BLOG
Drug Czar site
I was reading one of Scotts blogs and it contained a link to the drug czar's home site.Did you know that marijuana was addictive?The site has a list of articles that are written by a whole slew of res
Lunatic Easily Convinces Police He's a Federal Drug Agent
What happens when a crazy person tells local police he's a federal agent and offers to help them fight drugs?Busts began. Houses were ransacked. People, in handcuffs on their front lawns, named names. To some, like Mayor Otis Schulte, who considers the county around Gerald, population 1,171, âa meth capital of the United States,â the drug scourge seemed to be fading at last.Those whose homes were searched, though, grumbled about a peculiar change in what they understood, from television mainly, to be the law.They said the agent, a man some had come to know as âSergeant Bill,â boasted that he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.â¦Sergeant Bill, it turned out, was no federal agent, but Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed former trucking company owner, a former security guard, a former wedding-performing minister, a former small-town cop from 23 miles down the road. [New York Times]The whole thing provides yet another exhibit in the colossal incompetence that has become so routine and predictable in the war on drugs. If some nutjob showed up at the fire department with a badge and an axe, they'd tell him to hit the road. They wouldn't follow him in and out of burning buildings. It is precisely because of the massive multi-tiered drug war bureaucracy that his psychotic scheme seemed somehow plausible to everyone. Drug enforcement is the one occupation so lacking in accountability, so consumed by macho tough-guy posturing, that some maniac can just walk through the door and fit right in. It's a match made in hell.And it wasn't even the cops who figured out he was an imposter. It was a reporter, months into this mindboggling hoax. Even when he recklessly and routinely violated suspects' constitutional rights, the police who followed him around never thought anything of it. That's how easy it is. His flagrantly illegal and incompetent behavior actually made them think he was real.That this even happened is a potent testament to the fact that drug enforcement in America is thoroughly rotten and diseased to its core. If you see vultures circling around something, you know it is not healthy.
Mexico's Drug War is Killing Innocent People
The Drug Czar proudly announced yesterday that President Bush has signed the Merida initiative, which will spend U.S. tax dollars on Mexico's drug war. Here's a sample of what our money will be spent on:The soldiers had apparently panicked at the speeding Hummer and attacked it from two sides, killing both the civilians and their own troops in the cross fire."These soldiers are idiots. What protection do they give us?" Maldonado asked, staring at the dirt road where the killings had taken place. "They should get out of our communities and back to their barracks."The debacle in Santiago in Sinaloa state, a stronghold of drug traffickers, is one of a series of blunders by Mexican soldiers waging a bloody campaign against narcotics cartels â a crackdown that the U.S. Congress is looking at supporting with up to $1.6 billion. Since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and sent out 25,000 troops to take on the mafias, soldiers have killed at least 13 unarmed civilians. In the latest incident this month, soldiers shot dead two men speeding through a checkpoint in Chihuahua state along with another motorist who was unfortunate enough to be driving behind them. The public was also shocked when troops shot dead two women and three children traveling to a funeral in Sinaloa in 2007. [Time]Amazingly, Drug Czar John Walters boasted yesterday that Mexico's drug war will "protect human rights," even though he personally opposed requiring Mexican authorities to uphold human rights standards. As frustrating as it is to consider that we're subsidizing the killing of innocent people across Mexico, let's not forget that it's happening here, too.
We Support NYPD's Plan to Use Written Consent Forms
Since many of you may be skeptical of NYPD when it comes to matters of search and seizure, I'd like to clarify that this is a very good thing:The New York City Police Department wants suspects to sign a consent form before searching their homes or cars, a move that eliminates the need for a warrant and is meant to provide police a layer of legal protection, Newsday has learned.The initiative was put in place because consent searches are often challenged at trial - and jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said.At the same time, sources said, there has been concern within the NYPD about a handful of cases in which an officer's truthfulness was recently called into question. [Newsday]Written consent policies are a win-win situation for police and the public. When consent is given in writing, police have an easier time demonstrating in court that consent was given voluntarily. Since evidence seized during a consent search is almost always legally admissible, defendants challenging such evidence must argue that consent was given involuntarily or not at all. As a result, police spend a considerable amount of time in court defending the manner in which consent was obtained. A written form goes a long way towards resolving such conflicts.For the citizen, written consent provides a quick reminder that permitting searches is optional, while simultaneously creating an added layer of protection in disputes over whether consent was given voluntarily. The form will go a long way towards resolving widespread concerns about police erroneously claiming to have received consent before conducting a search. Finally, there's an additional important point illustrated here. As Newsday reports, "jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said." For anyone questioning the viability of refusing consent during a police encounter, this should go a long way towards explaining how asserting 4th Amendment rights can help citizens achieve a more desirable outcome. It serves as a helpful reminder that, even if police violate your rights and search despite your refusal, any evidence they discover can be effectively challenged in court. Obviously, this is a frequent occurrence if NYPD cites such outcomes as a reason for moving towards a written consent policy.Given the significance of the citizen's decision whether or not to permit police to look through his/her belongings, a written form is just the obvious, common sense approach to establishing whether consent was given.Update: Pete Guither at DrugWarRant has a good post discussing the NYPD policy and explaining why it is never in the citizen's interest to consent to a police search.
No Charges Filed Against Man Who Mistook A Cop For a Burglar and Shot Him
Anyone who has followed the Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick cases knows how hard it is to convince police and prosecutors that you thought you were being burglarized when you fired on police who charged into your home unexpectedly. This bizarre story from Alabama puts a new twist on that tragically familiar narrative:An off-duty Huntsville police officer was shot in the shoulder early Saturday when a friend mistook him for a burglar.Police Chief Henry Reyes said Tony McElyea, a Strategic Counterdrug Team agent, decided to surprise a good friend and former police academy cadet at his home in the 1300 block of Virginia Boulevard.McElyea, his girlfriend, and the friend's wife snuck into the home at about 2:30 a.m.McElyea walked down the hallway and started shouting "Wake up, wake up," at his friend, Reyes said.The friend, who Reyes said didn't immediately recognize McElyea, grabbed a .38-caliber revolver and shot him."It's just one of those things where he got startled and reacted," Reyes said. "It's unfortunate that it happened, but it's fortunate that it's not any worse."â¦The incident has been ruled an accident, and no charges will be filed against the shooter, whose name was not immediately released. [Huntsville Times]So apparently, when you take the botched drug raid out of the equation, suddenly it makes perfect sense that someone would use force to defend their home when intruders come bursting in. Of course, in this case there was no warrant and no vague criminal activity for which the homeowner could be accused of attempting to evade capture. So maybe it's a little unfair to compare this to the Maye and Frederick cases.Still, it's just impossible to ignore the fact that Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick are no more guilty than this man, who wasn't even charged. They made the same fundamental error he made: thinking that their lives were in danger and using force against the intruder. It shouldnât matter whether or not police had a warrant. The bottom line is that if police behave like burglars, they might be mistaken for burglars. Citizens who make that mistake are not guilty of murdering a cop. They are victims of bad policing brought on by a bad drug policy.
New Data: Going to Work Sober May Increase Risk of Workplace Fatality
The Drug Czar's latest blog post, entitled Is Your Workplace Drug Free? If Not, We Can Help, begins as follows:The U.S. Department of Labor reports that the vast majority of drug users are employed, and when they arrive for work, they don't leave their problems at the door. Of the 17.2 million illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2005, 12.9 million (74.8 percent) were employed either full or part time.Ok, so nearly ¾ of illegal drug users are employed. They have jobs, just like everybody else. Interesting. But here's where you're supposed to get freaked out:Furthermore, research indicates that between 10 and 20 percent of the nation's workers who die on the job test positive for alcohol or other drugs.Umm, pardon me, but so what? The National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 8.3% of respondents had used illegal drugs in the past month and 50.9% had used alcohol. If that many people are using alcohol and other drugs regularly, then it is not surprising to learn that 10-20% of people who died at work had drugs in their system. It doesn't prove that the drugs caused the accident.Think about this: 80-90% of people killed at work tested negative for alcohol/drugs, even though more than half the population uses them. If anything, the evidence suggests a frightening link between sobriety and workplace fatalities. But don't take it from me. After all, it was the Drug Czar who brought this up.
No drug war for the wealthy
When was the last time we saw a celebrity busted for drugs?Lots of trips to rehab and lots of talk in public about their drug problems but it's very rare that a celebrity or politician or the ceo of a
Conservative BS
The Canadian government of Stephen Harper are always first out of the blocks whenever there's any talk of getting tough on crime.No one is quite sure what getting tough means but that's never stopped
Nation's Mayors Take a Stand For Harm Reduction
The United States Conference of Mayors has put saving lives ahead of drug war politics and rejected the Drug Czar's dangerous public policy ideas. Via the Drug Policy Alliance:The USCM last year declared the war on drugs a failure and called for a âNew Bottom Lineâ in U.S. drug policy, which should be measured by the number of lives saved rather than the number of people imprisoned. This yearâs resolution sets forth a comprehensive strategy for cities and states to reduce overdose morbidity and mortality by: *Supporting local programs that distribute naloxone â an opiate antagonist medication effective in reversing the respiratory failure that typically causes death from opioid overdose â directly to drug users, their friends, families and communities; *Urging state governments to adopt emergency âGood Samaritanâ immunity policies that shield from prosecution people who are experiencing or have witnessed an accidental or intentional drug overdose and who have contacted 911 to request emergency medical treatment for the victim of drug toxicity or overdose; *Calling on the National Institute of Drug Abuse and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to urgently fund research to evaluate scientifically the effectiveness of overdose prevention interventions and develop model programs; and *Calling on the Food and Drug Administration to take all necessary and reasonable steps to facilitate the testing and approval of nasal and/or over-the-counter formulations of naloxone and to consider recommending prescription naloxone concurrent with prescribing strong opioid analgesicsNone of this should be even remotely controversial, and yet it is. Shockingly, the Drug Czar's office is actually opposed to distributing overdoses prevention kits based on the callous theory that bad outcomes will teach users to behave:Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug userâs motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment. "Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras says. [NPR] Thinking about this, I can't get over how sad and embarrassing it is that our mayors are forced to take a leadership role in developing sensible drug policies at the national level when we have a White House office that's supposed to be doing that. The public officials in Washington, D.C. who've been tasked with addressing the nation's drug problem have abdicated that role, arguing instead for malicious restrictions on proven life-saving interventions. America's mayors deserve our gratitude for stepping forward and doing what they can to fill the gaping hole created by the Drug Czar's pitiful lack of leadership with regards to preventing overdose deaths. Update: SSDP has a page where you can contact your state legislators about Good Samaritan policies. It only takes a second, do it.
And the Winner of the War on Meth isâ¦Cocaine
Anytime you apply pressure in the war on drugs, the market just shifts to accommodate the new conditions. Thus, efforts to crack down on domestic methamphetamine production by limiting access to precursor chemicals may have reduced meth cooking, but they have not stopped people from snorting drugs and getting all tweaked out:While methamphetamine remains a problem in Oregon City, arrests for possession have been declining. Arrests for cocaine possession, however, increased from 2006 to 2007. That trend is mirrored statewide.â¦Officials point to the similarity of the effects of the drugs as a major reason for cocaine's comeback."Meth addicts have a need for a certain amount of energy," said Detective Jim Strovink of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office. "Heroin makes people laid-back, so that's not really for them. They're finding they can get the same high with cocaine. That's where they're getting their jolt." [The Oregonian]Of course, we were already going after cocaine, so now what? We've restricted access to pseudo-ephedrine based cold medicines in order to stop people from getting high, but all it did was boost the cocaine market. It seems the only people who can't get the drugs they need are allergy sufferers.
Our Drug War Alliances in South America Are Crumbling
Decades of drug war demolition tactics have taken their toll on our diplomacy in South America:QUITO (Reuters) - From Argentina to Nicaragua, Latin Americans have elected leftist leaders over the last decade who are challenging Washington's aggressive war on drugs in the world's top cocaine-producing region.These governments are shaking off U.S. influence in the region and building defense and trade alliances that exclude the United States. Some now say they can better fight drugs without U.S. help and are rejecting policies they do not like.The strongest resistance to U.S. drug policies is in Ecuador and Bolivia, two coca-growing countries of the Andes, and in Venezuela.This is just the inevitable consequence of bribing foreign governments to let our soldiers run around on their land slashing and burning the livelihoods of impoverished populations. We've declared war on the coca plant itself, insisting that it not be grown even by indigenous people who've used it for thousands of years for altitude sickness and appetite suppression. As it becomes increasingly clear that none of this is accomplishing anything, everyone's starting to realize that we have no intention of ever leaving. We literally go around giving report cards to sovereign nations rating their cooperation in our own hopeless effort to stop Americans from using drugs. Both sides in the South American drug war are funded with U.S. dollars, yet we bare only the burden of our own indulgence, not the horrific violence and destabilization wrought by the endless war on drugs. Thanks to democracy, however, the victims of our disastrous policies in South America may elect leaders who want to kick us the hell out. I canât say I blame them.
Trained Pigeons That Smuggle Drugs and Cell Phones Into Prison
Honestly, I've been predicting this for years. It just makes sense. Pigeons like to carry small items from place to place, and drug smugglers are always looking for new ways to deliver the goods:RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - A sharp increase in drugs and cellphones found inside a Brazilian prison mystified officials -- until guards spotted some distressed pigeons struggling to stay airborne.Inmates at the prison in Marilia, Sao Paulo state had been training carrier pigeons to smuggle in goods using cell phone sized pouches on their backs, a low-tech but ingenious way of skipping the high-tech security that visitors faced.â¦Officials said the pigeons, bred and trained inside the prison, lived on the jail's roof, where prisoners would take their deliveries before smuggling the birds out again through friends and family.The scheme was uncovered when guards on the prison walls saw some pigeons struggling to fly.For a second I was surprised that no one else thought of this before now, but then I realized. These guys didn't invent using pigeons to smuggle drugs. They got caught using pigeons to smuggle drugs. And only because they got greedy and made the poor things carry cell phones. For all we know, pigeons are being used all over the world to move small amounts of dope around, which can add up to quite a bit if you use a whole flock of 'em. Add another item to the list of peculiar activities born in the drug prohibition laboratory.
They'll stop at nothing
The Vancouver police are showing a video of a supposed "chronic offender" they claim turned himself in to them wanting to go to prison for a long time so he could get proper drug treatment.The police
They're Drug Testing Our Sewage
I'll spare you the excrement jokes and just let this idea speak for itself:Environmental scientists are beginning to use an unsavory new tool -- raw sewage -- to paint an accurate portrait of drug abuse in communities. Like one big, citywide urinalysis, tests at municipal sewage plants in many areas of the United States and Europe, including Los Angeles County, have detected illicit drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana.Law enforcement officials have long sought a way to come up with reliable and verifiable calculations of narcotics use, to identify new trends and formulate policies. Surveys, the backbone of drug-use estimates, are only as reliable as the people who answer them. But sewage does not lie. [Los Angeles Times]Admittedly, assuming the methodology is sound, this appears to be a breakthrough technique for obtaining accurate drug use demographics. And it's already beginning to cast doubt on existing data, not surprisingly to the effect of indicating that drug use has been widely underreported:The scientists were even able to use sewage to estimate individual use and weekly trends. For instance, they estimated that people in Milan used twice as much cocaine, about 35 grams per person per year, than Italy's government surveys had suggested. That's kind of neat, I suppose, that they can figure out stuff like that. But ya know what? If our drug policy weren't a raging nightmare, drug testing raw sewage wouldnât be even remotely necessary. Seriously, the moment the government finds itself digging around in our sewage to figure out what drugs we take, it becomes completely clear that we've screwed up our approach to drugs beyond belief. It shouldnât even be necessary to formulate arguments as to why this is not the behavior of a healthy society. I mean, really. They're drug testing sewage. What's wrong with them?All of this is symbolic of the utter lack of information and knowledge about drug use that we've achieved in the course of our abundantly destructive attempts to control this very behavior. Nothing could be easier than determining down to the bottle or butt exactly how many Heinekens⢠or Newport Lights⢠are consumed by the population, but in order to study marijuana use, we must collect frothing f#%king sewage into test tubes, mix in some noxious chemicals, and run the results through some mindbendingly complex algorithm? Clueless and reeking of poo, the champions of our failed drug control crusade stand before us straight-faced and swear that everything is going according to plan.
Don Imus: Critic of Racial Profiling?
Yesterday, everyone at our office was talking about what a jackass Don Imus was for making yet another racially charged remark. But his excuse is an interesting one:NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. radio personality Don Imus on Tuesday defended linking a football player's race to brushes with the police as Imus tried to dampen a brewing race controversy over remarks he made one day earlier.During his breakfast show on Monday on Citadel Broadcasting Corp's ABC Radio Networks, Imus discussed Adam "Pacman" Jones, who was suspended by the National Football League in April 2007 because of his link to a Las Vegas triple shooting.A colleague of Imus commented on how many times Jones had been arrested since he had been drafted by the Tennessee Titans in 2005, and Imus asked what color he was. Told that Jones is black, Imus responded: "Well, there you go. Now we know."But on Tuesday Imus said during his show: "Obviously I already knew what color he was. The point was to make a sarcastic point."What people should be outraged about is they arrest blacks for no reason," he said. "There's no reason to arrest this kid six times, maybe he did something once, but I mean everybody does something once."I just don't know what to make of this, I really don't. If Imus was honestly trying to make point about racial profiling, it would be a real shame to see him get raked over the coals for it. We don't want this to have a chilling effect on others in the entertainment industry raising the issue.On the other hand, if he seriously just lost his cool and let loose with what everyone initially assumed he meant, then that's unforgivable. He's offended enough people already, and to say something like that is just nasty. Moreover, I canât stand the thought of Imus successfully covering his ass for a genuinely racist comment by playing on our sympathies for the victims of racial profiling. How shrewd and cynical that would be.I haven't followed this that closely, so maybe there's some contextual evidence I've missed. I lean towards assuming that he's just an ass, but the thought that he was actually trying to make a point about racial profiling would be mitigating if true. What do you think?
George Will's Weak Defense of Our Embarrassing Incarceration Rates
If you take George Will's word for it, you might come away thinking we're 2 million more prisoners away from ending crime in America once and for all. His Sunday Washington Post column, More Prisoners, Less Crime, begins by attacking liberals for not loving incarceration enough, proceeds to deny racial disparities in our criminal justice system, and closes by suggesting that prisons might be better for society than universities. Needless to say, it was linked approvingly by the White House drug czar, John Walters.Will would have us believe that all progress towards reducing crime rates is the exclusive result of increased incarceration, ignoring all other factors, and even mocking "liberals" who focus on addressing "flawed social conditions." Amazingly, Will manages to reach his singular conclusion without even telling us how far crime rates have actually dropped. It's a glaring and convenient omission, since any criticism of his shallow and needlessly partisan analysis is difficult without knowing what numbers he's looking at. For example, since the incarceration boom began in the 1970's, the biggest drop in crime rates occurred during the mid-90's, a period of increased economic opportunity, which took place under a democratic administration. In his book "The Great American Crime Decline," crime expert Franklin Zimring, PhD notes:Since a huge increase in incarceration was the major policy change inAmerican criminal justice in the last three decades of the twentiethcentury, one would expect many observers to give this boom inimprisonment the lion's share of the credit for declining crime in theUnited States. One problem with such an assumption is that massivedoses of increased incarceration had been administered throughout the1970s and 1980s with no consistent and visible impact on crime.The Vera Institute reports that only 25% of the crime drop of the mid-90's was attributable to incarceration. Moreover, since the prison population grew by a staggering 638% between 1970 and 2005, any benefits actually derived through incarceration are achieved at a massive cost, both fiscally and in terms of huge numbers of individual people whose imprisonment didnât actually reduce crime. I mean, crime didn't drop 638%, obviously.The idea of using incarceration to incapacitate the most serious offenders is ancient and perfectly logical in and of itself. A small minority of offenders commit a large percentage of crimes, thus if we can remove the worst recidivists from society, we'll achieve substantial gains in crime control. The problem is that each successive year of heavy incarceration will impact fewer of these serious offenders, precisely because so many of them are already behind bars. These diminishing returns ensure that lock 'em up policies will become progressively less effective over time, thus incapacitation could not achieve a sustained or proportionate crime reduction even if it were the sole factor, which it is not.Finally, much of this has limited, if any, applicability to the illicit drug market, which has thoroughly withstood the incarceration boom. Drug sales, unlike rapes and murders, never decrease when the people responsible are removed. Thus, the Drug Czar's enthusiasm for Will's conclusions may have more to do with his appreciation for any spirited defense of the prison population than an actual belief that we've made progress towards reducing the drug trade specifically. Disruptions in the drug market actually increase violence, as we're seeing in Mexico, therefore any sustained reductions in violent crime we've achieved through incarceration could be expanded dramatically by ending the drug war and regulating illicit drug sales. There is absolutely no public safety interest in incapacitating non-violent drug offenders, who will only be replaced, while the State continues to foot the bill for their imprisonment.Fortunately, for anyone frustrated by the mindlessness of those who still defend our embarrassingly massive prison population, understand this: we literally cannot afford to keep doing this. Not because it has ravished urban communities, and thoroughly corrupted the administration of justice in America, nor because it has fostered the growth of a paramilitary police state that routinely steamrolls the due process of our laws. And not even because the people themselves have grown suspicious of our towering prison industrial complex and the tiresome rhetoric employed by its champions. We cannot afford to keep doing this because we just donât have enough money to indefinitely continue supporting these horrible things. Eventually, even our most vengeful and ferocious legislators and bureaucrats will have to make better decisions about who to put in our prisons. And when that day arrives, decades of so-called "tough-on-crime" talk will immediately be brushed to the fringes where it has belonged for generations.Update: Unsurprisingly, Pete Guither is all over this at DrugWarRant.
Rising Coca Cultivation In Colombia Is Driving the U.N. Drug Czar Crazy
No matter what happens in the drug war, the people in charge will always tell you that we're making great progress. Obvious ongoing policy failures are referred to as "setbacks" as though we're on a trajectory towards inevitable eventual success. The thing is, we're not. Colombian peasants devoted 27 percent more land to growing coca last year, the United Nations reported Wednesday, calling the increase "a surprise and a shock" given intense efforts to eradicate cocaine's raw ingredient.â¦"The increase in coca cultivation in Colombia is a surprise and shock: a surprise because it comes at a time when the Colombian government is trying so hard to eradicate coca; a shock because of the magnitude of cultivation," said Antonio Maria Costa, director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. [San Francisco Chronicle]Really? Because increased coca cultivation in Colombia is the least surprising thing I've ever heard in my life. Coca eradication has never worked in the history of the world. As Pete Guither points out, Costa recently called drug policy reformers "lunatics," and yet he is the one who gets shocked and surprised by something any of us could have assured him would happen. At any given moment, the powerful drug warriors of the world can be found talking about drug policy like it's their first day on the job.
Some Items of Interest
A Canadian man has been acquitted after killing a police officer whom he mistook for a burglar during a botched drug raid. Looks like the right verdict was reached for the right reasons. Meanwhile, here in the states, Cory Maye sits in prison and Ryan Frederick awaits a capital murder trail for doing essentially the same thing under the same circumstances.-------Speaking of Ryan Frederick, new evidence points towards a cover up by police. A bullet hole was found in his home and "primer residue" was found on the hands of the officers who conducted the botched raid on his home. Looks like they've been lying about not firing a weapon during the raid. This new evidence casts further doubt on the prosecution's theory that Frederick fired on police while they were still in his front yard. Bottom line, Ryan Frederick wasn't growing marijuana. He'd been burglarized days before. When he fired on the intruders, he thought he was defending his home. This whole murder trial is a sham and the more we learn, the clearer that fact becomes.-------John Stossel says Legalize Every Drug in The New York Sun. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media who gets the issue â the whole damn thing â not just bits and pieces. Of course, anyone familiar with Stossel knows that he's been on the right page about this for a long time. -------Paul Armentano at NORML is really super exhausted from spending the whole week debunking the potent pot propaganda parade, but he summoned the energy to produce a final post on the topic. Paul calls our attention to a disgraceful CNN report falsely crediting increased potency for increased marijuana treatment, as though skyrocketing marijuana arrests and subsequent treatment referrals had nothing to do with that. -------Pete Guither has a thorough account of Senator Jim Webb's hearing this morning on the economic impact of the war on drugs. It was an important event that I was unfortunately unable to attend. I donât think Pete was there either because he lives in Illinois, but he's got the story, so that's awesome and you guys should go read about it. This post about drug free zones is good too.