BLOG
Academics on Unenforceable Laws
Interesting Washington Post piece on unenforceable laws, featuring long-time academic drug policy reformer Douglas Husak.
Connecticut Medical Marijuana Bill Passes Legislature, Needs Governor's Signature
Friday night (too late for last week's Chronicle), Connecticut's state senate passed a medical marijuana bill, already passed by the House, and it is now heading to Gov. Jodi Rell's desk to be signed or vetoed. Rell has said she is "torn" over it. DPA's Gabriel Sayegh sent us the following links to media stories about it:
ONDCP: We Don't Care What You Dorks on YouTube Think
A Seattle Post-Intelligencer story about political messages on YouTube.com contains this delightful quote from ONDCP:The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said it expects its YouTube messages to be ridiculed, laughed at, remade and spoofed. And they are. The irony here is that, predictable as it may have been, ONDCP had no clue that this was going to happen. They deliberately generated media coverage of their YouTube page, only to find their videos marred by harsh comments and dismal viewer ratings. ONDCP quickly disabled these options, but the damage was done. If they had genuinely anticipated this level of hostility from viewers, they would have optimized their page before sending out press releases about it. Because they did not, most ONDCP videos are now permanently stamped with the lowest-possible rating of one star.This is to say nothing of the countless parodies that are now drowning out ONDCPâs unpopular propaganda. Since YouTube automatically recommends similar videos anytime you watch something, viewers of ONDCPâs materials are unavoidably connected to these abundant counter-messages. It is almost certainly for this reason that ONDCP has not uploaded a single new video since the page was first launched back in September 2006. In a case like this, the mature decision would be to ignore them. But I find it amusing that even something as perfectly logical as expecting ridicule on YouTube turns out to be a lie when it comes from ONDCP.
MP Libby Davies Speaking out on Conservative's Drug Strategy for Canada
Canadian Member of Parliament Libby Davies distributed this letter yesterday about the Conservative drug strategy and attacks on the InSite safe injection site: June 4, 2007 Dear Friends, I am deeply concerned about the Conservative government's plans to unveil a so-called New Drug Strategy for Canada and its efforts to discredit InSite. I made the following statement in the House of Commons today outlining my concerns. Libby Davies, MP Vancouver East HANSARD, House of Commons June 4, 2007 Mr. Speaker, health and addictions professionals across Canada are bracing themselves for the worst when the Conservative government reveals its so-called new drug strategy that will sacrifice the successes of harm reduction and a balanced approach to drug use, for a heavy handed US style enforcement regime. Time and again, empirical evidence has proven that harm reduction works. Programs like needle exchanges and Vancouver's safe injection site, InSite, are reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C, and increasing the number of people accessing treatment. I am alarmed that despite this evidence, the government is accelerating the criminalization of drug users. The 2007 budget quietly removed harm reduction from Canada's new drug strategy. It now reads like a carbon copy of George Bush's war on drugs - which has seen drug use rise, along with skyrocketing social and economic costs of incarceration. In 2006, the Conservatives refused to renew the exemption that allows InSite to keep its doors open until pressure from the community forced them to grant a temporary extension. We know the Health Minister and the RCMP are now resorting to propaganda tactics to try and close InSite. Attacking InSite and adopting US drug policies will fail as dramatically here as it has in the US. Read our feature report about this published Friday, "Battle Royal Looms as Canadian Government Set to Unveil Tough Anti-Drug Strategy." Also, we have a fair amount published about Libby Davies, including interviews she's given directly to the Chronicle -- use this search link to review it.
Joe Biden Gets Stuck on the Fence
Joe Biden, whose brain malfunctions severely anytime he thinks about drugs, did not disappoint during Sundayâs Democratic Presidential Debate. When asked about his shifting support for a fence along the Mexican border, Biden had this to say: Well, that fence -- the reason I voted for the fence was that was the only alternative that was there, and I voted for the fence related to drugs. You can -- a fence will stop 20 kilos of cocaine coming through that fence. It will not stop someone climbing over it or around it.And so -- but this bill has a much more reasonable provision in it. It has much -- much shorter fence, it does have the Border Patrol requirement, and it is designed not just to deal with illegals; it's designed -- a serious drug trafficking problem we have.In case youâre unfamiliar with Biden, understand that he is not suffering from a stroke.* This guy just has a really hard time understanding drugs, but continues to bring them up whenever heâs under pressure. Bidenâs unfortunate obsession/confusion regarding drugs has led him to create ONDCP, author the RAVE Act, and propose biological warfare in South America.So does Biden dramatically misunderstand the role of actual people in physically transporting cocaine across the border? Is it really necessary to explain that some of the people who climb over or around the fence carry cocaine with them? Does he know that 20 kilos fits in a backpack? Whether Biden realizes the absurdity of his remarks is beside the point. He got cornered for flip-flopping on the fence issue, so he cried âDrugs! If my positions appear contradictory, itâs because I was trying to fight drugs.â Thatâs what he does, because he knows thereâs no accountability when you talk about âDrugs!â*No offense to stroke victims. Iâm not really comparing you to Joe Biden.
More Border Blues--Canadian Mom Searching for Missing Daughter Denied Entry
Just two weeks ago, in an article titled Border Blues, we wrote about how both the Canadian and the US governments can and do deny entry to people who admit to past drug use or have a drug conviction. Last week, a particularly egregious example of the abuse of this provision occurred. In a sad tale first picked up by the Vancouver daily the Province, "Mother's Hunt for Missing Daughter Blocked at Border", Kamloops, BC, mother Glendene Grant related how she was turned away from the US as she headed for Las Vegas to search for her young adult daughter, Jessie Foster, who went missing a little more than a year ago. Although Grant had made several previous trips to Las Vegas in an effort to find her daughter and even though she was scheduled to meet local law enforcement and appear at a Crimestoppers event about Jessie's disappearance, she was turned away a week ago today. Why? The 49-year-old mother was arrested in 1986 on marijuana and cocaine possession charges. We are looking into this. Right now, I have emailed Ms. Grant to set up an interview, and I have calls in to US Customs and Border Protection and an anti-human trafficking unit in the Las Vegas Police Department. There is apparently some suspicion that Jessie Foster was the victim of sex slavers. But who cares about that, right? Customs and Border Protection appears more interested in protecting us from a harmless woman who got busted on penny ante drug possession charges more than two decades ago than helping her spur an investigation with possible international implications. My understanding that the decision to deny entry to people with old drug convictions is not mandatory (I'll be checking with CBP on this) but discretionary. In the case of Glendene Grant, the denial of entry looks to be an abuse of discretion, not to mention just downright mean, inhumane, and cold-hearted. Is there more to the story? Stay tuned.
Congress Should Let DC Fund Needle Exchange
Back during our jury civil disobedience in 2004, David Guard and I did our community service time at the needle exchange program here in Washington and got to know the people there. They've been doing a lot for the community, all of it with privately-raised funds, but more is needed to be able to reach all the people who are at risk from contracting diseases like AIDS or Hepatitis C through needle sharing. The District of Columbia government would almost certainly fund needle exchange work, but Congress gets to control what our budget looks like if they want to, and in their infinite wisdom (sarcasm) they decided to forbid DC from spending even its own taxpayer dollars on needle exchange. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who chairs the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has jurisdiction over this area of the US Code, has said he wants to undo the restriction. Today the New York Times ran a strongly supportive editorial: Washington, D.C., is one of Americaâs AIDS hot spots. A significant proportion of infections can be traced back to intravenous drug users who shared contaminated needles and then passed on the infection to spouses, lovers or unborn children. This public health disaster is partly the fault of Congress. It has wrongly and disastrously used its power over the District of Columbiaâs budget to bar the city from spending even locally raised tax dollars on programs that have slowed the spread of disease by giving drug addicts access to clean needles. The Times titled the editorial "Congress Hobbles the AIDS Fight." The activist paraphrase of that, which is how the editorial was first presented to me, would be "Congress has blood on its hands." Last week the Times also ran a news feature about DC's needle exchange, and an online "slide show" featuring the program's Ron Daniels. The larger legislation in which the DC funding ban could get repealed is expected to move quickly, with markups scheduled for Serrano's subcommittee tomorrow and the Appropriations Committee of which it is a part next week -- you never know how quickly something will really move in Congress, but that's how it looks right now. Stay tuned.
If You Like CSI: Miami, Youâll Love the Westwood College of Criminal Justice!
Thereâs something rather disturbing about TV ads for trade school criminal justice degrees. You may have seen them: âCall now to begin your exciting career in this growing industry! Help put the bad guys behind bars!â As the proud owner of a bachelorâs degree in criminal justice, I find it more than a little unnerving to see this complicated subject reduced to a flashy 30-second TV commercial. Unlike most career opportunities, the field of criminal justice ideally shouldnât be a âgrowing industry.â Everyone knows criminals are bad, and the brand of justice getting administered these days is often a crime in itself. Americaâs ongoing crime problems are more depressing than âexciting,â and the solution is not for more people to get up off the couch and start cracking skulls. This weekend I saw a new ad for Westwood College, which begins with a man in the shower reading Miranda rights to an imaginary suspect. An announcer then says something to the effect of "do you fantasize about a career in law-enforcement? Call Westwood todayâ¦" Iâm left wondering if I really want this crazy idiot who plays cop in the shower running around my neighborhood with a badge and a gun. Westwood Collegeâs criminal justice page does little to placate my pessimism:Why are there so many TV shows about the criminal justice system? Because it's exciting. All the dynamic elements that make for great TV also make for a great career.Are you taking notes, class? Lesson 1: being a police officer is just like being an action hero on TV. So if youâve been watching enough CSI Miami, youâll ace Forensics and probably Firearms, too. You could take engineering if you want, but then youâd be wasting all that career experience you absorbed inadvertently by watching Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Did you know Vincent DâOnofrio and Chris Noth are team-teaching the section on homicide interrogation? Seriously though, comparing any activity to being on TV automatically appeals to the lowest common denominator. It should go without saying that anyone whoâs apt to believe that a career in policing is as exciting as watching The Shield probably shouldnât be enforcing laws in real life. Itâs a particularly disturbing prospect in this context since police on TV are often trigger-happy and prone to habitual misconduct. Surely these arenât the âdynamic elementsâ Westwood has in mind, but if they have a clue what kind of crap passes for crime drama these days, they ought not to invite the comparison.
Mexico's President is Half Right
Mexican President Felipe Calderon told Deutsche Press-Agentur this weekend that America's drug habit is the cause of Mexico's drug prohibition-related violence. In Mexican President Blames US for Drugs War, Calderon said: "Our problem is the demand for narcotics in the US market, which significantly affects Mexico," the Mexican president said. Calderon stressed that no strategy from the Mexican government against drug cartels will be sufficient unless demand is reduced. "It is evident that as long as there is a market, as long as there is drug consumption in the United States, this problem will persist in Mexico," he said. Calderon is, of course, absolutely correct on that score. I've often noted that the prohibition-related violence plaguing our southern neighbor--there have been 1,046 killed in Mexico's drug wars so far this year--is Mexico paying the price for our war on the drugs we love to consume. Where he is wrong is his implicit assumption that the US government can meaningfully reduce demand and that the war on drugs could somehow succeed if--gosh darnit!--we Americans only tried harder. We spend about $40 billion and arrest nearly 2 million people a year in the drug war, and the drug use numbers fluctuate at the margins. The US drug market will never go away. If Calderon wants to see an end to the prohibition-related violence in Mexico, he would be much better off calling for the regulation and normalization of the illicit drug business than waiting for Americans to quit using drugs. The only thing less likely than the US government ending drug prohibition is that Americans are going to change their ways.
David in the Liar's Den
Ever wonder what it's like to watch a drug warrior squirm? I've had the pleasure a few times now, but the discussion I witnessed this afternoon at the Cato Institute was particularly intense.Today, Matthew B. Robinson and Renee G. Sherlen presented the findings of their new book Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Impressively, ONDCP's brave "Chief Scientist" David Murray was on hand to address this particularly comprehensive attack on the credibility of his office.The authors delivered a tight synopsis of their findings, bashing ONDCP propaganda with charts, graphs, and effects. Dr. Murray made a show of feigned surprise and eye-rolling, but the breadth and substance of the criticism leveled against his work was too substantial to shrug off. It almost felt like a set-up; the dignified Cato equivalent of strapping a mob snitch to a chair and beating him with a blackjack.In turn, Dr. Murray spat blood on his tormentors, dismissing their analysis as biased and incompetent. Unlike his disciplined performance at last year's medical marijuana debate, Murray was irreverent and visibly angry. From my second row seat I could see his face turn crimson, but his voice never shook. Murray's composure and efficiency is the reason he makes these appearances instead of his boss. The question of the day among my colleagues was why ONDCP would even respond to such a categorical refutation of its right to exist. As a young reformer, I learned from Eric Sterling that drug warriors typically avoid debate because doing so inherently legitimizes opposing viewpoints. Moreover, the discussion of statistics paints ONDCP into a particularly dark corner by rendering irrelevant the emotional appeals and factually-vacant soundbites that generally dominate their rhetoric.This level of engagement between ONDCP and its critics is rare if not unprecedented. Hostile as it may have been, today's conversation demonstrates that the federal government no longer perceives itself as impervious to criticism. Murray praised the Cato Institute's work in other areas and was clearly exasperated to find himself in its crosshairs. ONDCP's crumbling monopoly on serious drug policy discussion becomes increasingly vivid when calls for accountability emerge from prestigious think-tanks, Congress, and the GAO.As the old cliche goes, "First they laugh at you. Then they ignore you. Then they fight you. Then you win." They're fighting back now.
A New Activist's Tactic Emerges in the Rosenthal Trial
One of the feature stories I'm working on this week is the Ed Rosenthal re-trial on federal marijuana production and distribution charges, which ended yesterday with a split verdict. The trial was a complete waste of time since even if Rosenthal was found guilty, he could not be sentenced to anything more than the one day he had already served, but federal prosecutors were vindictively determined to get their man. Rosenthal's supporters were equally determined not to help the government, and that's where the new tactic emerged: A dozen people in the medical marijuana movement who had been subpoenaed to testify against Rosenthal simply refused. A civil contempt citation is the usual response to such refusals, but as the judge in the case noted, the contempt citation is designed to impel people to testify, not to punish the. When the judge asked if throwing them in jail for the weekend would change their minds, they all said no. Since they convinced the judge they were rock solid in their positions, he decided not to issue the citations and instead dismissed them. He also thanked them for the dignity they displayed in articulating their positions. We should all thank them for taking this courageous stand. Who knows? Maybe we can start a movement. Look for a feature story on the trial and the witness rebellion tomorrow.
Ed Rosenthal Convicted of Following State Law, Helping Sick People
After five years and enough drama and incompetence to appall even seasoned drug war observers like us, the ridiculous show trial of Ed Rosenthal is finally over.SAN FRANCISCO -- The self-proclaimed "guru of ganja" was convicted again Wednesday in federal court of illegally growing hundreds of marijuana plants that he said were meant to treat sick people, which state law allows.Ed Rosenthal was convicted after U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer prohibited the marijuana activist's lawyers from telling the jury he was working for a pot club sanctioned by Oakland government officials. [Star-Telegram]Rosenthal will now serve one day in jail (time served), for the crime of helping the City of Oakland provide legal medicine to registered patients. Forgive me, but I've already said everything there is to say about this:That's right, American taxpayers. Behold the glorious retribution of the principled and incorruptible federal prosecutors who've exhausted untold sums and incalculable man-hours to protect you from a safe and effective medicine. Amidst Iraq, Katrina, Medicare, etc. the federal government was trying to save you from Ed Rosenthal by putting him in jail for one goddamn day. And they're still working on it, knowing as they have all along, that this is the best they can hope for.Today, a new group of jurors is learning that the federal government tricked them into convicting Ed Rosenthal of something that's legal in their state. Like the previous Rosenthal jury before them, they will be robbed of the pride that comes from serving the cause of justice and they may soon stand with him in solidarity as did their predecessors. Even in victory, our government's campaign against medical marijuana stands naked before us, utterly fraudulent and disgraceful as ever before.
Testing Positive for Marijuana Doesn't Mean You're High
For the last time, it doesnât mean that. Unlike other drugs, marijuana remains detectable in urine for weeks after use. This well-known fact continues to elude reporters, resulting in alarming yet totally meaningless headlines such as this:Sheriff: Driver in ATV fatality used marijuanaCARROLLTON â Carroll County Sheriff Dale Williams revealed Monday that Dennis Garrison, 37, of Alliance tested positive for marijuana on the day his 6-year-old nephew was killed while riding an ATV with his uncle. [Times-Reporter]Again and again, we're told about people testing positive for marijuana after accidents with no evidence whatsoever that anyone was high at the time of the accident. In this case, there's even evidence to the contrary:The deputy at the accident scene reported that Dennis showed no obvious signs of being under the influence.Of course, this quite instructive fact is buried near the bottom of the story, while the completely meaningless urine test results are reported in the headline. It is simply bad reporting to link marijuana use to a horrible tragedy without noting that such use could likely have taken place weeks before the accident even occurred.After all, you would never see this:Sheriff: Driver in ATV fatality drank alcohol days before accidentCARROLLTON â Carroll County Sheriff Dale Williams revealed Monday that Dennis Garrison, 37, of Alliance drank beer 5 days before his 6-year-old nephew was killed while riding an ATV with him.The fact here is that a young child was killed. To falsely attribute his death to irrelevant factors is not only shameful and dishonest, but also interferes with the important process of learning from the tragedy. Many of the most passionate appeals against marijuana use emerge from scenarios such as this in which the drug's role is, in fact, dubious or non-existent. Imagine the good that could be accomplished if well-meaning people stopped grasping at straws and finally put marijuana in perspective.
Why Does DEA Teach Meth-Cooking to the Public?
This is just bizarre. I swear, every time I think I'm on the verge of understanding what motivates these people, they find increasingly strange ways to waste our money:Cooking methamphetamine takes only a few hours and requires simple household ingredients, like striker plates from matchbooks, the guts of lithium batteries, drain cleaner."It's pretty gross," said Matt Leland, who works in career services at the University of Northern Colorado and who recently helped cook the drug in a lab. "If someone was truly interested in manufacturing meth, it would not be that hard."The Drug Enforcement Administration invited Leland and other citizens - such as software engineers, a teacher, a pastor and a school principal - to make methamphetamine last week in a lab at Metropolitan State College of Denver. [Denver Post]Ok. We understand that DEA is teaching private citizens how to manufacture meth, but why? Why the hell would they do that?The class was held as part of the DEA's first Citizens Academy in order to give the public a close-up view of what the agency does to keep drugs off the street.That's interesting, and I'm eager to attend, but it doesn't answer the question because cooking meth isnât part of DEA's job at all. Their job is, of course, to stop people from cooking meth, which has now become the precise opposite of what they're doing. The whole thing is mindlessly indulgent when you consider that no one really needs a chemistry lesson to infer that the constant explosions at their crazy neighbor's house might explain why he has so many strange visitors.If you're gonna teach meth-cooking, teach it to immigrant store clerks before you arrest them for naively selling household items to undercover narcs.
Scared Tolerant
i was reading an article just now about the madness of the drug war: property being seized; whole families being murdered in their homes by crazed SWAT teams who come in shooting, often only on a âtipâ from a paid informant; decent, caring palliative physicians sent away for life and losing their livelihoods even if they beat the charges - charges levelled by people who are neither doctors nor patients - the list of atrocities is endless.
Ponder This Graph for a Moment, Please
(graph from WOLA/AIN memo, link below) This graph shows what about $10 billion in US taxpayer dollars has accomplished. Note that while coca production has shifted within the region, the 1992 levels and the 2005 levels are essentially identical. Why is our coca eradication policy not subjected to cost-benefit analysis? Is there anyone who will argue that it is working? If so, I'd like to hear it. To be fair, that $10 billion has accomplished some things. It has engendered massive social conflict in all three countries, it has led to tens of thousands of peasant farmers being arrested as drug traffickers, it has led to thousands of deaths (especially in Colombia, where the eradication policy is part of the US's broader military intervention in that country's festering civil war). Your tax dollars at work. $10 billion is a lot of money. Heck, we could finance the Iraq war for a few weeks with it! Or we could give $100,000 college scholarships to 10,000 students. Or build $100,000 homes for 10,000 families. Or numerous other programs that, unlike the coca eradication program, might actually accomplish something. By the way, I came across the graph above in a memo from the Andean Information Network and the Washington Office on Latin America. That memo was occasioned by the US government's release of coca cultivation estimates for Bolivia. The US government has for months been complaining that Bolivian President Evo Morales' pro-coca policies were going to lead to a boom in production there. Surprise! It didn't. Read the memo for some juicy analysis.
The D.A.
In my blog The Brasch Letter, I mention the District Attorney Paul Burgett . According to the World Newspaper dated Friday, May 25, 2007 D.A. Paul Burgett is resigning due to budget cuts effective Dec. 31, 2007. Local TV at 11:00PM reports DA resigns 1 year before the end of his term .
New Marijuana Research: Stoned People Aren't Stupid
Having noted earlier this week that marijuana users sometimes do rather foolish things, I was pleased to find this today:Experienced marijuana users perform tasks as accurately after having smoked cannabis as they do sober, according to clinical trial data published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. Investigators at New York Stateâs Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University assessed the impact of acute cannabis intoxication on the decision-making abilities of 36 subjects, as assessed by the Iowa Gambling Task performance test. [NORML News]It is an article of faith among those seeking to purge this precious plant from the planet that it shrinks your brain, figuratively if not literally. American tax dollars have paid for announcements that marijuana could cause you to shoot your best friend, run over a toddler on a tricycle, get pregnant at a party, get your hand stuck in your mouth, and on and on.Of course, Joey Stoner needn't consult peer-reviewed research to confirm that he hasnât accidentally killed anyone lately. Still, it's powerfully frustrating that marijuana consumers must defend their own competence against baseless and derogatory characterizations issued by sanctimonious bureaucrats who are, themselves, incompetent in every sense of the word.Having already flunked math, science, history and social studies, it is those who wage endless war on this useful plant that are truly deserving of a scientific performance evaluation.
Goodbye, Dr. Tod
I am sad to report the passing of Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a leading and long-time advocate for medical marijuana, scientific and historical marijuana researcher, physician and drug policy reformer. Tod was a member of DRCNet's advisory board and a long-time friend. Phil has written a memorial to Tod for this week's Chronicle, and I am also posting it here. Click the "read full post" link below, if you don't already see it, or read it online here. Tod Mikuriya addressing a NORML conference
Can You Smell the Meth?
This story might take first prize in a week already marred by frivolous lawsuits and other stupid drug-related news:A deputy U.S. marshal based in Charleston is suing the makers of the popular cold remedy Zicam over his lost sense of smell, which he says has put him in danger of being unknowingly exposed to methamphetamine labs.â¦As a federal law enforcement officer, he said his duties sometimes expose him to methamphetamine labs, which are considered dangerous to be in contact with. [Charleston Daily Observer]Come to think of it, I too am deeply concerned about being exposed to highly-toxic meth labs. Who shall I sue? Perhaps the shortsighted legislators who've created a black market and ensured the continued illicit production of methamphetamine in our communities. And before we get too excited about this cool drug that prevents cops from smelling things, note that Zicam's manufacturer says this is nonsense. They claim that allegations of smelling-loss occur because Zicam is a cold medicine popular among people with horrible pre-existing respiratory problems. Sounds plausible enough, but good luck explaining "correlation is not causation" to a drug warrior.