questions were answered. In contrast, the most popular question that wasn't about marijuana received 1,331 votes and, yes, the President answered that one. It was about net neutrality, which Obama says he supports. So, at least we'll continue to enjoy free speech on the internet, even as the White House pretends not to hear us.

Incredibly, this political popularity contest was broken up into categories including Jobs & the Economy, Health Care, Energy & Environment, Foreign Policy & National Security, Education, Financial Reform, and Government Reform, yet it was the "Other" section which drew the most votes, due entirely to its emphasis on legalizing marijuana. "Other" has become a de-facto euphemism for drug policy reform in several of these White House sponsored forums, which wouldn't keep happening if "Crime & Drug Policy" were given its own well-deserved category alongside the other issues that supposedly encompass the modern political landscape.

Instead, the whole online voting process has become a self-evident mockery, as the contest's democratic structure is violated time and again simply to avoid answering one simple question. But if you're frustrated by all of this, don't be. We're winning the online debate, and we're doing so at a time when online outreach is important enough to the White House that they keep coming back for more.

Stunned at the rapid increase in the number of registered medical marijuana patients in the state, the Colorado Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to impose new restrictions on physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations. The Senate voted 34-1 to pass SB 109.

Sponsored by Sens. Chris Romer (D-Denver) and Nancy Spence (R-Centennial), the bill would require physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations to have a "bona fide" relationship with patients, including treating a patient before he applies for medical marijuana, conducting a thorough physical exam, and providing follow-up care. The bill would also bar doctors from being paid by dispensaries to write recommendations and require that they not have any restrictions on their medical licenses. Doctors would have to keep records of all medical marijuana recommendations and provide them to state health agencies seeking to investigate doctors for violating state laws.

The bill would also require persons between 18 and 21 to get recommended by two different physicians.

Colorado began registering medical marijuana patients in June 2001 after voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing its use. For years, the number of patients hovered around 2,000, but after state courts last year threw out a regulation limiting the number of patients caregivers could provide for to five and the Obama administration signaled that it was not going to interfere in medical marijuana states, the numbers exploded. By last September, there were more than 17,000 registered patients, and now the number is near 40,000. A similar boom has gone on with dispensaries, with Colorado now second only to California in their numbers.

The bill was supported by Colorado law enforcement and the Colorado Medical Association, but was opposed by most medical marijuana patients and providers.

"This is the beginning of the end of the Wild West" for the state's booming medical-marijuana industry, said bill sponsor Sen. Chris Romer.

"This bill is an unprecedented assault on the doctor-patient privilege that would hold medical marijuana doctors to a higher standard than any other doctor," medical marijuana attorney Robert Correy told lawmakers. "This would cause human suffering. The most sick and the most poor would be disproportionately harmed. You're going to see the Board of Medical Examiners conducting witch hunts against medical marijuana providers."

The bill now moves to the House.

Once again, the President wants to know what you think about marijuana policy. His latest online voting forum is sponsored by YouTube, and you can submit your questions about marijuana legalization either on video or in writing.

Participants are asked to focus their questions on how legalization will impact the following areas:

Jobs & the Economy
Health care
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & National Security
Education
Financial Reform
Government Reform

After looking around a bit, I've noticed that some internet trolls have been attempting to disrupt the dialogue by submitting questions that have nothing to do with the legalization of marijuana. Some of the categories include a number of non-marijuana-related questions, so please click over there and use your up and down votes to keep the conversation focused by making sure the marijuana questions stay at the top in each section.

With all the problems facing our nation, obsessively discussing marijuana legalization on the internet is more important than ever. After all, if people get sick of hearing about this, there's only one way to shut us up.

Update: Just kidding. I'm pretty sure the forum isn't intended to discuss marijuana legalization exclusively. But you'd almost think it was, considering how many people have questions for the President about why our marijuana laws haven't been fixed yet. I wonder how many more of these online votes we have to dominate before we get a straight answer.