Latest

Everyday I read the Drug Czar's blog hoping that one afternoon I might happen upon something vaguely resembling an actual response to the reform movement's detailed and ongoing critiques of his work. Yet it never comes. Instead, I read that marijuana makes people sad, medical marijuana makes people sick, and school children love having their urine collected.

Then today it happened. Overcome, perhaps, by excitement over the newest data on marijuana potency, the Drug Czar's blog linked editorials by MPP's Bruce Mirken and NORML's Paul Armentano. The post even contains quotes by Armentano and attempts to refute them:

Claim 1: "...even by the University of Mississippi's own admission, the average THC in domestically grown marijuana -- which comprises the bulk of the US market -- is less than five percent, a figure that's remained unchanged for nearly a decade." (via the HuffingtonPost)

Not exactly. The "domestic" samples analyzed in the University of Mississippi's report do not represent what's found in the U.S. market. "Domestic" samples refer to marijuana plants that were found in the process of being grown and were then eradicated by law enforcement in the U.S. The potency of these "domestic" specimens is far lower because those specimens are most often taken from immature plants that never reached full cultivation (maturity) for distribution and consumption in the illegal market.

The "non-domestic" specimens in the report are from actual DEA street or border seizures, which are a different set of specimens from the "domestic" eradications. These samples more accurately represent the quality of marijuana that's smoked in the U.S. (The "non-domestic" label has been misinterpreted because the origin of the seized marijuana is not known.)

It's just a jaw-dropping lecture to receive from the Drug Czar, who previously claimed that marijuana potency had increased "as much as 30 times" precisely by using weak domestic samples as his baseline. Well thanks for clarifying that, finally. Maybe ONDCP should send a press release to 2002 to warn everyone how full of crap they are.

Moreover, if I understand this correctly, the Drug Czar is saying that all cultivated marijuana was labeled as "non-domestic" for the purposes of the latest report. It's true that police can't determine where the finished product originated, but calling it all "non-domestic" ignores the reality that most U.S. marijuana is grown here by Americans and not some terrorist overseas. The study thus implies wrongly that all domestic marijuana was seized before cultivation and that our entire market is dominated by imported foreign pot. And remember, they brought all this up in order to assure us that we don’t know what we're talking about.

The Drug Czar's second point is similarly problematic:

Claim 2: "If and when consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less."

The research cited in this argument undermines the author's own claim. The almost 20-year old study found that the effects of the marijuana were greater for the high THC doses of marijuana. Even though the 12 experienced users in the study were titrating, they ended up more intoxicated, and that was with marijuana that only had 1.3 percent versus 2.7 percent THC.

It's just not true. As "Understanding Marijuana" author Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D. explains via email:

…the Pushing Back website says "Even though the 12 experienced users in the study were titrating, they ended up more intoxicated," while the abstract of the article they are mentioning says "Active marijuana also increased subjective reports of drug effect over placebo, but not dose dependently" That is, the folks smoking real pot got higher than folks smoking placebo, but the folks with the stronger dose didn't get higher than the folks with the weaker dose.

As always, it is just impossible to overstate the factual vacuum from which the Drug Czar's claims emerge before being tossed into the public debate like a turd into a hot sauna. These reflexive, involuntary fabrications are all the more galling when one considers that marijuana potency actually has increased and could theoretically be demonstrated without lying at all.

We'd just as soon let them have their day if these recent reports didn’t contradict numerous hysterical prior claims by these very same people, and if they didn’t give rise to all sorts of nonsense about the fictitious risks of marijuana with more THC in it. Anyone struggling with that concept need look no further than the fact that FDA has approved a 100% THC pill called Marinol and the Drug Czar doesn't even pretend to worry about that.

Increasing potency is not an argument against reforming marijuana laws; it's a symptom of marijuana prohibition as well as a towering exhibit of its failure.

Note: For more on this, visit Marijuana Evolves Faster Than Human Beings, which I'm proud to say generated quite a bit of traffic to this site.

Vancouver has a new police chief.In a speech recorded by BCTV he can be seen saying that some addicts have said that they were grateful for federal sentences because it helped them with their addictio

It's a popular tactic in an emergency, but it can easily backfire:

His mouth packed with marijuana, a teenager asked a deputy if he could spit the cannabis out before he was arrested on multiple drug charges, according to the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office.

Andrew Alexander Alvarez, 17, of Merioneth Drive, Fort Walton Beach, is charged with possession of Percocet, tampering with evidence, possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

A deputy stopped a vehicle in front of the Coast Guard station and noticed the driver and Alvarez seemed to be hiding something, he wrote in the arrest report.

Alvarez would only mumble after he got out for questioning. Then he "requested that I allow him to spit the cannabis out onto the shoulder," the deputy wrote. [nwfdailynews.com]

I've never tried eating a bag of pot, but I suspect it's considerably more chewy than panicked potheads anticipate. Good stuff is like gum, and the schwag is full of gross seeds and stems. You can't win. A gram or less might go down easily enough, but you're left with skunk breath and green teeth.

The advantage of no longer having actual pot may be tipped on its head when a pissed off cop charges you with tampering and DUI. At the very least, don't try to eat your pot when you absolutely have no chance of eating it all. Come on, have some respect for yourself and other people who enjoy marijuana and don’t want to be associated with this silliness.

That said, I cannot blame anyone who lives in fear of our cruel laws and endeavors desperately to protect themselves from the pernicious, haunting consequences of even the pettiest drug arrest. I understand. If our drug laws cause people to freak out and try to eat all their drugs when they get pulled over, then there's something wrong with our drug laws.

But as long as you're living amidst this madness, you're better off knowing your rights than making a meal of your marijuana.

Nowhere is the evil of the drug war more evident than in the use of children as pawns.

Current scenario of HIV/AIDS Interventions in Chennai

NORML's Paul Armentano has a disturbing account of the history of government research regarding the benefits of THC as a potential cancer treatment:

Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.

In fact, the first experiment documenting pot's potent anti-cancer effects
took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal
bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974,
Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's primary
psychoactive component, THC, "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast
cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their
lives by as much as 36 percent."

Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the
following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S.
government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until
conducting a similar - though secret - clinical trial in the mid-1990s. That
study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2
million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over
long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated
controls.

However, rather than publicize their findings, government researchers
shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its
findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in
turn forwarded the story to the national media. [timesheraldonline.com]

They haven't studied the issue since. And because the U.S. government holds a monopoly on "legal" marijuana that could be used for research purposes, they've been able to prevent independent researchers from further investigating marijuana's promising anti-cancer properties. Armentano notes that research overseas continues to produce very encouraging results.

Unfortunately, our government's blockade against marijuana/cancer research is so mindless and vindictive that it's almost impossible to convince anyone that they do things like this. It's a terrible and frequent conundrum for reformers that if we accurately describe the behavior of our opposition, we end up sounding crazy.

Reuters offers a dismal assessment of the Mexican drug war entitled "ANALYSIS-Mexico's Calderon bogged down in bloody drugs war". I'm left wondering, of course, why it is that one is said to be "analyzing" when pointing out that the drug war is failing. Must we place Mexico under the microscope in order to observe that there's a "bloody drugs war" going on there? Isn't that just a fact?

Calderon's first move on taking power 18 months ago was to launch a bold $7 billion army-led assault on powerful drug cartels, vowing to wrest back control of violence-scarred northern border states.

His army busts have put a string of senior smugglers behind bars and captured truckloads of cocaine and cash.

But the top drug lords are still free, and disrupting years-old trafficking alliances and protection networks has sparked an explosion in killings between rival gangs who dump hacked-off heads and tortured bodies in public.

The bloodshed has dented Calderon's popularity and left him bogged down in a vicious war with the odds of winning it stacked against him.

Calderon, 45, has defined success as reducing the violence, but drug murders have instead soared to more than 4,000 since his offensive began, and the turf wars intensified this year.

Perhaps one technically engages in analysis when suggesting that the odds of winning are stacked against Calderon, but we don't really need some credentialed academic to tell us that, do we? Has anyone ever won a drug war?