Latest

Alex Coolman has a nice summary of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment and its history over at Drug Law Blog. I haven't heard yet about this year, but will let you all know when I do... Read our '06 Hinchey-Rohrabacher coverage here and here.

Read about it courtesy Kerry Howley, at Reason. We reported on a previous flare-up back in '04.

NORML just announced its annual conference, October 12-13, in LA this year. DPA's conference is December 5-8 in New Orleans.

The only thing more misguided and pointless than obsessing over pot potency is banning bongs:

As reports have surfaced that potent marijuana could be introduced into Australia, state lawmakers have talked about banning drug paraphernalia.

At a ministerial council on drugs strategy meeting in Adelaide, officials discussed the merits of banning instruments such as bongs and pipes that are used to smoke illegal cannabis. [AHN]

A report in The Herald-Sun prompted helpful comments from readers:

"The way the government is going, there wont be any water for bongs."

"I can't stand the smell of the stuff, leave alone stuffing it in a pipe and trying to smoke it. Rather have a good Aussie Beer instead of a dozzy intoduced Weed. Yuk Duck as they say."

I don’t speak Australian, but I think what they're saying is that trying to prevent marijuana use by banning bongs is like trying to prevent drinking by banning pint glasses.

This raises more questions than it answers:

TRAVERSE CITY — Joseph Giganti's life and home recently took a hit when Traverse Narcotics Team officers allegedly rammed into his rented residence, then seized property during a drug raid.

The Traverse City businessman is suing the state police agency for a $2,700 security deposit he forfeited after a TNT vehicle allegedly collided with his rented residence during the April 5 drug raid, according to Giganti's lawsuit. [Traverse City Record-Eagle]

What's going on here? Radley Balko has noted how SWAT teams are stocking up on large attack vehicles, which will inevitably be used for something. We don’t know what type of vehicle was involved, or why it collided with the suspect's residence, but I'm not expecting a perfectly logical explanation to emerge.

If this was an accident, it is a troubling one, in that it requires particularly reckless driving in order to collide with a house. If, on the other hand, this was done deliberately to disorient the suspect, it should be unnecessary to explain how intolerably excessive such tactics are.

So what was this guy doing that necessitated such aggression?

Officers found about a half-ounce of marijuana and a water pipe in the raid, but no evidence of drug dealing, [attorney Michael] Stepka said. Giganti has not been charged with a crime, court records show.

Once again folks, when we talk about legalizing marijuana – and other drugs, for that matter – it isn't because we want to get stoned on the sidewalk. It's because we don't want public safety officers to protect people from themselves by ramming houses with police vehicles.

There is no question that methamphetamine is a potentially dangerous drug. Communities that take steps to prevent people from starting to use it in the first place are to be lauded. But if such efforts are to be credible with their target audiences, they need to include accurate information, not scary, demonizing distortions. Unfortunately, Blaine County, Idaho, is not doing that. In a new brochure from the Blaine County Sheriff's Office and the Community Drug Coalition written by a sheriff's office employee, comes the following amazing claim:

"One of the biggest dangers of meth is how quickly people can become addicted to it," the brochure says. "The National Methamphetamine Awareness Campaign says that 99 percent of people are hooked on meth after using it the first time."

Oh, come on. Yes, people can become dependent on meth. Yes, it is a drug whose biopharmacological effects make people want to binge on it. But no, 99% of people who try meth once are not hooked on it. And spewing such garbage—at taxpayer expense, no less!—is counterproductive at best. Here's what the federal government's meth resources web page has to say about methamphetamine addiction: "Long-term methamphetamine abuse results in many damaging effects, including addiction." Note that the site says long-term use, not one-time use. Neither do other federal government statistics back up the 99% claim. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the most recent available, notes that 10.4 million people over the age of 12 reported using meth at least once in their lives, but only 512,000 reported current (last month) use. Even if we assume that everyone who reported using within the last month is an addict (and that's not a very reasonable assumption), we find that only about 5% of people who ever used meth are currently addicted. It is possible, I suppose, that the remaining 93% of all meth users ever got strung out on their first line, but have since managed to beat the addiction. If that's the case, which I doubt, they didn't get the monkey off their backs through drug treatment. In 1992, 21,000 were admitted for meth treatment; by 2004, that number was up to 150,000. But the number of people reporting using meth that year was 1.3 million. Of past year meth users, a little more than 10% got treatment in 2004, whether they sought it themselves or were forced into it. If you want to discourage people from using meth, you need to be believable. Unfortunately for Blaine County, Idaho, it has produced an anti-meth brochure that is more laughable than believable. Next they'll be telling me meth will make hair grow on the palms of my hands.