BLOG
What's the game?
It would seem that while the world is trying to arrest every drug user and end drug use the medical establishment is giving drugs to children as young as two years old.These are powerful and often unt
Clinton and Obama's Positions on Medical Marijuana Aren't Good Enough
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton echoed Barack Obama's statement that medical marijuana raids are a bad use of law-enforcement resources. Via DrugWarRant:What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon's Medical Marijuana Program as legal?We've got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that's already been done. I don't think it's a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes.So you'd stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency's raids on medical marijuana grows?What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There's a lot of other more important work that needs to be done. [wweek.com]Honestly, this "not a good use of resources" argument for ending medical marijuana raids is the weakest excuse possible for taking the right position on this. Of course it's not a good use of resources, but that isn't why we should refrain from harassing sick people. We don't do that because it's just wrong. Why can't you say that? Are you afraid?This fiscal argument against medical marijuana raids isnât just incoherent, it's politically useless. When polling data shows overwhelming public support for medical marijuana, and John McCain looks vicious and cruel by comparison, it's time to go on the offensive. There's no sense in failing to call out McCain on his wildly unpopular position. But you can't accuse him of cruelty unless you acknowledge that this is genuinely cruel and not just a poor investment.I don't think this is necessarily a matter of educating Clinton and Obama about where the people stand on medical marijuana. I think they know that. Unfortunately, I fear it's all they know. They've stumbled cluelessly into the right position, but they lack the will and/or the knowledge to debate it and capitalize on the easy political points it offers them. The way the winds are blowing, I'd wager that either of them could have clinched the democratic nomination already simply by speaking more bravely about this and other drug policy issues. That sure would have livened up this mindnumbing spectacle for one thing. They'd never attempt it for fear of nasty attack ads and so forth in the general election, but since it's going to come up anyway, you're always better off throwing the first punch. Senators, the next time someone asks you about medical marijuana, tell us that you know it works and that's why you support it. Tell us that John McCain thinks it should be a crime and that he's wrong. Not only is this the best political answer, it's the truth.Update: In comments, MPP's Bruce Mirken points to recent statements from Obama that go a bit further than Hillary's remarks yesterday. I am still dissatisfied, but I suppose it could now be claimed that Obama's position isn't confined to just the "bad use of resources" argument. He has acknowledged the legitimacy of medical use in certain circumstances, which is a step in the direction I'm advocating.Update II: Some have argued in comments that I should have mentioned Ron Paul and Mike Gravel's positions on medical marijuana in this post. I disagree. My central point is that the democratic nominee would be wise to improve their medical marijuana position in anticipation of the general election against John McCain. To my knowledge, neither Ron Paul nor Mike Gravel will be running in the general election. We've covered those candidates previously, but with respect to their supporters, I don't consider them relevant to the specific argument I'm making here. It's not that I don't appreciate the contributions of Paul and Gravel, but this post isn't about them. (TThis blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)
Man arrested for growing poppies
In an article in yesterday's paper I found an article from Alberta,in which a 63 year old man was arrested for cultivating poppy plants on his property.This is the most intrusive,cruel,unjust and out
Bush and the Drug Czar Want You to Pay For the Mexican Drug War
President Bush and Drug Czar John Walters want Congress to give Mexico $1.4 billion of our money to waste on the drug war. Mexico can't afford a massive drug war like ours, so we're supposed to just go ahead and buy them one. It's a terrible plan.Just listen to all the stuff the Drug Czar wants to buy for them. It's like building decades of drug war infrastructure overnight. The very fact that you need all this stuff ought to provide a clue that drug prohibition is a raging disaster of an idea:*Non-intrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, canine units for Mexican customs, for the new federal police and for the military to interdict trafficked drugs, arms, cash and persons.*Technologies to improve and secure communications systems to support collecting information as well as ensuring that vital information is accessible for criminal law enforcement.*Technical advice and training to strengthen the institutions of justice â vetting for the new police force, case management software to track investigations through the system to trial, new offices of citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and establishing witness protection programs.*Helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction activities and rapid operational response of law enforcement agencies in Mexico.*Initial funding for security cooperation with Central America that responds directly to Central American leadersâ concerns over gangs, drugs, and arms articulated during July SICA meetings and the SICA Security Strategy.*Includes equipment and assets to support counterpart security agencies inspecting and interdicting drugs, trafficked goods, people and other contraband as well as equipment, training and community action programs in Central American countries to implement anti-gang measures and expand the reach of these measures in the region.Of course, the fact that we're even talking about this just shows the pathetic state of affairs we've achieved after decades of drug war demolition tactics. With nothing to show for the untold billions we've already poured down the drug war drain, our tough drug generals just want more money and more time. The drug cartels are already funded by U.S. drug dollars. If we buy Mexico an entire anti-drug army to fight them, we'll be funding both sides of a brutal war in a foreign nation all because we can't come to terms with our own drug use.The violence and chaos has to stop and it won't stop if we spend $1.4 billion to continue it. The mess in Mexico is our responsibility, but only because we've been so stupid about drugs for so long. This war can only end one way and that is to bring home the soldiers and send in the tax collectors.
SWAT Officers Brought Children Along on a Drug Raid
Over and over again we're told that dynamic entry no-knock drug raid tactics are necessary because drug suspects are armed and dangerous. Anyone who suggests otherwise is accused of hostility to law-enforcement, and yet the very officers conducting these raids routinely demonstrate nonchalance about the supposed risks. Via The Agitator:ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Two SWAT officers are being counseled after bringing their young children along with them on a drug raid.The Orange County SWAT team searched a house on Napoleon Street Friday, arresting three people and recovering guns and drugs.The two officers who brought their children on the raid will not be disciplined. [local6.com]Remember when police brought Shaquille O'Neal along on a drug raid? His body itself is worth millions and his massive size makes him an easy target, but they brought him along anyway.The point here isn't that police shouldn't bring children or NBA stars along on drug raids, although one certainly wonders why they would do that. The point is that if police think these raids are safe enough for children, then the "officer safety" arguments they use to justify aggressive entry tactics appear disingenuous. If these raids are safe enough for civilians, can't we find a way to make them safe for the innocent people that keep getting killed?
Drug addiction and Treatment - My Story
Drug addiction and alcoholism plague society today. There are so many people that have problems with drug and alcohol and just may not be able to see it. Most people associate addiction with crime and lower society standards when in reality addiction is more a prevalent in middle class America than in any other portion of society. What is addiction?
Needle exchange in prison
Last week was one of the most depressing weeks I've had in some time.Sometimes it seems the forces of intolerance have taken over the agenda.Then I remembered that intolerance is the rule of the day and listening to them rant is the price one pays to be an advocate for reform.It's sometimes really hard to listen to the way they trumpet things,even good things,because of the way they have to make everything about them being right and that their way is the only way to think and everybody else is wrong.
You Can't Win the Drug War if Alcohol is Legal
Did you hear about this wild booze riot in Michigan? The massive unruly crowd hurled bottles at the cops, who had to launch tear gas grenades just to break the thing up. Pete Guither observed hilariously that no one ever throws bongs and rolling papers at police. He's right, they don't.Advocates for drug policy reform are fond of pointing out the hypocrisy of permitting limitless consumption of riot-inducing alcohol, while banning silly things like marijuana that make people draw pictures or eat nachos. And that's a legitimate point to make, as far as it goes. But it is rarely observed that the legality of alcohol, by its very nature, plays an important role in undermining other drug enforcement efforts. For decades, illicit drug users have found cover amidst throngs of raging drunks. Alcohol is just stronger than most other recreational drugs. A decent percentage of alcohol users can just be counted on to go berserk at their preferred dosage, leading to screaming, fighting, vandalism, clumsy sex, and so on. It's not just stupid to arrest pot smokers in the midst of all this, it's impossible.The pot smokers are the ones that get away when a party is raided. They're the ones chatting at a table in the corner while your drunk girlfriend is dancing on the bar. They're the ones that get home without incident on a Saturday night. You'll never find them puking or punching each other, so you'd better test their urine or catch 'em in a cloud of smoke, otherwise you'll never know what's up.It's not a crime to be wasted as long as you found your buzz in a bottle not a bag, thus police have no authority to act simply because everyone in your house looks messed up. Instead, drug arrests happen primarily through the intrusive and time-consuming methods of sting operations and widespread consent searches. You can put bodies behind bars this way, but not nearly enough to win the war. As long as it remains legal to get utterly obliterated on booze, the enforcement of other drug laws won't just look stupid and hypocritical. It won't even work.
You Have My Permission to Name a Marijuana Strain After Me
I know, I'm a D-list pot celebrity at best, but at least I won't throw a raging hissy fit: Tom Cruise's attorneys are looking to take legal action over a new strain of medical marijuana that has been put on the market under the star's name.The "Tom Cruise Purple" brand, which features a picture of the actor laughing on the vials, is currently being sold in licensed marijuana clubs in Northern California. [sfgate.com]Thanks to Prop. 215, it might even be possible to sue in California courts for trademark infringement over the name of a marijuana strain. But all you can really do is go after the clubs offering it, which can in turn just change the name to something else like TCP. Regardless, if Tom Cruise really wanted to screw these people, he would have been well advised to keep his mouth shut rather than make the strain famous by complaining about it.Until all of this plays itself out, aspiring marijuana breeders should just name their strains after me, which I assure you is totally ok. Call it "Scotty Mo Skunk" or something like that. I won't complain unless it sucks.
We can't even smoke tobacco
Friday's paper was full of stories about drug addicted babies.By Sunday,The Province editorial was about just that.On Friday,The doctor felt compelled to phone into the Vancouver media with a story from Prince George.I guess she was bored.She started out saying it was mostly crack and went right on into the use of morphine to bring heroin addicts children down.She threw in that they were getting better at seeing the signs of addiction in babies and that that might be part of the reason for the 10 fold increase in the last 10 years.It's obvious to me exactly why these mother's are ducking the health care system as it's often asking for help that results in these mothers having to fight child services to get their kids back.When you consider that a lot of the addicts on our streets are from the child welfare system.That is the very last place that a child should wind up.I've seen a lot of really sick things that have happened in addict homes but I know a whole lot more from the children's aid society.The newspapers are eating up this "new"group that's preaching abstinence to any and every one that will listen.They've gotten more press out of one so called meeting of experts than all the harm reduction meetings in the whole year.I write letters to the papers but when they don't print them it feels like having a door slammed in your face.I'm afraid we're entering into another of those backward periods where the forces of intolerance can spout the most obscene prattle and people are listening.There's little doubt that our mayor has joined the side of the great unwashed and has been stringing us in the reform movement along all the time.Not surprising as he's never met a voter he won't try to please when in their presence.The health officer for the school district has announced that kids are using less drugs and alcohol.Of course sedentary lifestyle and obesity are worse than ever.Maybe they'll make sloth illegal and health food and exercise mandatory.Or manipulate the statistics to say something else?It'll be illegal to possess tobacco in federal prisons on may 1'08.It's already illegal to smoke in any public building or within 15 feet of any door or window.Let's just trade tobacco for pot and call it even.Big brother is watching just about everyone.
Skunk Weed Causing Outbreaks of Mad Brit Disease
With British Prime Minister Gordon Brown poised to reclassify marijuana as a more serious drug subject to stiffer penalties, the United Kingdom appears to be in the grip of an outbreak of Reefer Madness that would make Harry Anslinger blush. Bizarrely, much of the British concern about marijuana is centered on the dreaded "skunk." The Daily Mail, which makes the New York Post look like the New York Times, has been a leading proponent of skunk mania. In an article headlined Cannabis: A deadly habit as easy for children to pick up as a bag of crisps, after blaming marijuana for the problems of British youth culture and prohibition-related violence, the Mail breathlessly reports that skunk isn't your father's marijuana. (Haven't we heard this one before?) The other problem for the Government and others who urged the then Home Secretary David Blunkett to downgrade cannabis in the run-up to 2004, is that the drug on sale to young people on the streets today is very different from the one ministers thought they were downgrading. Doctors believe that this new strain has the potential to induce paranoia and even psychosis. Some of those we met who work with young criminals link the advent of the new drug with the growth and intensity of street violence. Uanu Seshmi runs a small charity in Peckham, where gun crime is rife, which aims to help boys excluded from school escape becoming involved in criminal gangs. He has seen boys come through his doors who are "unreachable" and he blames the new higher strength cannabis sold on the streets as "skunk" or "super skunk" for warping young minds. "It isn't the cannabis of our youth, 20 or 30 years ago," he told me. "This stuff damages the brain, its effects are irreversible and once the damage is done there is nothing you can do. This new strain of marijuana? Skunk? Odd, since it's been around since the 1970s (read the description of Skunk #1) and is just another of the countless indica-sativa hybrids. Thankfully, we have "drug experts" like Mr. Seshmi to raise the alarm about its irreversible effects. There's more from the Mail, which apparently has made reclassifying cannabis its moral crusade of the day. In another article, How my perfect son became crazed after smoking cannabis, the Mail consults an unhappy mum whose child ran into problems smoking weed. Last fall, the Mail was warning of--I kid you not--"deadly skunk". Here are some more skunk headlines from the Mail in recent months: "Son twisted by skunk knifed father 23 times," "How cannabis made me a monster," "Escaped prisoner killed man while high on skunk cannabis," "Boys on skunk butchered a grandmother," and "Teen who butchered two friends was addicted to skunk cannabis." While one expects such yellow journalism from the likes of the tabloid press, even the venerable Times of London is feeling the effects of skunk fever. Under the headline Cannabis: 'just three drags on a skunk joint will induce paranoia', the Times managed to find and highlight some guy named Gerard who doesn't like that particularly variety of pot: I smoke around six joints of regular cannabis every week, mostly at the weekends. What I like about smoking hash or weed is that it keeps me calm and gives me a more amusing outlook on life. With skunk, itâs a completely different story. Just three drags on a skunk joint will induce paranoia on a massive scale. Iâm not talking about the difference between a beer and a vodka shot. Iâm talking about being unable to get out of bed in the morning because you feel paralyzed, about being incapable of holding a conversation. I would like to think Iâm a pretty lucid guy, but after smoking skunk I find myself struggling to string a sentence together. In the skunk haze of my student days, I would sometimes find myself unable to leave the house at all. Itâs like a mild form of dementia. Once, a friend passed me a skunk joint before going to a birthday party. After just a few drags, I went into a room full of people, barely able to talk. I headed straight for the bar and drank as much alcohol as possible to counteract the effects. It helped, but using one vice to neutralize another is not exactly ideal. My advice to Gerard (and it's something he apparently still has the brain cells left to figure out by himself despite smoking the evil skunk): If you don't like it, don't smoke it. But more broadly, what does the Times piece tell us? Nothing except this guy doesn't like skunk. Honestly, I don't understand this British mania over skunk. Something similar is going on in Australia, only down under, it's not skunk but the dreaded "hydro" that is causing murder, mayhem, and madness. Blaming a particular cultivation technique is about as stupid as blaming one variety of cannabis. I think this is something I'm going to have to write about in a feature article this week. I'll consult cannabis cultivation experts, media critics, and the latest science to try to get a handle on this.
Forced Drug Injections
It has been reported that the United States Totalitarian Dictatorship has been using forced drug injections to facilitate its torture sessions as a method of extracting incriminating evidence from its victims captives detained under the color of the so-called war against terrorism.
DDEAL - Because NO ONE wants to see the pigs win!
DDEAL.us Just Launched. An act of... Satire. Comedy. Fun. Because we're all too serious most of the time. This is meant to be a parody site. For now, it's just one page.
48 years imprisonment for heroin Trafficking in India
An Indian court in Salem (south India) on Thursday sentenced three persons each to 48 years of imprisonment for smuggling heroin. The court also awarded 36 and 24 years of imprisonment respectively to other two. According to the prosecution, Narcotics Intelligence Bureau personnel arrested Narendra Kumar Sharma, a Truck driver and Abdul Salam Rashid, a Sri Lankan, when the former handed over 8.5 kg of heroin to the Islander in Kurubarapalli in Krishnagiri-Hosur Highways in January 2004. The personnel also arrested three, including two Sri Lankans, Mohammed Nizam, Mohammed Riyal, and Shah Nawas of Rajasthan.
Flying Robots to Assist in Outdoor Marijuana Eradication
Ever since I pointed out last week that the drug war will soon be fought mostly by robots, further examples have come pouring in. We're now well past the point at which anyone can plausibly deny the inevitability of a future in which drug war robots patrol the streets thrilling children, terrifying the elderly, and wreaking general havoc of epic distopian proportions. Skeptics will know I'm right when the lighter gets shot out of your hand with lasers every time you try to smoke some drugs.Yeah, if I was wrong about anything, it was how soon my horrific predictions would come true:The U.S. Forest Service has purchased a pair of flying drones to track down marijuana cultivators operating in remote California woodlands.Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service, tells The Associated Press the pilotless aircraft will allow agency law enforcement officers to pinpoint marijuana fields and size up potential dangers before agents make arrests.â¦The SkySeer drones cost $100,000 each and weigh only four pounds. [AP]Isn't that just the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard? F'ing robots flying around the woods trying to catch you growing weed? I predict that outdoor marijuana cultivation remains unaffected, but reported UFO sightings increase dramatically.And the creepy thing about all this is that it was reported just one week after my initial expose on this topic. Could it be that the drug war geniuses are taking cues from my blog? Just in case, let me clarify that my point wasn't that it's a good idea for the drug warriors to build horrible robots, but simply that they are mad enough to do it. I guess I was right either way. [Thanks to tv/movie star Aaron Houston for the link]
"Crack Heads Gone Wild" Video Raises Troubling Ethical Questions
 Editor's Note: Amanda Shaffer is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section.An innovative documentary that will reduce drug abuse or a sick exploitation of Atlanta's homeless in their most vulnerable moments?As my Internet search for anti-drug messages continues, I have uncovered a "documentary" that shows purported crack addicts performing a variety of acts on the streets of urban Atlanta (including everything from dancing and singing to having sex). Click here for the news report from Fox 5."Crack Heads Gone Wild" producer Daryl Smith pays people addicted to crack to perform these unfathomable acts, encouraging and even cheering them on at times. Smith professes that the purpose of this film is not to sell DVDs, but to expose the dangers of drug abuse in the hopes of preventing others from using drugs.Has Smith successfully rekindled a previously popular method known as the "scared straight" tactic? Or is it a sleazy ploy to make money?I set out to learn the truth by contacting the film's producers. After numerous unanswered emails and phone calls, I was finally able to get in touch with a spokesman from the company. The first strange thing that occurred during our conversation was his skepticism of who I was. I told him I was a college student doing a research paper on drugs and the media (which is true), and he proceeded to ask me questions regarding where I was calling from and how old I was. After the brief interrogation, he was willing, but reluctant, to answer my questions. The spokesman informed me that the film has currently sold over 100,000 copies, however this figure is most likely higher due to the sales from bootleggers. I then asked him, "How much money has this film grossed to-date." He responded, "Approximately $1.5 million." Next I explained to him that I watched the Fox interview where Smith made a promise to donate a portion of the film's proceeds to charities. I wanted to know if they had followed through. He replied, "As I said earlier the film was bootlegged so we haven't made any money off of this movie." Hmmâ¦that's odd⦠at the time of the aforementioned interview, before it was stolen by bootleggers: Smith announced the film had made $250,000. Also, how would he have known that $1.5 million was grossed if the money wasn't going to the company? Something here just isn't adding up.My next question involved the type of feedback they have received. The spokesman stated, "most people say it is interesting, they think it needs to be edited down so it can be shown in middle and high schools, that is why we are releasing a second version that is edited down more. The first film was more exploitative and was really not made to be educational; the second installment is an anti-drug film." This response speaks for itself, the film was never meant to be a prevention tool but simply to make some dough. Why was Smith preaching about exposing the truth in the Fox News interview? It appears quite evident he wanted to quiet the critics.So is the creation of the second installment (subtitled "Scared Straight") truly meant to be an anti-drug film? The spokesman directed me to the trailer on YouTube.com to see for myself.An anti-drug film he says? I felt it more closely resembled a horror movie. And what aspects of the film were "edited down" to be more youth-friendly? The trailer showcases a topless woman taking a hit of crack. I sincerely doubt any parents would want their 13-year-olds viewing clips of this movie in health class.Seriously, who are the producers of these atrocious films trying to fool? The only difference I found in the two films is that the first uses humor (albeit of the sick variety) to attract the audience, while the second specifically focuses on fear. I find it hard to believe that either of these films was created to prevent drug use. I mean, what professionals/academics did they consult to decide their methods? Additionally, there is a clear morality issue at stake. Crack addicts are being paid to act out on camera when they are at their most vulnerable moments. Smith is encouraging this deviant behavior and is then promoting it through the media. Smith even acknowledged that he is exploiting these people during the Fox interview, "These people are at a point where nothing else matters. They don't care if it's 5 in the morning or a camera is on, they will do anything for 5 bucks." Is it fair to say that one person's health and livelihood is more important than another? Also, who is Daryl Smith to deduce that someone's life is hopeless, and that even with proper treatment they have no chance of recovering? I do not believe he has a degree in psychology or neuroscience.If the producers of Crack Heads Gone Wild are really trying to make a difference on the streets of Atlanta as well as the rest of the country, they would stop exploiting addicts for money and start helping them acquire the treatment they desperately need.
Looking for a New Boogie Man
Editor's Note: Eric B. Wilhelm is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. His bio is in our "staff" section. As the recent frenzy over the herb salvia divinorum and attempts to ban it have heated up in a number of states, the opportunity to honestly and realistically discuss the matter in terms of drug policy has been mostly lost in favor of irresponsible journalism and knee-jerk political reactions. Opportunistic politicians have come out with particularly harsh demands for criminalization in order to appear protective of troubled youth, while journalists stand by, failing to challenge orthodox prohibitionist assumptions. One example of rampant alarmism and distortion is the March 11 article by the Associated Press entitled "Is Salvia the Next Marijuana?" Without even detailing how this widely distributed piece is unbalanced and lacking, we can merely examine the title to see the way that utterly misleading beliefs about drugs are perpetuated by the media. It's really quite simple why salvia is so far from being "the next marijuana." The offending article itself establishes early on that the herb "is a hallucinogen that gives users an out-of-body sense of traveling through time and space or merging with inanimate objects." Even the most dishonest drug warrior wouldn't claim marijuana does anything like that to users. Other recent articles quote users who say the salvia high is simply not fun or long-lasting enough to make people want to try it more than once. Marijuana lasts much longer, often induces euphoria and laughter, and merely alters the user's perceptions a bit -- it does not immediately "blast them into outer space." Because the dissociative and hallucinogenic qualities of salvia are so intense and jarring to the psyche, few choose to consume it very frequently. The tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana generally are not looking to dissociate themselves from their bodies or their surroundings, but often to do the very opposite - to enhance their experiences or simply to relax in their surroundings. Anyone who has any doubt that the use of a hallucinogen will never overtake marijuana use can check the Monitoring the Future survey of drug use by high school students. The most recent data shows that for every 12th grader who used ANY hallucinogen (LSD, magic mushrooms, PCP, mescaline, salvia etc.) in the past month there are 11 who have used marijuana in that time. Looking beyond the absurdity of claims that salvia may become the "next marijuana," in terms of popularity or frequency of use (as implied by the media hype), there are a few ways in which salvia may become quite similar to America's favorite illegal drug. As salvia becomes a banned drug in more and more states, illicit drug dealers will no doubt pick up the slack in demand. Curious adolescents will no longer have to find their way to the head shop across town in order to buy some -- trying to convince someone 18 or older to actually buy it if they are underage -- because their neighborhood drug dealer might be offering it to them the next time they score some pot. Alternatively, salvia users who grow their own plants in their home or garden, which is reportedly an easy task, will soon become the subject of the kind of SWAT raids that often claim the lives of innocent people. By the way, this little bit of gardening will get you a mandatory minimum of 2 years in prison in Louisiana. I have to wonder whether concerned citizens who are passionately calling for outright criminalization have truly considered what the potential results of their demands. In some states the possession of salvia is a felony, which could include years in prison and hard labor. We ought to seriously consider whether we want the government and police to be deciding how to deal with young people who begin experimenting with this substance or if the guidance or punishment should be left up to parents. Is hard labor really what a bored and curious young person needs to "straighten them out"? And what about the users of salvia who claim to be consuming the drug responsibly and for the purpose of gaining spiritual insight or to foster deep introspection? How will society at large benefit from spending our collective resources tracking down and imprisoning them? If it makes no sense criminalizing salvia, how can we justify the rest of the War on Drugs? There is no way to arrive at a rational drug policy without asking such questions. As it stands though, challenging conventional beliefs about drug laws is about as alien to most politicians as salvia trips, so the task of thinking clearly and demanding change belongs to the people.
they call themselvesKeeping The Door Open
This Winter while the drug reform people were holding discussions on how to bring about change in current drug policy,the forces of prohibition and entrenched drug treatment programs were whining that although they held at least 1/2 of the dialogue they weren't being heard.The second meeting was particularly significant as they not only dominated the floor but at the meetings end they were very vocal about how their voices weren't being heard.I happened to be sitting in the section they chose to discuss their strategy for the future,which was to form their own group and push for their agenda.This week they assembled the proponents for abstinence and prohibition and did just that.They had the former heroin addict now on methadone that is living at a house ironically named Onsite.This is an obvious take on INSITE the safe injection site.They had all the hard liners from B.C.
New Study: Pot Smokers Aren't Drug Addicts, They Just Like Pot
If you took the Drug Czar's word for it, you'd think all marijuana users were helpless dope fiends who just need the cops to take their pot away and throw their sorry asses in rehab. But if you take the Drug Czar's word on this, or anything else for that matter, you'll be wrong. People smoke pot because they want to, and that's a scientific fact.Via NORML, a new study helps clarify what we've all been struggling so hard to explain:Understanding the Motivations for Recreational Marijuana Use Among Adult CanadiansSubstance Use & Misuse, Vol. 43, Issue 3 & 4, February 2008: pages 539-572The primary purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of what motivates a selected group of adult[s] to use marijuana and to explore the social contexts in which it is used. â¦. Using interviews to gain insight into the subjective experiences of the participants, this research corroborated the results of previous studies that found that most adult marijuana users regulate use to their recreational time and do not use compulsively. Rather, their use is purposively intended to enhance their leisure activities and manage the challenges and demands of living in contemporary modern society. Generally, participants reported using marijuana because it enhanced relaxation and concentration, making a broad range of leisure activities more enjoyable and pleasurable. It is so rare to hear the typical marijuana user described in this way (accurately) that I had to reread this just to be sure. The abstract is revealing as well:They were predominantly middle class, employed in a wide range of occupations, and used marijuana recreationally to enhance relaxation and concentration while engaged in leisure activities.Holy hookah, Batman! These hippies have jobs and happy lives!? Somebody better drug test them soon, otherwise they might make it their whole lives without anyone realizing what losers they are.Seriously though, the idea that marijuana users are somehow mentally and physically handicapped is easily the most pernicious and inaccurate absurdity ever infused into the marijuana debate. It's just not true at all. Yet this mindless stereotype continues to be reinforced as the counterculture tends to embrace the drug openly, while more typical users remain stigmatized by the fear of arrest, drug testing, or being mistaken for a hippie.The point here isn't just that marijuana use is seldom more than a harmless hobby, although that is true. Arguing that marijuana is harmless hasn't advanced our cause, so we must look beyond opportunities to simply make that argument on its own. The point here is that the typical marijuana user isn't someone who can benefit from criminal justice intervention. Just think about how damaging these punishments for marijuana can be and imagine what happens each time they are applied to someone whose life was previously going just fine:Possible jail timeSubstantial legal costs/finesLoss of employmentLoss of drivers licenseLoss of child custodyLoss of federal aid for educationLoss of federal aid for housingLoss of federal aid for foodFor many decades now, we've been ruining the lives of healthy, happy people for using marijuana. We're able to do this because we tell ourselves that they need us to help them. They are addicts. They are lazy. They are going to get cancer or depression. But wait, what if they're not? Oh my God, what have we done?