BLOG
WARNING: Recent Claims That the Drug War is Over Are False
Our new drug czar really has a way with words. He says things you never thought you'd hear from a drug czar. Unfortunately, like his predecessors, he's completely full of BS:THE United States has "ended its war on drugs" and is now moving its focus to prevention and treatment, the US drugs chief has told top Irish drug officials.â¦"Weâve talked about a âwar on drugsâ for 40 years, since President Nixon. I ended the war," said Mr Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). [Irish Examiner]Except, he absolutely did no such thing. Their guns are still loaded. Their rubber stamps are all inked up and ready to authorize aggressive raids on non-violent suspects. They'll put several hundred thousand people in handcuffs this year just for smoking marijuana. Just watch this and tell me what the guys in the battle suits are doing if not waging war on people.Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it when the drug czar talks about moving beyond the "war" metaphor and approaching drug policy from a public health perspective. It's a step in the right direction, even if it's shockingly disingenuous under the current terms of engagement. I just wonder if they actually think anyone's buying any of this. It's a war, you numbskull. You can't fight a bloody war against millions of people on your own soil and just pretend it's not happening. If you really believe we don't need this war, then stop trying to sugarcoat it and end this dreadful escapade once and for all.
Manufacturing consent and the drug war
I have analysed a recent debate between Aaron Smith and Calvina Fay for media bias. The post can be found here: http://www.glenstark.net/2010/05/manufacturing-consent-and-the-drug-war
Vote for Legalization on Republican Online Forum
The new trend of holding online votes for policy ideas continues to thrive, and this time it's the republicans who want to hear from us:America deserves a Congress that respects the priorities of the people. Unfortunately, Washington hasn't been listening. Let's change that. America Speaking Out is your opportunity to change the way Congress works by proposing ideas for a new policy agenda. Republicans have offered solutions, and we have our principles, but this is a new venue for us to listen to you. So Speak Out.You can vote for ideas you like or create your own, and as you might guess, ideas like legalizing marijuana are getting a lot of support. Please take a few minutes to register and use your up and down votes to help push our issue to the top. A strong showing for legalization in a right-wing forum will send a powerful message that the drug war is being rejected by Americans across the political spectrum.
More Proof That Marijuana Doesn't Make You Go Crazy
Paul Armentano at NORML breaks down the latest research. It really shouldnât be necessary to keep going over this, but as Paul lamentsâ¦The mainstream media loves to spill ink hyping the allegation that marijuana causes mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. In fact, it was in March when international media outlets declared that cannabis use âdoubledâ oneâs risk of developing the disease. Yet when research appears in scientific journals rebuking just this sort of âreefer madness,â it generally goes unreported.Honestly, I don't think the problem is necessarily that the press is fundamentally hostile to marijuana. But there exists a long and tragic history of the media courting readership with scare stories about drugs. Alarming accounts of the potential dangers of anything a lot of people put into their body are irresistible to the press regardless of accuracy or context, and that's just the way it is.Maybe the problem is that the media hasn't been trained to sell the reverse version of the story. Given that marijuana is a topic of considerable public interest, it really shouldnât that hard to market a story about the fact that it doesn't appear to cause schizophrenia. Just simplify the headline. Instead of "New Study Casts Doubt on Marijuana-Schizophrenia Link," how about, "New Study Suggests Marijuana is Safer Than We Thought." Yes, I think that headline would do well on the internet.Of course, we really shouldnât have to convince the press that reality is marketable in order to get it reported.
Obama's Drug War Hypocrisy
Gene Healy has a sharp piece in the Washington Examiner:The president lacks the moral authority to lock people up for behavior he engaged in as a young man. Still, political realities being what they are, we can't expect him to declare a total cease-fire in the drug war. To his credit, Obama has at least reversed the Bush policy of prosecuting medical marijuana cases in states where it's legal.But Obama may soon be presented with an unwelcome test of character. In November, Californians will likely approve a ballot initiative legalizing recreational pot use. Will Obama ignore the people's will and continue to prosecute marijuana users in our largest state?Well, not if he knows what's good for him. I assure you, the new administration's more tolerant approach to medical marijuana didn't happen because Obama is particularly concerned about the plight of seriously ill patients caught in the drug war's indiscriminate crossfire. It happened because it's no longer politically viable to overturn the will of voters in the war on marijuana. Sure, we'll continue to hear the drug czar whining from time to time about the perils of legalization, but if Californians decide to go through with it, don't expect a federal occupation in the streets of Oaksterdam. Obama's base is decidedly supportive of marijuana reform, thus he has nothing to gain and a considerable hassle to endure should he be foolish enough to stand between Californians and their cannabis. Of course, while I highly doubt Obama will interfere in any meaningful way with the legalization effort in California, I am curious as all hell what he'll say about it if asked. Thus far we've heard the President address marijuana policy in as few words as humanly possible, even when doing so made him look ridiculous. He won't speak one word about any of this unless he's forced to, and it's only a matter of time until that happens once again. Maybe you should be practicing, Mr. President, because another one sentence explanation isn't going to cut it next time around.
Cops Steal Money From 9-Year-Old Girl in Crazy Marijuana Raid
Lately, it seems as though there's a new drug raid outrage being reported almost anytime I check my email. It just never stops, and yet the drug soldiers responsible for it all continue to find new ways of shocking our conscience:In the wake of a series of raids last week targeting a Tacoma medical-marijuana dispensary, a Kitsap County mother is claiming that drug cops mistreated her son, took money from her daughter, and trashed her house. … And as the detectives looked for cash to prove that the dispensary was illegally profiting from pot sales, Casey says, they confiscated $80 that her 9-year-old daughter had received from her family for a straight-A report card. Where did they find it? In the girl's Mickey Mouse wallet, according to Casey. She also claims that the cops dumped out all her silverware, busted a hole in the wall, and broke appliances. [Seattle Weekly] I guess stealing a child's money is better than shooting dogs right in front of them, but it's still utterly disgusting and horrible behavior that no one should be experiencing at the hands of public servants. This is exactly the sort of thing police are supposed to prevent from happening to people and yet, thanks to the drug war, they are actually carrying out these atrocities and calling it a good day's work. To top it all off, officers also seized 200 petition signatures for a ballot campaign to legalize marijuana in Washington State. So in addition to ransacking private homes and robbing children, they're interfering with democratic efforts to stop them from terrorizing more families in the future. But don't worry, folks. I'm sure it's all just a big misunderstanding and nothing like this will ever happen again.
Good Idea, Bad Idea
In today's world, where thoughts are transmitted around the globe in milliseconds and people with no education or understanding of human reality are heard loud and clear in discussion forums for
Police Cut Down 400 Pot Plants, Then Realize it's Not Marijuana
Further proof that police aren't exactly experts on botany:I suppose it's ok to laugh at this one, since nobody got shot. On the other hand, it's probably just a matter of time before a similar mistake results in someone getting a gun shoved in their face. Oh wait, it's already happened.
unwarranted entry by fire dept must stop,BC courts
UP IN SMOKE read the headline in the Vancouver Province Newspaper today,Friday,May 21,2010.Court strikes down program that allowed fire officials to enter homes without warrants to shut down grow ops,
Alaskan Price Support Program For Alcohol Successful in "Dry" and "Damp" Communities
"A fifth of hard liquor, which equals one fifth of a gallon, normally costs $12 but can command as much as $300 depending on the accessibility of booze in any given village."
Drug Task Force Seizes signed WA I-1068 petitions
Drug Task Force Seizes signed WA I-1068 petitions reported at http://sensiblewashington.org/uncategorized/drug-task-force-seizes-signed-i-1068-petitions/
Forcing People into Treatment for Marijuana Doesn't Prove That It's Addictive
Pete Guither points out the drug czar's mischievous use of the word "probably." The greater use of today's high potency marijuana has probably been a critical factor in the unprecedented surge among those seeking treatment for marijuana⦠[ofsubstance.gov]Unless it isn't. Right there on the same page, you'll find the drug czar insisting that we need police to help people get treatment:The majority of people in drug treatment programs today are there because of a law enforcement interventionIn other words, marijuana users aren't usually in treatment because their pot was so good it destroyed their life. They're there because they got caught by the cops, and according to the law, possession of marijuana is sufficient evidence for a determination that you're addicted to it. The biggest risk associated with high potency marijuana might be that police are more likely to smell it.
Tim Pawlenty is a Drug War Idiot
But don't take my word for it, just look what he did:Despite near-unanimous support, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has vetoed a bill preventing prosecutors from using bong water to calculate the weight of controlled substances in drug prosecutions â and a lawmaker who helped pass the legislation accused the governor of doing so for political reasons.The bill was the result of a 4-3 Minnesota Supreme Court decision last year that allowed Rice County prosecutors to charge Sara Ruth Peck, 47, of Faribault, with first-degree drug possession â a charge often reserved for drug dealers â after the water in a glass pipe tested positive for traces of methamphetamine.If Pawlenty is condoning this nonsense for political reasons, he needs to go on the internet or something. This guy is a rumored republican presidential candidate for 2012, but he apparently missed the memo that mind-blowing acts of reefer madness aren't exactly selling out stadiums these days.Perhaps this bong controversy is too nuanced to screw him, but his veto of a medical marijuana bill that would only have protected dying patients is another story. Note to Gary Johnson: if you find yourself in a debate with Tim Pawlenty, ask him why he wants to arrest terminal AIDS patients for using pot brownies to stimulate their appetite. And while you're at it, ask him if he thinks Michael Phelps should have been charged as a drug trafficker for the weight of the water in that bong he smoked.
Mexican Cartels V.S United States Military???
Many Americans believe that the war on drugs on Mexico is their problems not oursited States is involved way more than they think they are.
Accurate Media Coverage Upsets Drug Czar
Last week, the Associate Press ran one of the best pieces on U.S. drug policy I've ever seen, and it began like this:MEXICO CITY (AP) â After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread. Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked."In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.So now the drug czar is annoyed at AP for, I guess, quoting him and accurately reporting on his anti-drug budget:The budget piece is fair to focus on, but we told AP that we objected to the article's mischaracterization of current policy. A fairer and more nuanced observation would have been: This does look/sound a lot different, but the budget scenario hasn't changed overnight (it never does, in any realm of government) and it will take some time to test the Administration's commitment to the new approach. [ofsubstance.gov]Really? Because the drug czar did kinda admit that the strategy sucks. It's not a "mischaracterization" when someone prints the words coming out of your mouth. It's not like Ethan Nadelmann said that and they falsely attributed it to you. Guess what guys: until you stop spending more than half your budget on the exact activities that even you agree have failed, you're going to get called out early and often.If the drug czar wants us to understand why his budget can't change overnight, then he'll need to explain what the hell that means. Is he talking about the massive drug war industry that depends on our tax dollars to buy fancy technology that's useless without prohibition? Is he wondering what the dog-slaughtering SWAT soldiers in Missouri are supposed to wear without federal subsidies for their bullet-proof bodysuits? If that's the problem, then let's talk about it.In the meantime, Kerlikowske shouldn't be complaining that AP's coverage isn't "nuanced" enough for him. He's the one who talked to them and said things that didnât make sense.
Top Drug Warrior Mark Souder Resigns from Congress After Affair with Staffer
Ending Souder's reign of terror has been a high priority for the reform movement for many years, but we never saw this coming:Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican known for his support of traditional family values, announced Tuesday that he will leave office, ending a tense week in which a key staffer confronted him with rumors about his alleged extramarital affair with a part-time aide.â¦He said he was "ashamed" that he had "sinned against God, my wife and my family by having a mutual relationship with a part-time member of my staff." But he blamed the "poisonous environment of Washington" for his decision to resign, effective Friday. [Washington Post]Following the departure of Bush's drug czar John Walters, Souder unquestionably remained the reform movement's most dangerous and fanatical opponent. For many years, he chaired the House Subcommittee responsible for federal drug policy, doing everything in his power to continue our reckless death march into drug war oblivion. No one has done more to infect the drug policy debate in with mindless hysteria, while opposing and obstructing reform at every opportunity. Souder is best known as author of the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty that has denied financial aid for college to more than 200,000 students with drug convictions. In so doing, he galvanized student activism for drug policy reform, leading to the formation of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, which eventually played a significant role in scaling back the law itself. Yet today, we learned that the man who held others to such high standards was himself capable of being a bit naughty. As glad as we are to see him go, I think Souder's years of drug war demagoguery will come to be remembered as an important catalyst for the growing national recognition that it's time to move our drug policy in a new direction. Souder just took everything way too far, and in the process, he gave many of us a reason to stand up and fight back. We've accomplished a great deal despite Mark Souder, and I can't wait to see what we can do without him.
Dr. Lester Grinspoon has endorsed WA I-1068
Dr. Lester Grinspoon has endorsed WA I-1068. Sensible Washington has announced the endorsement of WA I-1068 by Dr. Lester Grinspoon (http://sensiblewashington.org/endorsements/).
Elena Kagan and the Crack/Powder Sentencing Disparity
Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once served as deputy director of President Clinton's Domestic Policy Council, where she served on a working group that argued for delaying critically important sentencing reforms:The memosâ¦show that Kagan served on a government working group that decided to dial back the Clinton administrationâs efforts to decrease the disparity in sentencing between crimes involving crack and those involving powdered cocaine. A draft report from the group painted the decision as a grudging but realistic one based on a stalemate in Congress over the issue. "Our more nuanced message will not sell as well as the 'tough on crime' opposition message in an age of sound bites," the report read. [Politico]What an ugly quote and a rare glimpse inside the twisted thought processes that have allowed our worst mistakes to endure for so many shameful years. It's just sickening to think that some of the drug war's most racist policies might have been fixed more than a decade ago if spineless advisors like Kagan hadn't put politics ahead of equal justice.In purely political terms, they might have been right â sentencing reform took several more years to gain sufficient momentum â but do we want this sort of callous and calculating partisan operative deciding who is and is not protected under the U.S. Constitution?Update: I edited the post to make it clear that Kagan was part of a group which made this recommendation, and wasn't solely responsible for it herself. A wise colleague pointed out to me that it's possible she didn't even agree with the position of the group. In the context of the Politico story, it's clear she made a lot of politically motivated decisions at that time, but I could be off-base in blaming her personally for recommending this position on the sentencing disparity.
Three Ways to End the Drug War Or...
Three Groups I want to start on Facebook but not sure yet:
Drug Czar Admits Failure, Pledges to Continue It
Tell me something I don't know:MEXICO CITY (AP) â After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked."In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."Yes. Yes! Did I just hear a drug czar basically admit that the drug war completely sucks? Well then, what are you going to do about it?Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.Really? Why? This isn't hard, dude. You just stop paying everybody to f@#king destroy everything. I mean, it's interesting that he admits their rhetoric is nonsense, but that was already super obvious. We're in the middle of an economic crisis, and here's the drug czar telling us we can't stop funding programs that even he himself admits are a complete waste. What the hell is going on here?It's easy to call the Obama Administration out on their hypocrisy, and we should. But it's also worth contemplating why they're doing such a miserable job of defending their own drug strategy. I think the difference between Kerlikowske and his predecessor is that John Walters actually bought into his own hype. His ego won't let him understand the destruction he oversaw. I don't believe Kerlikowske is even loyal to the war in the first place. I think he's just trying to do his job while pissing off as few people as possible. He aims to placate the public by acknowledging the obvious, while simultaneously ensuring that the drug war industrial complex is still able to pay its bills. So which is worse, a drug czar who won't learn from his mistakes, or one who continues to support policies he knows are wrong?