BLOG
Drug Czar's $2.7 Million Super Bowl Ad Gets Terrible Viewer Ratings
Did you see the Drug Czar's Super Bowl ad last week? The one with a drug dealer complaining that he'd lost all his customers because all the kids are getting high for free by stealing prescriptions from their parents' medicine cabinet? No? Well, don't worry because no one else noticed it either.USA Today reports that ONDCP's latest ad was rated second-worst out of all 54 ads appearing during the game. Just look how many stupid ads were still vastly more popular than ONDCP's. And the #1 spot was a Budweiser⢠ad, of course, which just goes to show how people would rather be offered beer than be encouraged not to eat random pills.As usual, ONDCP's failure comes at a high cost to everyone, specifically a mind-blowing $2.7 million in tax dollars for 30 forgettable seconds. It's almost as if ONDCP's ad campaign is liquidating its remaining assets after their latest brutal congressional funding slash. Will Congress now get the message and finally stop subsidizing this embarrassing spectacle? Hopefully so, but for once I almost feel sympathy for the Drug Czar. I've criticized ONDCP for focusing on marijuana despite the fatalities associated with increasing abuse of prescription drugs. This new message is a step in right direction and I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt if the ad didnât utterly suck.The whole premise is ridiculous, implying that pharmaceutical diversion is bankrupting the illicit drug market. The last thing anyone needs is a $2.7 million announcement from the Drug Czar that we've basically won the war on illegal drugs and must now simply lock our medicine cabinets and march merrily towards total drug-freedom. Meanwhile, the actual risks associated with prescription drug abuse are ignored entirely. After all, there is a powerful perfectly legitimate industry that markets these drugs on the very same airwaves and you can bet that you'll never hear ONDCP enumerate their dangers with the same vigor they've routinely brought to bear in their towering archive of anti-marijuana propaganda.So no, there's really nothing surprising or coincidental about the fact that ONDCP's new campaign against pharmaceutical diversion is its most boring to date.
On the Border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
I'm now down in the Lower Rio Grande Valley on the border between the US and Mexico. I've been staying in a hotel on the US side in McAllen, Texas, because, somewhat surprisingly, a hotel with an internet connection in the room is cheaper on this side. But I've been crossing the river every day to scout out Reynosa, the city of about half a million, on the other side, and to talk to informed observers, as well as common folks, there, about the recent wave of drug prohibtion-related violence and what can or should be done to reduce the toll. One thing I'm finding is that people are very nervous, whether its the man in the street, human rights observers, businessmen, or even the US enforcers on the north side of the river. The human rights advocate I spoke with didn't want his picture taken ("there are several narco families on my block"), the Reynosa businessmen absolutely refuse to say anything on the record (although they complain bitterly of local corruption), people on the street look around nervously when I ask about the drug trade and the violence, and when I tried to take photos of the border crossing here, ICE agents ran up and demanded I stop. While the violence here has subsided from the violent spasms of a few weeks ago, it continues, with my human rights observer reporting that another narco killing had occurred in the city Sunday night. That makes 14 so far this year in Reynosa, out of 23 total homicides. I'll be getting into some more of the numbers in a feature article on the situation here that will appear on Friday. The poverty in Reynosa is striking. There are guys trying to sell calendars on the streets, there are guys quite eager to show me the way to "Boys Town," and there are other guys quite eager to peddle whatever drug I desire. I haven't taken them up on that, though. Meanwhile, my schedule in Mexico City next week appears to be filling nicely. I'm set to meet with Congresswoman Elsa Conde, the author of the marijuana decriminalization bill, early in the week, as well as with a bunch of Mexican reform activists. I'll also be talking to various Mexican academic experts and people working with drug users in the city. And I take advantage of being in Mexico. Yesterday, I stuck my head in the door of one of the numerous dental clinics just across from the bridge in Reynosa that cater mainly to American visitors. Before I knew it, I was in the chair and getting that crown I had long needed but could never afford. It cost $125, no appointment necessary, in and out quickly, and now I can drink cold drinks again. I'll be trying to talk to as many people as possible here between now and Friday, so stay tuned.
Thompson backs SWAT ruling
Vancouver Province newspaper columnist Joey Thompson has written a column backing the recent supreme court ruling against the police use of SWAT style drug raids.This came as quite a shock as her recent articles have been so radically pro prohibition that this comes as a surprise.
Quote of the Day
From Glenn Greenwald:The persuasiveness of an argument can often be determined by the willingness of its advocates to confine themselves to the truth when making it.Glenn's talking about telecom amnesty, but, as is often the case, his point has strong relevance to the drug war debate. Indeed, when one hears the Drug Czar proclaiming that marijuana growers are "violent criminal terrorists," it should become immediately clear how confident he is that marijuana reform arguments would prevail in a fact-based dialogue. Can you even imagine a drug policy debate in which our opposition was confined to the truth? You'll know the whole house of cards is gonna fall when the Drug Czar, surrounded and strapped to a polygraph, finally throws his arms in the air and concedes that he just f@#king hates hippies.
Not Punishment Enough
Recent articles and letters in the local media have contended that prisoners in both federal and provincial jails are treated with too much concern for their rights and not enough emphasis on punishment.
Residents Rallying Around SWAT Raid Target Ryan Frederick
residents of Chesapeake rallying behind Ryan Frederick Recently we reported on a tragic case in Chesapeake, Virginia, in which a forced-entry (e.g. "SWAT") raid on an extremely low-level drug suspect (he had just a few joints as it turned) ended with the resident, Ryan Frederick, fatally shooting police officer Jarrod Shivers out of fear for his life. It later came out -- at least as claimed by Frederick -- that the anonymous informant police relied upon before battering open Frederick's door had probably mistaken the Japanese maple trees he grew as a hobby for marijuana. Yet Frederick is in jail facing first-degree murder charges The Agitator reports that residents are rallying around Frederick, and that friends of his have created a Myspace page for him that links to a form to donate to his legal defense. Good for them. It's tragic that officer Shivers lost his life -- Frederick's supporters have said so themselves -- but at the end of the day there was no rational basis for police to enter his home in the terrifying manner that they did. To be clear, it is a pretty common way of doing things at this point in time -- roughly 40,000 SWAT raids are conducted every year, according to some estimates, and the vast majority are not for emergency or otherwise high-intensity situations -- but that doesn't make it a good idea and it doesn't make it right. Every time a raid is done, the people inside are subjected to a pretty significant psychological trauma, whether or not anyone gets hurt physically. And one only needs to watch the news to know that needless injury and death is bound to be the result sometimes, again and again. Police need to start taking responsibility for their actions. That means not blaming the victims of botched raids, like Ryan Frederick, for the predictable consequences reckless police tactics. And it means not using such reckless tactics to begin with. Since the nation's police are not about to do so willingly, the rest of us need to organize to force them to. If you haven't already, please sign our petition to limit the use of SWAT teams, and send it to your friends. And visit Ryan Frederick's Myspace page (linked above) to show your support. (Important: Please don't tear down Officer Shivers or say anything suggesting that he deserved what he got. Shivers was misled into what he did by a bigger problem existing in police culture, or at least that is what happened so far as I can tell. And negative comments about him won't help our cause, but could alienate people who might otherwise listen to what we have to say.)
Michael Mukasey's Cracked Crack Logic
One of the reasons to already be unhappy with the choice of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General is his opposition to retroactively applying the minor sentencing reductions that the US Sentencing Commission enacted for federal crack cocaine prisoners. Former prisoner Malakkar Vohryzek has called him out for fear-mongering distortions on the issue over at D'Alliance. With a little number crunching, Vohryzek finds that in New York City, for example, if every application for a sentencing reduction is approved, all of eight people serving crack cocaine sentences will get out an return to the community a little early. Yet Mukasey has somehow predicted a "crime wave." Shame on him. The NAACP's Hilary Shelton -- a stalwart of the campaign to restore college aid eligibility to students who've lost it because of drug convictions, an effort many of you have read about here -- had strong words for Mukasey (via the Sentencing Law and Policy blog): The NAACP was both saddened and offended by Attorney General Michael Mukasey's call for Congress to override the decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to apply their May 2007 decision to reduce the recommended mandatory minimum sentencing range for conviction of possession of crack cocaine retroactive to those already in prison. "Attorney General Mukasey's characterization of people currently in prison for crack cocaine convictions, and of the impact that a potential reduction in their sentences could have on our communities, is not only inaccurate and disingenuous, but it is alarmist and plays on the worst fears and stereotypes many Americans had of crack cocaine users in the 1980s," said NAACP Washington Bureau Director Hilary O. Shelton. "The fact that a federal judge will be called to review every case individually and take into account if there were other factors involved in the conviction, whether it be the use of a gun, violence, death or the defendant's criminal history before determining if the retroactivity can apply, appears to have eluded the Attorney General," Shelton added. "Furthermore, because more than 82 percent of those currently in prison for federal crack cocaine convictions are African Americans and 96 percent are racial or ethnic minorities, the NAACP is deeply concerned at the Attorney General's callous characterization that many of the people in question are 'violent gang members'." Also quoted on Sentencing Law and Policy, criticism of Mukasey by the New York Times.
Kevin Sabet Responds
Kevin Sabet has asked me to share his response to my two previous posts discussing his participation in the Beyond 2008 forum in Vancouver. I've exercised my editor's prerogative by inserting my reactions within his statement. Sabet's remarks can be read without interruption here.Your posts have multiple half-truths and lies that beg major correction. First, while I did say that 80% of the Forum's participants agreed with each other that legalization/regulation was the way to go, I would hardly call this an "observation that the experts are lined up against him" since the so-called experts you referred to were composed almost entirely of the major activists of drug policy "reform." People from organizations like NORML, the ACLU, DPA, multiple cannabis consumers unions, drug user unions, etc. This was not at all a diverse and representative group of people composed of researchers, practitioners, or policy makers. These were well-known voices in the legalization movement, many of which I have debated and discussed drug policy with before. Compare Sabet's argument with the actual list of delegates who participated in the event. Most attendees came from the fields of public health, HIV/AIDS, and substance abuse research. His claim that the group was "composed almost entirely of the major activists of drug policy 'reform'" is just false on its face as anyone can plainly see.That is why this Forum was so one-sided and closed-minded. Multiple ad hominem attacks were hurled at me and other colleagues -- attacks deemed unreasonable and unfair by the moderators and hosts of the conference. I'm told that only one participant was admonished by the moderators for "attacking" Kevin Sabet. This person suggested that Sabet and Kelly Corcoran of Drug Free America Foundation were "from another planet."Rather than focusing on the questions at hand, the Forum served to prop-up people like Jack Cole (who gives new meaning to the term "media seeker") to get on a soap box and rant about legalization. This was unfortunate, because I was hoping for much more civil, less biased dialogue. The purpose of the forum was to discuss how the UN treaties have been implemented in member countries, what their intended and unintended consequences have been, and to solicit recommendations on best practices and principles that should be adopted in future treaties. The opinion that these treaties have been an unmitigated disaster is a perfectly legitimate and relevant viewpoint, which the organizers expected many participants to express. Oddly, Sabet considers this to be "biased dialogue," while presumably believing his own contrary ideas to be unbiased. Furthermore, I'm told that many of the most scathing indictments of the drug war that emerged in Vancouver came not from the usual suspects named by Sabet, but rather from the AIDS and public health sectors. It appears that whenever someone from outside drug policy reform expresses support for our ideas, Sabet automatically re-categorizes them as members of the "legalization movement." Maybe he's right, but this doesn’t refute my original point that the experts are flocking towards reform.Also, please check The Province article. I NEVER "heckled" anyone, but rather, as the article reads: "Cole's message at the conference drew criticism from Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former speechwriter for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is now with Project: Sundial (Supporting United Nations Drug Initiatives and Legislation)." This is correct. The article from The Province claiming that Sabet "heckled" Jack Cole has been changed as Kevin says, and I've updated my prior post to reflect that. I'm told that Kevin didn't heckle anyone. To the contrary, I understand he conducted himself with civility and was active in seeking to establish rapport with others at the event. We should commend him for this and take note of how rare such behavior is among our most passionate opponents. [Note: SUNDIAL is a volunteer effort that came about when NGOs from around the world approached me to form an umbrella group to keep them informed of UN policies and programs.] Second, I NEVER asked anyone for 50% of the time at this Forum. That would have been unattainable and undesired. I spoke each time I wanted to, and I think the moderators did a pretty good job at making sure that everyone spoke. The entire subject of your second blog is completely wrong! Please correct it as such. That isn't to say that I thought the meeting was pretty one-sided. My source stands firmly by the claim that Sabet requested 50% of the speaking time. Many people saw him pass a note to the moderators and wondered what it said. The moderators found it amusing and disclosed the contents of the note to a colleague of mine. I have great confidence in my source, but I'll allow for the possibility that the moderators misstated the contents of the note. If Sabet wishes to take further issue with this, he can begin by informing us what the note was about. To be fair, the moderators also received complaints from reformers that Sabet was getting too much speaking time, so he wasn't the only one seeking a competitive advantage (if, in fact, he did so). The moderators ultimately concluded that they were doing a good job because they were criticized from both sides. Other notable corrections are needed: this was NOT a UN-sponsored forum, even though people claimed this was true. This was a forum sponsored by the Vienna NGO Committee, in order to hopefully give guidance to the CND at the UN. Very different. The UN asked the Vienna NGO Committee to organize these summits. Sabet's point is technically true, but irrelevant. The whole purpose was to provide feedback and policy recommendations to the UN. I would like to point out that the tone in which I am referred to -- as a belligerent, ignorant, single-minded goof making money off of the "drug war" -- is offensive and distasteful. I worked hard to make sure we had two Forums -- one in Vancouver and one in Florida -- in order to get diverse points of view, even if I didn't agree with the Vancouver recommendations. I haven't called Sabet any names or accused him of drug war profiteering. Beyond that, his claim that he worked to provide an open forum is dubious on several levels. Quite obviously, he was distressed by the viewpoints he heard in Vancouver, yet now claims that he sought them out purposefully. Moreover, the Florida event he refers to excluded not only reformers, but AIDS organizations, public health groups, and many others. It was organized primarily by the Drug Free America Foundation, which held the event in St. Petersburg (its own backyard). As I understand it, the Vancouver forum happened only after countless NGOs complained about their exclusion from the initial event. If Sabet intends to claim that there was anything remotely inclusive or unbiased about the St. Petersburg forum, let's see if he can name a single reformer who was permitted to attend (many asked and were turned away). The fact that he helped organize such a one-sided event really puts all of his complaints about Vancouver in perspective. In fact, the main reason more of his allies didn’t show up in Vancouver is because they'd already attended the St. Petersburg event that no reformers were allowed into! While Sabet tries to spin his role in organizing both events as evidence of his good will, the very fact that two events took place is a massive exhibit of the poor faith with which DFAF, and likely Sabet himself, approached this entire process from the very beginning. I worked closely with Vancouver's organizers, and we discussed things in a civil spirit. I came back with contacts from many people whom I hope to open a dialogue with, including Deborah Small of Breaking The Chains, Daniel Wolfe of OSI, and others. To be barraged afterward on your blog is simply unclassy on your part, and it certainly does not serve your cause well. I strive everyday to find common ground with people I disagree with. I continue to be amazed as to why I would be singled-out in your blog. I simply believe that drug use causes more harm than good, and I have seen the devastating effects of it on families and communities. While I agree that laws should also not cause more harm than good, I also believe that there are simple ways of changing certain aspects of a restrictive policy that does not resort to the pitfalls and uncertainties of full-scaled regulation/legalization. I think we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), and I've been unimpressed with places that have attempted to experiment with quasi-forms of legalization (Platzpitz, The Netherlands, etc.). These are simply my views and my opinions. Why should I be chastised for them? I don't dispute the fact that Sabet's diplomacy far exceeds that of many of his colleagues. By all accounts, he's been genuinely friendly and professional in his interactions with drug policy reformers and I've heard that said of him repeatedly over a period of years. I also understand him to be an earnest spokesman for his beliefs, driven by his own observations and experiences. Thus, it is not Kevin Sabet, but rather the body of thought he represents which I take issue with and will seek to dismantle at every opportunity. To the extent that my extended coverage of the Vancouver forum constitutes a "barrage" against him, I can only say that my comments on the matter remain online unedited and in my opinion fall short of being "offensive," "distasteful," or "unclassy." The significance of all this, as I've maintained from the beginning, is that a diverse panel of professionals working to address the drug problem convened in Vancouver at the behest of the United Nations and concluded overwhelmingly that the drug war must end. Sabet's complaints provide a vivid illustration of this important point and that's the only reason his name has appeared in my blog with such frequency this week. Yeah, that's right folks, drug policy reform has more than doubled in potency since the 1980's. This is not your parents' drug legalization movement.
Kevin Sabet's Response
The following is Kevin Sabet's response to my recent posts regarding his participation in the Beyond 2008 forum in Vancouver.Your posts have multiple half-truths and lies that beg major correction. First, while I did say that 80% of the Forum's participants agreed with each other that legalization/regulation was the way to go, I would hardly call this an "observation that the experts are lined up against him" since the so-called experts you referred to were composed almost entirely of the major activists of drug policy "reform." People from organizations like NORML, the ACLU, DPA, multiple cannabis consumers unions, drug user unions, etc. This was not at all a diverse and representative group of people composed of researchers, practitioners, or policy makers. These were well-known voices in the legalization movement, many of which I have debated and discussed drug policy with before.That is why this Forum was so one-sided and closed-minded. Multiple ad hominem attacks were hurled at me and other colleagues -- attacks deemed unreasonable and unfair by the moderators and hosts of the conference. Rather than focusing on the questions at hand, the Forum served to prop-up people like Jack Cole (who gives new meaning to the term "media seeker") to get on a soap box and rant about legalization. This was unfortunate, because I was hoping for much more civil, less biased dialogue. Also, please check The Province article. I NEVER "heckled" anyone, but rather, as the article reads:"Cole's message at the conference drew criticism from Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former speechwriter for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is now with Project: Sundial (Supporting United Nations Drug Initiatives and Legislation)." [Note: SUNDIAL is a volunteer effort that came about when NGOs from around the world approached me to form an umbrella group to keep them informed of UN policies and programs.]Second, I NEVER asked anyone for 50% of the time at this Forum. That would have been unattainable and undesired. I spoke each time I wanted to, and I think the moderators did a pretty good job at making sure that everyone spoke. The entire subject of your second blog is completely wrong! Please correct it as such. That isn't to say that I thought the meeting was pretty one-sided. Other notable corrections are needed: this was NOT a UN-sponsored forum, even though people claimed this was true. This was a forum sponsored by the Vienna NGO Committee, in order to hopefully give guidance to the CND at the UN. Very different. I would like to point out that the tone in which I am referred to -- as a belligerent, ignorant, single-minded goof making money off of the "drug war" -- is offensive and distasteful. I worked hard to make sure we had two Forums -- one in Vancouver and one in Florida -- in order to get diverse points of view, even if I didn't agree with the Vancouver recommendations. I worked closely with Vancouver's organizers, and we discussed things in a civil spirit. I came back with contacts from many people whom I hope to open a dialogue with, including Deborah Small of Breaking The Chains, Daniel Wolfe of OSI, and others. To be barraged afterward on your blog is simply unclassy on your part, and it certainly does not serve your cause well. I strive everyday to find common ground with people I disagree with.I continue to be amazed as to why I would be singled-out in your blog. I simply believe that drug use causes more harm than good, and I have seen the devastating effects of it on families and communities. While I agree that laws should also not cause more harm than good, I also believe that there are simple ways of changing certain aspects of a restrictive policy that does not resort to the pitfalls and uncertainties of full-scaled regulation/legalization. I think we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), and I've been unimpressed with places that have attempted to experiment with quasi-forms of legalization (Platzpitz, The Netherlands, etc.). These are simply my views and my opinions. Why should I be chastised for them?
Delegates at the Beyond 2008 Forum
Organization, Contact Name Addictive Drug Information Council, Billy Weselowski AIDS Vancouver, William Booth
They Said If George Bush Was Elected There Would Be Calls To Ramp Up The Drug War
They were right. Democrats and Republicans protest Drug War Funding Cuts. Worst President Ever? Or worst Congress Ever?
Monsters Retake Thailand's Government and Vow to Resume Mass Drug War Murders
We've reported here extensively on the thousands of extra-judicial killings by Thailand police of supposed drug offenders during the regime of now-deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Following the coup which took Thaksin out of power, a government panel prompted by calls from human rights organizations determined that most of Thaksin's murder victims were not even involved with drugs. Recently the Thai government voted to bring the monsters back into power by electing Thaksin crony Samak Sundaravej as the new prime minister. He has already shown his stripes -- reporting from the Associated Press, via Drug WarRant: New Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej insisted Friday that he is not a puppet of deposed leader Thaksin Shinawatra, despite having boasted during campaigning that he was Thaksin's proxy. [...] Samak also said the new government will reintroduce Thaksin's controversial approach to combatting drug trafficking, defending the "drug war" conducted by Thaksin's government that led to the death of about 2,500 people in 2003-2004. [...] Interior Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said Thursday that the ministry would launch a tough anti-drug campaign, particularly in border areas, that will yield results within 90 days. How many drug war murders will Sundaravej commit? Have some Thai police officers already taken the encouragement to resume the rampage?
Court Rules Against Swat Style Drug Raids.Canada,Vancouver,B.C.
In a ruling that will hopefully spell the end of SWAT-style drug raids in Canada, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce ruled that: "The actions of the police created a real risk of harm to an occupant by accidental shooting and to the police in terms of an aggressive response to the violent entry." Never one to care if anyone doing crime is killed or not, Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts was beside herself with indignation.
Drug Czar Speechwriter Requests Special Treatment at UN Forum
I wrote yesterday about drug warrior Kevin Sabet's frustrated observation that "80 percent" of the attendees disagreed with him at the UN-sponsored "Beyond 2008" drug policy forum in Vancouver. Sabet's remark was an unintentional testament to the remarkable progress our movement has made since he began defending the drug war more than a decade ago. A longtime former speechwriter for multiple US Drug Czars, Sabet was appalled to discover something he should already have known: many professionals working to address the drug problem have turned against the war on drugs and are now seeking to promote alternatives. It was a brutal awakening, I guess, because Sabet did something fascinating nextâ¦A moderator at the event informed one of my colleagues that Sabet requested half of the remaining time be allotted to himself and Kelly Corcoran of the Drug Free America Foundation in order to balance the dialogue.To appreciate how unbelievable this is, one must understand that the whole point of the event was to solicit diverse opinions from experts working in the field. The Vienna NGO Committee states that "Forum participants will be invited to attend and will represent a balanced cadre of ideological interests." Sabet's attempt to take over the discussion is contemptuous of the spirit of the forum itself. The very idea that 2 of the 100+ delegates should get to do half the talking is ludicrous.After all, we don't get to write half of the Drug Czar's speeches. We've been excluded from the conversation at every turn, but the self-evident truth of our beliefs has taken root and spread far beyond the easily-identified community of longtime reformers. The participants were pre-selected for their diverse backgrounds. Their unified rejection of the war on drugs was not a carefully orchestrated coup; it was just a sign of the times.Yet Kevin Sabet regards reform advocacy as some sort of contagious mental defect that must be quarantined once its presence in the room has been detected. He literally reacted to the prevailing pro-reform sentiments of the forum delegates by concluding that the screening process had broken down, allowing infected individuals to enter the building and acquire microphones. I can just picture his eyes darting nervously back and forth, eventually settling on the closest window, which he'll jump out of if things get dicey and he's forced to retreat up West Hastings leaving behind a trail of pamphlets and propaganda in his wake.Update: Kevin Sabet flatly denies that this request ever took place. His response is available here. While I have reasons for being skeptical of his claims in this regard, it's important to hear what he has to say. If there is, in fact, anything inaccurate about what I've written here, I apologize to Kevin for that.
Canada's Greens push for legal pot
Federal Green Party deputy leader Adriane Carr is recommending the legalization of marijuana and making drugs a medical issue; the first party to do so since the liberals chickened out on decriminalization.
Pot linked to bad teeth
I tried in vain to get the story from the paper, but try to call up Yesterday's news. This is junk science at it's best. Reports from Toronto have found that pot smokers that use at least once a week are more than three times as likely to get periodontal disease.
80% of Drug Policy Experts Oppose the Drug War
What happens when a diverse group of drug policy experts from throughout North America convene to discuss solutions to the world drug problem? They begin by agreeing that the drug war must end.Beyond 2008 is a worldwide forum sponsored by the United Nations to solicit expert testimony evaluating the UN's international drug strategy. The north American conference, which just concluded in Vancouver, brought together an impressive coalition of AIDS organizations, public health groups, human rights advocates, treatment specialists, former police officers, substance abuse researchers, academics, government officials, and others.Perhaps unintentionally, the UN had created an unprecedented opportunity for a broad coalition of interested parties to articulate their consensus that the time for drug policy reform has come. As long as the U.S-style "war on drugs" continues, criminals will control what drugs are sold, how much they cost, how deadly those drugs are, and how young their customers will be.That was the message delivered yesterday by Jack Cole, a retired New Jersey police officer who spent 26 years making arrests in connection with "billions of dollars in cocaine and heroin" as well as other drugs. [The Province]Surprised to find themselves outnumbered and outclassed, the drug warriors in attendance struggled to retain their composure. Some failed:Cole's message at the conference drew criticism from Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former speechwriter for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is now with Project: Sundial (Supporting United Nations Drug Initiatives and Legislation).Sabet criticized the Vancouver forum for being made up "80 per cent" by "people who all agree with each other." The observation that the experts are lined up against him is easily the most accurate claim ever made by this former speechwriter for the Drug Czar. It is typical of the authoritarian drug warrior mindset to conclude that this overwhelming consensus undermines the event's credibility rather than his own. But this was no hempfest. This was a UN forum featuring respected experts with vast experience and impressive credentials. Their motives could not be impugned. Their agenda could not have been more transparent. They are the voices of everything that is true and real in the drug war debate and their consensus is a force that cannot be dismissed with the flippant pothead jokes and statistical shell-games we've come to expect from the likes of Kevin Sabet.The drug policy reform consensus is a value statement reached through contemplation not naivety, compassion not selfishness, research not rhetoric, and hope not surrender. That our arguments are increasingly visible in any serious drug policy discussion is no coincidence or conspiracy. We'll fill every room, large or small, until peace is restored and this terrible war is banished into the bowels of history where it belongs.Update: Kevin Sabet disagrees substantially with what I've written. His response is available here.
United Nations Listens to the Drug Advocacy movement
Today I listened as a coalition of advocates and a few naysayers made their case to a UN representative at the Wosk Center for Dialogue at the downtown SFU campus.This morning the Province newspaper headline read: "War on Drugs a Dismal Failure." Evidently, the message was coming through loud and clear.
You Can Go to Jail For 27 Years For Selling Marijuana
Famed NY Giants kicker Lawrence Tynes won't get to celebrate his Super Bowl victory with his brother. As The New York Times reports, Mark Tynes is serving 27 years in prison for selling pot."I'm not embarrassed about it," Lawrence Tynes said. "Everyone has skeletons in the closet or whatever. You could go in that locker room and find 50 other stories probably similar to mine. Heâs my brother. I love him. He made some bad choices. Rightfully so, he should be punished. But the extent of the punishment, to me, is ridiculous."So how do you catch 27 years for a marijuana crime? Prior convictions don't help, but it seems that refusing to rat out other people was the biggest factor here:But Mark Tynes had a record, including felony convictions for possession. And he "paid a heavy penalty for refusing to cooperate," a managing assistant United States attorney told The Pensacola (Fla.) News Journal after sentencing. The others cooperated fully. They became government witnesses. Lawrence Tynes watched as each testified against his brother.And as tragic as it is to think that selling a relatively harmless substance like marijuana can land someone in prison for decades, consider also that Tynes story never would have been told had his brother not kicked the field goal that put the Giants in the Super Bowl. Whether they are sitting behind bars or merely sitting around after losing aid for college, the victims of America's brutal war on marijuana typically suffer in silence, injured and marginalized by laws far more potent and destructive than the drug they prohibit.
A Cop is Dead Because An Informant Mistook Japanese Maple Trees For Marijuana
This is one of those stories that is simultaneously so unbelievable and yet nauseatingly familiar that you just know our deeply flawed drug laws are behind it.Ryan Frederick is an amateur gardener who grows tomatoes and Japanese maple trees, which look like marijuana. An informant told police there was pot growing at the residence and a warrant was issued. Frederick, who had been burglarized earlier in the week, mistook the police for thieves and sought to defend his home by firing on the unexpected intruders. Police officer Jarrod Shivers was killed.Now, as we learned in the strikingly similar case of Cory Maye, law-enforcement does not take kindly to people defending their homes during mistaken drug raids. Ryan Frederick has been charged with first-degree murder on the theory that he knew the intruders were police and fired on them anyway.Frederick had no criminal record and no marijuana plants. The informant was just wrong. Although a few joints were found in the home, it just doesnât make much sense to contend that Frederick would provoke a shoot-out with police over a misdemeanor. Nonetheless, he's being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and can only hope the jury understands the horrible situation he's been placed in.This is still a developing story, but at this point it seems pretty clear that the only reason this raid ever happened is that some idiot mistook Japanese Maple trees for marijuana. That's all it took. There are no safeguards built into the drug war to prevent this type of thing. If you call in a suspected marijuana grow, you are assumed to be a botanist capable of accurately identifying plants. Police will even risk their lives to investigate your idiotic claims.Prosecuting Ryan Frederick for murder will do nothing to curb the inevitable result of continuing to raid homes based on informant testimony. This is all just one more injustice stacked atop a precarious edifice. Like Cory Maye, Ryan Frederick is lucky to even be alive, which begs the question of how many dead innocent people would have been unfairly charged with attempted cop-murder if they'd been fortunate enough to even survive the raid.Much more at The Agitator and DrugWarRant.