BLOG
If I Was You, I'd Kill Myself
Sue is awaiting transportation to the Taycheedah Women's Prison in Wisconsin from the Eau Claire, Wi. county jail. She has been in the jail since her July arrest. She was arrested after an informer gave her money to buy drugs. At least that's what the informer says; Sue says he was paying her back money she had lent him since they had been such good friends. She never bought any drugs, however; she was arrested with nothing but the money, heading home. Apparently the agents were worried she would just keep their money. Or maybe they were in a hurry to get home. Apparently only they know.
Peeing for Profit
Peeing for Profit Who would ever think that pissing in a bottle would become such a huge enterprise, with several corporations getting in on the action? But thatâs what has happened. And we have the âwar on drugsâ to thank for this.
Marinol prescribing protocol
According to my psychiatrist, the DEA is coercing doctors into changing the way they prescribe Marinol. The change is in the number of refills granted to patients. Within the last six months doctors began issuing prescriptions with one refill. Before that they issued ones with up to three.
Marijuana is Better For Your Lungs Than Tobacco
This week, the Drug Czar announced once again that smoking a joint is as bad for your lungs as five cigarettes. We've been hearing this for years, and familiar as it may be, this popular talking point is just wrong. Research and common sense show that marijuana is actually far better for your lungs than tobacco. Allow me to explain.Put simply, the research used to claim that marijuana is worse for your lungs than tobacco clearly shows the exact opposite of that. One can simply read the results of the study to see that tobacco scored worse in most categories with regards to its effects on the lungs. The 5:1 ratio comes from the "airflow obstruction" category, in which marijuana did score worse. But that's just one of several categories. Furthermore, the study didn't even say marijuana was 5 times worse in that category. It said between 2.5 and 5 times worse, which dishonest reporters simply rounded up to 5 to get headlines. If we're talking about the lungs, the two biggest concerns are emphysema and lung cancer. Tobacco scores far worse in both categories: Emphysema was detected in only one of the cannabis smokers (1.3%), in 15 (16.3%) of the cigarette smokers, in 17 (18.9%) of the combination smokers, and in none of the non-smoking groups. [MedPageToday.com]With regards to lung cancer, the case for is even stronger. Conclusive evidence shows that marijuana does not cause lung cancer at all, and may even help prevent it.While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows.Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread. [Forbes]That's the research, now for the common sense. It should be easy to understand that tobacco users smoke more than marijuana users. That's just a fact, and it has everything to do with the relative harm of each. Even if marijuana were more harmful to the lungs, it still wouldn't matter at all, because hardly any marijuana users actually smoke enough to hurt their lungs. Most donât even smoke every day. They also quit more easily, thus consuming a vastly smaller quantity in their lifetime. The two cannot even be compared for this reason. One should never be surprised to find the anti-marijuana propaganda machine turning out wildly exaggerated scare stories about the dangers of pot. But this whole episode provides a startling depiction of how irresponsible and just plain wrong marijuana's critics always prove to be. So, to recap: marijuana is more likely to cause "airflow obstruction," while tobacco is more likely to cause emphysema and lung cancer. You tell me which one is 5 times worse.[Via DrugWarRant]
California Sent 1,000 Drug Offenders to Fight the Forest Fire
As the Malibu wildfire nears full containment, it is very worth noting that about 1,100 male and female nonviolent drug offenders normally warehoused in California prisons were called upon to risk life and limb fighting last monthâs massively devastating blazes. In fact, nearly one in eight of all firefighters who participated were drug offenders.After a few phone calls to the state corrections department I learned that about 3,000 inmates helped to fight the wildfires, along with 6,000 non-incarcerated firefighters. Almost 4 out of every 10 inmates involved (about 37%) were nonviolent drug offenders. Breck Wright, a non-incarcerated firefighter who has worked side by side these inmates on numerous occasions, told The Associated Press, "I think it would be very hard without them. It would really impact usâ¦They are very effective, hardworking and are well-trained. They know what they are doing."Boy, does this one merit examination â I mean, 1 out of every 3 firefighters relied upon were prisoners?! California is a "tough on crime," three-strikes-you're-out state, which from 1980 to 1999 experienced a 25-fold increase in the number of drug offenders sentenced to state prison. Sentencing in drug cases can be severe. For their effort, the prisoners receive $1 per hour and two days off their sentences for every day spent on the fire lines. An added benefit, of course, is the chance to break the monotony of prison life. California has at its disposal 4,502 prison inmates fully trained to fight fires, 1,655 of whom are drug offenders. Only inmates considered "minimal custody" are permitted to participate -- violent criminals, kidnappers, sex offenders, and arsonists are all banned. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Conservation Camp Program (CCP) began in 1946 -- before the "war on drugs" kicked off in earnest and became the driving force behind Californiaâs explosive prison growth. Saving state taxpayers more than an average of $80 million annually, the program provides three million person hours in firefighting and other emergencies, and seven million person hours in community service project work.If the news accounts are accurate, and I don't have a basis for disputing them, the prison firefighters sought to participate in this program and feel that they are getting something out of it, both during their prison terms and after they're released. Nevertheless, the question should be asked whether it is moral to send prisoners, people who by definition are being confined against their will, into a dangerous operation in which some of them could lose their lives. Yes, they went out willingly -- they served with pride -- but why do we have them in prison in the first place? Drug use and drug sales are consensual acts, and the people engaging in them should mostly be left alone. Some drug offenders no doubt got to where they were through living screwed up lives. But even they just need help, or positive opportunities available without going to prison, not incarceration. And why aren't there more opportunities for prisoners generally, and safe ones?If this group of people is worthy to send to risk their lives to save our lives, homes and businesses, aren't they worthy of freedom too? At a minimum they deserve better than the paltry amount of time off and chincy number of dollars that they're getting. Let's get serious -- how about pardons? After all, the non-incarcerated firefighters have stated how much they needed the prisoners' help. How many homes would have burnt down, communities been destroyed, lives lost, without them? The business owners in Socal who could have lost it all should offer as many jobs to ex-offenders as they can too.It's sort of hard to decide whether this program is ethical or not, given how unethical is the system we have as a whole. Maybe the prisoner firefighters have served California in another way too -- by highlighting through their courage the moral bankruptcy of prohibition and the war on drugs.
Update on Pain Physician Dr. William Mangino
In July and September I wrote here about the plight of Bill Mangino, a Pennsylvania physician who was decent enough to treat patients with the pain medications (opiates) that they needed, and was punished for these good deeds with a prosecution and now imprisonment -- all over a crime that never happened and for which no evidence exists happened. Yesterday I heard from Dr. James Stacks, a Mangino supporter and board member of the Pain Relief Network, with the news that Dr. Mangino had asked we post correspondence he sent to a judge prior to a hearing today that he hopes will get him a new trial and freedom in the meantime. The briefs were put together by Mangino himself, written by hand, but has been scanned for our edification online as well. Interested parties can read some commentary on it by Alex DeLuca here, or go straight to the briefs online here or here. A cutting quote that Dr. Mangino used as his signature line in the documents: Statutes must mean what they say... and say what they mean.
Needle Exchange Action May Be Imminent
Last spring at the National African American Drug Policy Coalition summit here in Washington, the question was asked of Donna Christian-Christensen (Congressional Delegate from Guam, the closest thing the territories have to US Representatives), a physician and chair of the Congressional Black Caucusâ Health Braintrust, what the prospects were for repealing the ban on use of federal AIDS grant funds to support needle exchange. Her answer was, "We're going to give it a good try." I took that to mean "it's not going to happen this time." The issue has made some progress however, at least as it affects us here in the District of Columbia, where a particularly infamous part of the annual appropriations bill prevents DC from spending even its own locally-collected tax funds on needle exchange appears to be on its way to getting repealed, thanks to positive action by a House subcommittee that drafted the new appropriations bill. I know better than to take it as a given that repeal will make it all the way through. But it is looking pretty good, and at the PreventionWorks! anniversary party this evening -- attended by new PW executive director Ken Vail -- AIDS Action lobbyist Bill McColl informed the crowd that it could hit the floor within a few days. Earlier this year we reported that Hillary Clinton was noncommittal about lifting the ban during a videotaped exchange at a private forum with prominent AIDS activists. The exchange was fascinating; after several pointed back-and-forths with Housing Works executive director Charles King, Sen. Clinton directly acknowledged that it was political concerns only that accounted for her position (though the kinds of concerns that can't necessarily be dismissed offhand). Sen. Obama, by contrast, had stated his support for lifting the ban. This week Clinton took the plunge and made strong pro-needle exchange promises in a campaign statement on AIDS funding. What would ultimately happen with this in a Clinton presidency, or any Democratic presidency, is probably hard to predict -- politics is still politics. But the fact that the Democratic candidates are lining up to support the issue has McColl feeling cautiously optimistic that the Democratic Congress won't drop the ball on the DC language at least. And it's encouraging for all of us about the long-term. The federal needle exchange restriction came to a boil during the Clinton administration, when the findings needed to lift the ban -- needle exchange doesn't increase drug use, but does reduce the spread of HIV -- were made by the administration, but not acted on. Some advocates believe that if Donna Shalala had been on a certain Air Force One flight, instead of Barry McCaffrey, that it would have happened. It took a change in Congress to even get the issue back onto the radar screen; more may be needed to actually get the law changed. Still, let's keep our fingers crossed for the DC ban to be lifted, maybe even by the end of the year. Assuming that happens: Let's Do Heroin! (That was sarcasm, in case anyone didn't realize.)
Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana
Ron Paul shows Giuliani, McCain, and Romney how to talk about medical marijuana without sounding like a monster. Hint: tell everyone you care about sick people. Voters love that stuff. Ron Paul, supposedly a fringe candidate, seems to understand formerly cherished conservative principles like "states rights" better than any other republican running.The success of Paul's campaign is yet another demonstration that smart and compassionate positions on drug policy are neither exclusively liberal nor politically suicidal.
Hillary Clinton Pledges Support for Needle Exchange
After hilariously claiming that she needed to see more evidence of its effectiveness, democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton seems to have found the answers she was looking for.* Her campaign has announced support for harm reduction, including needle exchange:She also supports using U.S. funding to support proven harm reduction efforts - including needle exchange - to help hard-to-reach populations, and will continue to support new evidence-based prevention methods as additional scientific research helps us understand how to best address this epidemic. [HillaryClinton.com]We've heard similar pledges from Obama and Edwards, and it's likely safe to assume other democratic candidates will toe the line on this one (possibly excluding drug war hall-of-famer Joe Biden).It's nice to see Washington politicians getting it right on needle exchange. Of course, this is really about whether or not we want huge numbers of people to die from AIDS in the name of drug war politics. We needn't fall to our knees in gratitude when someone understands such an obvious humanitarian concern. Rather, we should be demanding answers from any candidate who hasnât yet spoken out against the federal government's catastrophic ban on life-saving intervention programs.*By "hilarious," I meant that the mountain of evidence showing that needle exchange saves lives is so huge that I couldn't imagine Hillary Clinton actually had time to read it.
John Edwards Criticizes the War on Drugs
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards sounds like he's finally ready to discuss the drug war realistically:Grinnell, Ia. â America needs to reconsider its punitive approach to "the so-called war on drugs," presidential candidate John Edwards said here today."We're not going to build enough prisons to solve this problem," he told a crowd of about 800 at Grinnell College.The former North Carolina senator grinned when a young man sitting behind him on stage asked about drug policy. âOnly on college campuses," Edwards joked before answering.He said heâs especially concerned about mandatory minimum sentences for first-time drug offenders, which he said should be reconsidered. He added that too few drug offenders get treatment."You go to jail, you come out of jail, and a lot of people go right back to the environment that got them in trouble to begin with," he said. "â¦We need to get them the help that they need; if they need education, if they need job training, if they need drug rehabilitation." [Des Moines Register]This is a big improvement following Edwards's very recent remarks claiming that discussion of marijuana decriminalization "sends the wrong signal to young people."What happened? It really is kinda nutty to dismiss a puny little reform like marijuana decrim, only to then stand up weeks later and question the fundamentally punitive nature of the drug war on the whole. My guess is Edwards realized he wasn't scoring any points with that tired old "sends the wrong message" nonsense.The mere specter of our massive criminal justice system -- bloated with non-violent drug offenders -- sends the wrong message to everyone. It's good that Edwards finally worked up the nerve to say so.
Does Marijuana Make You Better at Sports?
The DEA and FBI are working overtime to bust steroid suppliers. Now, the Drug Czar's office has been boasting about the U.S. government's commitment to preventing cheating in sports. So why are they going after the NBA for being too lenient about marijuana use?Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns is very proud of the work that's being done to ensure fairness in sports:The nation's deputy drug czar said Tuesday that the indictment of slugger Barry Bonds in connection with a federal steroids investigation shows the world that the United States remains "the No. 1 country in the world when it comes to going after cheating in sports." [LA Times]Of course, like so many other aspects of the war on drugs, the war on steroids suddenly morphs into a war on marijuana:He was especially critical of the NBA's relatively liberal policy on marijuana use, which calls for a maximum five-game suspension for the third and subsequent offenses."If Americans knew that you can be a professional high-level athlete and smoke dope and those are the penalties, they would be offended," he said. "For professional athletes that smoke dope, there should be a message that says you don't get to play your sport."Why not? I don't understand, Mr. Burns. What does this have to do with cheating? Oh boy, does marijuana really make you better at basketball? I have never heard that before. I've heard that it cures cancer, increases fertility, and prevents Alzheimer's, but I did not know that it made you better at sports. That's so awesome. To be fair, however, I doubt the Deputy Drug Czar actually believes marijuana is a performance-enhancing drug. I think his concerns have more to do with the fact that widespread marijuana use among professional athletes undermines his office's non-stop campaign to convince Americans that using marijuana will weaken their bodies and ruin their futures.With that in mind, I would highly recommend to the folks at the Drug Czar's office that they immediately stop trying to drug test athletes for marijuana. After all, if you don't want the kids to find out that their favorite athletes smoke pot, you can begin by not drug testing those athletes or complaining publicly about their rampant marijuana use.
Republicans Try Marijuana at Higher Rate Than Democrats
Itâll come as a surprise to most, but Republicans try marijuana at a higher rate than Democrats. A Gallup poll found that 33% of Republicans have tried Americaâs favorite (and safest) illicit drug while a slightly lower 31% of Democrats have inhaled the celebrated herb.Thinking back, I remember when it was learned that House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and other Republicans had enjoyed marijuana in their pasts, and I recall the 2002 Republican congressional page scandal in which eleven pot smoker pages sponsored by Republican House members were dismissed subsequent to the discovery of marijuana in their Capitol Hill dormitory. I guess I should have put two and two together.Politically speaking, the obvious question is âWhy doesnât this translate into more Republican support for marijuana decriminalization or legalization?â Only 21% of Republicans want the herb legalized while 37% of Democrats do. Do Republicans experience different effects? Do they feel guilty after imbibing? Maybe we just need more Republicans to bring their views on marijuana laws out of the closet. Take Gary Johnson for instance. The former Republican governor of New Mexico supported the legalization of marijuana in a very public way when he was in office, in fact, he was eager to make it part of his legacy. He also wanted people to understand that he didnât just âexperimentâ with the weed: âIn running for office during my first term, I offered up the fact that I smoked marijuana. And the media was very quick to say, âOh, so you experimented with marijuanaââ¦No, I smoked marijuana. This is something that I did. I did it along with a lot of other people. But me and my buddies, you knowâ¦we enjoyed what we were doing,â said Johnson in 1999.Of course, thereâs another high-profile Republican not shying away from telling people marijuana should be legal -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) who has served in Congress for almost 20 years. And, heck, he just recently set the GOPâs one-day fundraising record of $4.3 million. Hmmm, it sure doesnât seem like his supporters are afraid of his marijuana legalization spiel.George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, also wants marijuana legalized. Almost 20 years ago, he coined an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to tell people â...We need at least to consider and examine forms of controlled legalization of drugs.â Another of Reaganâs most trusted aides, Lyn Nofziger, who also worked for Nixon and shares responsibility for unleashing the Reagan drug war on America, joined Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) at a 2002 Capitol Hill press conference to support a federal medical marijuana bill and to push President Bush and other Republicans to get onboard. âI've become an advocate of medical marijuanaâ¦It is truly compassionate. I sincerely hope the administration can get behind this bill,â he said. And then there are some of the Republican Partyâs luminaries. Highly respected and influential ultra-conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Milton Friedman have called for marijuana legalization at least since Nixon famously visited Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai in 1972. I suppose the appropriate question is âWhen will the Republicans decide to take the high road to China on this one?âNote: It is interesting and important to realize that all of the conservatives whose viewpoints on drug policy were discussed above, save Nofziger, go much further than only wanting marijuana to be legal. In fact, they have either explicitly called for all drugs to be legalized or have strongly alluded to the idea they should be.
John McCain's Awful Response to a Cop Who Wants to End the Drug War
When NH police officer and LEAP speaker Bradley Jardis confronted John McCain last week, demanding an explanation for the ongoing failure of the drug war, McCain's response was just unbelievable:McCain acknowledges that too many first time offenders are serving time, but he otherwise delivers a defense of the drug war that is as banal and incoherent as any such discussion could ever be. I won't bother to categorically refute the mountainous absurdities contained herein. Instead, I've transcribed McCain's marvelous distinction between drugs and alcohol, which should be etched in stone as a timeless embodiment of the rank idiocy that defines the modern war on drugs:Look, I've heard the comparison between drugs and alcohol. I think most experts would say that in moderation, one or two drinks of alcohol does not have an effect on one's judgment, mental acuity, or their physical abilities. I think most experts would say that the first ingestion of drugs leads to mind-altering and other experiences, other effects, and can lead over time to serious, serious problems. This is what John McCain chose to lead with. This, for McCain, was the strong central point that explains why the drug war is necessary. And it is just so transparently stupid and wrong.* When the curtain is pulled back, perfect cluelessness is revealed to be the single unifying principle that binds the drug war philosophy together. That is why McCain nearly falls to pieces when confronted by someone with real firsthand experience waging the war he so clumsily defends. Most drug war supporters are not qualified to discuss this topic even briefly. If you ask them a smart question about the drug war, their answer will come out something like this:*Update: It's been suggested to me that it is actually necessary to explain that alcohol is a drug. Maybe it is, so here goes: It's a drug. It produces a powerful intoxicated state commonly referred to as "drunkenness," in which one's judgment can become impaired along with the ability to operate heavy machinery.John McCain ought to know that alcohol is a drug. I think he just wasn't prepared for the question and said the first thing that popped into his head. It is typical for defenders of the drug war to begin their argument by issuing wildly false generalizations.[Thanks, Micah]
Here we go again
Well,the news is out and it's every bit as depressing as I expected.Under the headline:"Ottawa cracks down on illegal drugs",our government announced THIS:1.a one year mandatory minimum sentence for d
Mitt Romney Recommends Lying to the Kids About Drugs
Mitt Romney thinks it's just awful that Barack Obama has been honest about past experience with alcohol and illegal drugs:"It's just not a good idea for people running for President of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, 'well I can do that too and become President of the United States,'" Romney told an Iowa audience today. "I think that was a huge error by Barack Obamaâ¦it is just the wrong way for people who want to be the leader of the free world." [FOXNews]But, um, you can do drugs and become the President. This has been proven time and again as of late and it's actually a terrible idea to suggest otherwise. Young people need to know that they can make mistakes and still be successful. Heck, young people should even know that drug use is often not a mistake if done responsibly at the appropriate age. The problem with convincing them that drug use ruins your future is that they might believe you and just give up. Really, there is nothing more harmful and destructive than attempting to educate children about drugs by lying about your own experiences. Young people need someone to talk to. They need to know that you understand, and the best way to create that environment is by being honest. If you do understand, don't pretend not to. That's insane.The truth here is that Barack Obama's experience with drug use is typical. He experimented, aged out of it, and went on to pursue a rewarding career. There's nothing miraculous or shocking about his failure to become a walking after-school special. Most people don't.But if Barack Obama has been unlucky enough to get arrested, I doubt we'd even know his name. Indeed, drug use won't disqualify you from a high profile career, but the drug war will crush your dreams every time.If we want to send children the right message about drugs, let's stop threatening to arrest and ruin them for things so many of us did without consequence.[Thanks, Tom]
Harper Government goes south
It seems I've wiped my computer.Just a note to say that our neocon government has announced mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.I'm hoping the website still has my other blogs but if they went
Harper Government loses it's mind,Again
I never really thought that even THIS bunch of neocons would have the nerve to introduce legislation to begin mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes in Canada.Today they announced the most dracon
Mark Souder Can't Stop Accusing People of Being Drug Legalizers
Remember when Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) went crazy and started accusing all his enemies of being communist spies? I don't because I wasn't alive yet, but I hear it was hilarious. McCarthy was eventually discredited and spent the remainder of his days in a drunken stupor.Today his spirit lives on in the body of Congressman Mark Souder (R-Ind.), whose virulent compulsion to expose "drug legalizers" is equally troublesome and distracting. I discussed Souder last week, but the story of his festering paranoia just grows more compelling all the time. As I reported last week, Souder recently attacked a large coalition of mainstream public health, education, legal, and policy organizations because they opposed his law denying financial aid to students with drug convictions. The incident provoked amusement and unfavorable coverage from the Washington press, due to the absurdity of accusing groups like the National Education Association and the United Methodist Church of trying to legalize drugs. Today, The Politico published the following letter from Souder questioning the integrity of their coverage of the incident:POLITICO = IDEOLOGICAL PRISM?Out of fairness, it is incumbent on your newspaper to disclose when a potential conflict of interest occurs with one of your reporters.IN the Nov. 13 article "Drugs and Money," Ryan Grim stated that the facts in a "Dear Colleague" letter I wrote were incorrect. Your readers ought to know that Grim was previously employed by the Marijuana Policy Project, a drug legalization group. Grim is hardly an objective reporter.Given his past employment, I fail to see why you would assign him a story on an issue that he had advocated for as recently as 2005.You newspaper's mission statement includes the following: "There is a difference between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism." It's time to ask yourself whether you're meeting that objective.Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.)Editor's note: Politico reporter Ryan Grim's previous work for the Marijuana Policy Project is disclosed in his professional biography at Politico.com.In short, The Politico published an article about how Mark Souder loves accusing people of supporting drug legalization, so he sent them a letter accusing their staff of supporting drug legalization. There is just nothing else he could have done to better illustrate the validity of their claim that calling people "drug legalizers" is something he loves to do. Even in a case like this, in which his letter would inevitably be perceived as hilariously ironic, Souder still could not stop himself from writing and sending it.Even more revealing is the fact that Souder's letter makes no attempt to challenge the facts of the story. It seems that the prior affiliations of The Politico's Ryan Grim are the only noteworthy point Souder could think of in response to story covered in three major Capitol Hill newspapers. So if Souder doesn't dispute the facts of the story, and Ryan Grim's employment history was already detailed on The Politico's website, why did Souder bother writing this letter in the first place?Easy. Because Mark Souder loves writing letters accusing people of supporting drug legalization.
As We Mark the Anniversary of the Killing of Kathryn Johnston, Poll Commissioned by DRCNet (StoptheDrugWar.org) Finds Little Support for SWAT-Style Drug Raids in Most Cases
(Visit http://stopthedrugwar.org/policeraids for further information on our poll and positions on this issue as well as links to further information.) A year ago this week, 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston was gunned down by Atlanta narcotics officers when she opened fire on them as they kicked down her door in a "no-knock" drug raid. The killing has had immense reverberations in the Atlanta area, especially since it opened a window on corrupt and questionable police practices in the drug squad. The officers involved told a judge they had an informant who had bought crack cocaine at Johnston's home. That was a lie. They shot at the elderly woman protecting her home 39 times after she managed to squeeze off one shot from an old pistol. They handcuffed her as she lay dying. They planted marijuana in her basement after the fact. They tried, also after the fact, to get one of their informants to say he had supplied the information, but that informant instead went to the FBI. Two of the officers involved in the killing were ordered to prison this week on involuntary manslaughter and civil rights violations. A third has an April trial date. The Johnston killing has also rocked the Atlanta Police Department. The police chief disbanded the entire drug squad for months, tightened up the rules for seeking search warrants, especially "no-knock" warrants, and instituted new policies forcing narcotics officers to rotate out on a regular basis. A year-long FBI investigation into the department continues. While the Johnston killing rocked the Atlanta area, it also brought the issue of aggressive drug war police tactics to the forefront. Each year, SWAT teams across the country conduct some 40,000 raids, many of them directed at drug offenders. The tactic, where heavily armed police in military-style attire break down doors, toss flash-bang grenades, and generally behave as if they are searching for insurgents in Baghdad, has become routine, and is the stuff of various TV reality shows. But, somewhat surprisingly, it isn't popular. According to a poll question of 1,028 likely voters commissioned by StoptheDrugWar.org (DRCNet), and conducted by Zogby International in October, a solid majority of respondents said such tactics were not justified for routine drug raids. Here is the exact question asked: "Last year 92-year old Kathryn Johnston was killed by Atlanta police serving a drug search warrant at an incorrect address supplied by an informant. Reports show that police use SWAT teams to conduct raids as often as 40,000 times per year, often for low-level drug enforcement. Do you agree or disagree that police doing routine drug investigations in non-emergency situations should make use of aggressive entry tactics such as battering down doors, setting off flash-bang grenades, or conducting searches in the middle of the night?" Nearly two-thirds -- 65.8% -- said police should not routinely use such tactics. With minor variations, that sentiment held across all geographic, demographic, religious, ideological, and partisan lines. Opposition to the routine use of SWAT tactics for drug law enforcement ranged from 70.7% in the West to 60.5% in the East. Residents of large cities (60.7%), small cities (71.2%), the suburbs (66.7%), and rural areas (65.0%), all opposed the routine use of SWAT tactics. Among Democrats, 75.1% opposed the raids; among independents the figure was 65.5%. Even in the Republican ranks, a majority -- 56% -- opposed the raids. Across ideological lines, 85.3% of self-identified progressives opposed the raids, as did 80.8% of liberals, 62.9% of moderates, and 68.9% of libertarians. Even people describing themselves as conservative or very conservative narrowly opposed the routine use of SWAT tactics, with 51.5% of the former and 52.5% of the latter saying no. This polling data will be the basis for a Drug War Chronicle article on Friday. We will dig a little deeper into the data, as well as the larger issue of SWAT raids for the Chronicle article. In the meantime, we have some very interesting numbers to chew on, and some public policy consequences to ponder. Our poll also received coverage on FoxNews.com this morning.
Goodbye To a Drug Warrior; Australian Prime Minister John Howard Set to Lose Power in Saturday's Elections
The Australian Labor Party and its leader, Kevin Rudd, appear poised to drive drug warrior Prime Minister John Howard and his Liberal/National Party coalition from office in elections coming this Saturday. Labor needs to pick up 16 seeks to take over, and according to recent polls, it should do so. Those same polls show Rudd and Labor defeating Howard and the coalitionby a margin of 54% to 46% in the popular vote. Howard could even lose his own district, something that hasnât happened to a sitting Australian prime minister since 1929. It couldnât happen to a nicer guy. Howard is a rigid foe of drug reform who in this most recent campaign has debased the discourse by reducing it to the level of "drugs are evil" and who over the weekend vowed to have the federal government take control of welfare payments for people who are drug offenders (look for a news brief on that on Friday). Although Howard was forced to accept the existence of the safe injection site at Kings Cross in Sydney, he is a fervent anti-harm reductionist. Here's just a short, and doubtless incomplete, catalog of his sins: He tried to narrow the drug policy debate by purging the federal drug advisory panel of harm reduction advocates, he opposed heroin prescription trials in Western Australia, the following year, he threatened to prosecute under federal law anyone using a safe injection site if any other states tried to open one, he tried to pressure states to roll back marijuana decriminalization laws, and last year, his government announced plans to ban bongs. Drug policy is not playing a major role in the campaign, although Howard has tried to make it one in recent days. If, as appears increasingly certain, he actually goes down to defeat on Saturday, it will be because of his support of the Iraq war, his disdain for environmental concerns, and, last but not least, because, after 11 years of Howard rule, Australians are ready for a new face. An added bonus in the election could be the rise of the Green Party to role of power broker in the Senate. Under Australia's system of proportional representation, the Greens could end up holding the balance of power in the Senate. While the Greens have retreated somewhat in their drug policy platform in the last couple of years, it is still light years ahead of either Labor or Howard's coalition.