BLOG
Why Should You or Anyone Care About This Week's U.N. Anti-Drug Meeting?
What's on in Vienna this week? Oh it's the "The Technical Seminar on Drug Addiction Prevention and Treatment: From Research to Practice." What on earth can be the reason for holding a drug treatment meeting at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in Vienna right before the holidays? Alas, I'm not familiar enough with local tradition to know whether it's as customary as a carol service or just another of the Bush Administration's dying groans â a last-ditch effort to spend down its budget or influence UN drug policy. There's plenty of reason to believe that it might be both. The US is the prime instigator of this conference, charmingly titled (in classic UN-speak) "The Technical Seminar on Drug Addiction Prevention and Treatment: From Research to Practice." Don't let the exciting title fool you. What happens here under the auspices of the US, in league with its dear friend Antonio Maria Costa, the Executive Director of UNODC â who is capable of saying very sensible things, but is also on record as having said that "One song, one picture, one quote that makes cocaine look cool can undo millions of pounds' worth of anti-drug education and prevention" â may well set the tone of future international drug policy. Although not directly connected to this conference, we'll know for sure in March. That's when the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), which serves as the UN's governing body on these issues (the UNODC is the CND's administrative wing), will be having its 52nd Annual Meeting here in Vienna. The business at hand will include a Ministerial segment which will sign off on and release a new UN Political Declaration. This follows a year-long review and evaluation of the performance of the policies set forth during the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs, which was the first of its kind. And why should you or anyone care about these meetings or UN Declarations? Because they have genuine implications in the national, international, and local level. The policies set during that first 1998 UNGASS on Drugs came down firmly on the side of the criminalization of illicit drugs and their users. Its goal was "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008." Translation: it rubber stamped the ongoing War on Drugs. In the US, this disastrous, expensive, and ineffective strategy costs taxpayers a cool 12 billion in 2004 alone, and swelled the ranks of non-violent first-time drug offenders in US prisons, many of them low-income or working-class people of color. It has been equally disastrous internationally, from Mexico to Afghanistan. Now the future of international drug policy rests on what this new UNGASS Declaration will say. And at this very moment, out of your sight and away from the news media, there's a pitched battle being waged in the Demand Reduction Working Group â one of many working on that document. Representatives from the meetings' participating nations and from outside community-based organizations are arguing amongst and between themselves about the strategies for reducing illicit drug use. Are the collected nations going to sign on to yet another tour of duty with the War on Drugs? Or will this Declaration finally shift the focus of international drug policy towards a human rights, public health-based approach that will serve rather than merely criminalize and punish drug users? The answer to that question will be particularly important to countries that are in the process of developing their own drug plans. Certainly they should be able to turn to a science and public health-based document. Even 11 years ago, when the first UNGASS Political Declaration and action plans were being written, the science was clear re: the importance of harm reduction and syringe exchange as a mean of preventing HIV among people who use drugs. Even then, there was murmuring about the importance of developing drug policies that intersected with a human rights framework, and of "evidence based" solutions. Times have changed and our thinking has become more sophisticated. Drug treatment has to have a bigger role now; the interplay between drugs and infectious disease is more apparent. The world of drug policy has the opportunity to learn some towering lessons learned from the world of HIV, which long ago learned to include People Living with AIDS in policy discussions. In short, now is the moment for an evidence based, health oriented, human rights based international drug policy. But will the US stand aside and let that happen? Or will countries developing their own drug policies be denied access to evidence-based drug strategies? Will they be forced instead to rely on the existing official drug plans of countries like the US, which is notorious for exporting the same bad drug policy as it reserves for us at home and for acting out in a belligerent, bullying style at most international forums? At meetings held here in Vienna, the US delegation and the US mission are infamous for having apoplectic fits every time the term "harm reduction" is raised. They do so despite the considerable amount of harm reduction work that takes place in the States and its proven effectiveness in curbing HIV; despite the amount of federal funding that supports some of the larger programs around the country; despite the promotion of Safety Counts as an HIV prevention intervention; despite widely available methadone; and despite the great work that has curbed overdose and viral hepatitis, and made possible housing and mental health care for people who use drugs. Still, the State Department and the Office of National Drug Control Policy have happily and successfully ignored these vast accomplishments, and never breathed a word of them to fellow governments at these meetings. The rest of the international community believes that no harm reduction occurs in the States. And for so long as they believe that, they will be less well equipped to counter the resistance of their US counterparts. Which brings us to the issue of why I'm here and why we need to show up to meetings such this "technical seminar" â even in mid-December. Because back in July 2008, over 300 community-based organizations from around the world came together under the auspices of UNODC to prepare our own Political Declaration. And while not perfect, our Declaration is inclusive of people who use drugs, human rights, and harm reduction. http://www.harmreduction.org/article.php?id=782. Still, the work we put into that document will go unheeded and unused if countries like the US (and its allies in the War on Drugs, Russia and Japan) remain resolutely opposed to good policy reform. Someone has to challenge our government or we'll stay stuck in our rut and produce the same tired, regressive UN document no matter who has been elected to the White House. Anyway that's the scene setting for the next couple of days. There could be some cloak and dagger goings on â hints of the meeting to come in March. Or it's quite possible that this drug treatment conference is going to unfurl as, well, a very boring drug treatment conference in which case I'll report back on the hairstyles of the US Government delegation. Manana â¦â¦. Allan Clear is executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition.
The Real Reason Obama Wonât Support Marijuana Legalization
Much has been made of the fact that a marijuana legalization question was ranked #1 when President-elect Obama opened his Change.gov website up to questions from the public. In an open vote, the public spoke loudly and clearly that marijuana reform was the very first issue that the new President should address. For our trouble, weâve been rewarded with the sorriest excuse for an answer that Obamaâs transition team could possibly have provided:Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, DentonA: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.Care to elaborate? You see, we all knew what the answer was. The point was that we all wanted to know why.As frustrating and insulting as it is to witness an important matter brushed casually to the side without explanation, Obamaâs answer actually says a lot. It says that he couldnât think of even one sentence to explain his position. Within the vast framework of totally paranoid anti-pot propaganda, Obama couldnât find a single argument he wanted to associate himself with. Thatâs why he simply said "No. Next question."All of this highlights the well-known fact that Obama agrees that our marijuana laws are deeply flawed. Heâs said so, and has back-pedaled recently for purely political reasons. If Obamaâs transition team tried to give an accurate description of his position on marijuana reform it would look like this:Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, DentonA: President-elect Obama will not use his political capital to advance the legalization of marijuana. While he agrees that arresting adults for marijuana possession is a poor use of law enforcement resources, he believes that the issue remains too controversial to do anything about it.Itâs really that simple, which makes our job quite difficult. Any ideas? Update: Paul Armentano says to keep doing what we've been doing and I agree. The fact that we've provoked dialogue about marijuana reform on the President-elect's website is quite remarkable. The "Open for Questions" feature will reopen for new questions soon and we'll be back to push drug policy reform to the top yet again.On that note, please be advised that the site we're talking about is Change.gov, not Change.org. Change.org has been linked repeatedly in the comment section below, but that is not Obama's site. It fills a similar role and is worth visiting, but that's not where we should focus our energy if we want to directly confront Obama himself. I'm a little concerned that mixing these sites up could dillute our message, so please stay focused on Change.gov. I will post something when the next round of questions is open.
Petititon for Redress of Grievances - Ending the Drug War Today...
Hey - I was wondering about this - would it be possible to file for a redress of grievances caused by the Controlled Substances Act?
Asserting Your Rights Doesn't Mean You're Getting Away With Something
Last week I posted Don't Consent to Police Searches or Answer Incriminating Questions in response to this story in which three men were arrested for marijuana after mindlessly consenting to a police search. A commenter responded with this (emphasis in original):While I respect that you disagree with me, it's my personal opinion that headlines that encourage the skirting of laws are not going to be useful in influencing the citizens and legislators we need to help us change the laws.I agree that teaching people their rights isnât necessarily a direct path to drug policy reform, but I want to address the idea that my headline "encourages[s] the skirting of laws," which I think misses the point. In my work with Flex Your Rights, Iâve frequently encountered a false distinction in which asserting constitutional rights is considered honorable when one has nothing to hide, but is somehow perceived as disingenuous when the assertion of those rights prevents the discovery of criminal evidence. At worst, this argument takes the form of claiming that itâs an abuse of the constitution to refuse a search when one possesses marijuana, for example (thatâs not what the commenter above is saying, but itâs where that line of thinking often leads).All of this is premised on the assumption that police are legally entitled to discover contraband and that youâre "getting away" with a crime if police procedures donât result in your arrest. Technically, however, there is no crime until police obtain probable cause for an arrest, thus any citizen who effectively asserts 4th and 5th Amendment rights is not getting away with anything. They are legally innocent, because evidence of guilt never emerged. Thus, the whole point of understanding and asserting basic constitutional rights when confronted by police is that you are always innocent until proven guilty under the law. Asserting your rights can never be equated to "skirting the law," because these rights are the law.As for the larger question of whether encouraging citizens to assert their rights is a bad message for reformers, I would insist that we have nothing to gain by remaining silent on this issue as our prisons are filled with naïve drug offenders who waived their rights on the side of the road. Flex Your Rights was formed to end that silence and weâve drawn remarkably little public criticism for these efforts, probably because our opposition recognizes that criticizing know-your-rights education comes perilously close to criticizing the constitution itself.
Top Question on Obama website: When will marijuana be legalized?
President Elect Obama is known for reaching out beyond the beltway to take the pulse of the nation.
You Can Help Encourage Obama to Answer Questions About Our Marijuana Policy
President-elect Obama has created a web page to accept policy questions from the public. Users can vote for their favorites and his transition team has pledged to answer the most popular questions. At this moment, Iâm seeing these two in the top ten:"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?""13 states have compassionate use programs for medial Marijuana, yet the federal gov't continues to prosecute sick and dying people. Isn't it time for the federal gov't to step out of the way and let doctors and families decide what is appropriate?"Showing that we care about these issues is vitally important, so please head over to change.gov and vote for these questions. Registration is easy and the questions should be right there on the front page (where theyâll stay if we make sure to vote for them).This is a very cool opportunity to show the strength of our movement by making marijuana reform the #1 issue on Obamaâs website. Please help, and forward the link to your friends and family. Votes close at noon tomorrow, so please donât delay. Thanks!Update: As noted in comments, I failed utterly to comprehend the fact that 12:00 am is midnight (duh!), so this post actually went up 9 minutes before the deadline (our time stamp is an hour ahead for some reason). So I'm an idiot, but the good news is that marijuana legalization ended up being the #1 question. I doubt I'm going to like the answer we get, but at least we've sent a message that marijuana reform is far from a fringe issue in 2008.
DEA Says it Has a Policy of Not Arresting Medical Marijuana Patients
Months ago, Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent a pointed inquiry to the DEA demanding an accounting of the costs and methodology behind the federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries in California. DEAâs response (pdf) recently became available and contains some interesting information, including this:DEA does not investigate or target individual "patients" who use cannabis, but instead the Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) involved in marijuana trafficking.â¦Again, the agency does not target individual users who are engaged in "simple possession" of the drug - even though they too are violating federal law and entitled to no immunity.Itâs not really news that DEA avoids arresting patients, but itâs remarkable to see it in writing. This serves to remind us that DEA in fact bears no legal obligation whatsoever to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have approved medical use. The organizationâs enforcement priorities with regards to medical marijuana are shaped by politics, not a sense of legal obligation, thus patients have been quietly left off the battlefield in recognition of the obscene PR fiasco that would result if they were visibly targeted. Keep this in mind if Obamaâs pledge to end medical marijuana raids is met with resistance from anyone who claims that "federal law must be enforced." DEAâs concession also helps to illuminate the complete incoherence of any argument that state-level marijuana reforms are rendered impotent in the face of incongruous federal drug laws. Such reforms have enormous practical value by dramatically reducing the threat of arrest and conviction under state laws, which have always been the only real threat facing individual users.This acknowledgment should end debate over the importance of state-level marijuana reform.
The Sins of the Father
I have posted three other blogs so far, but I have attempted to write several more.
Southeast Asia Plans to be Drug-Free by 2015
The plan is to get all the kids to stop smoking and drinking, which will result in the elimination of all drug use within 6 years:KUCHING, Dec 10 (Bernama) -- The International Federation of Non-governmental Organisations for the Prevention of Drug and Substance Abuse (IFNGO) has targeted a drug-free Asean by 2015 to counter the widespread abuse of "gateway drugs" among the region's younger generation, who are susceptible to the lure of alcohol and tobacco.Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud said today children and the youth who were addicted to such "gateway drugs" provided the recruitment base for addiction to illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine."Fighting the war against drugs is a formidable and difficult task. I am certain that with concerted effort from all members of the Asean IFNGO network, we can bear down on the problem of gateway drugs and achieve our goal of a drug-free Asean by 2015," he said. [Bernama.com]And I am certain that by 2015 I will have, through deep concentration, mastered the art of levitation and learned to shoot laser beams from my eyes. If I fail, it will be everyoneâs fault but my own.
Donât Consent to Police Searches or Answer Incriminating Questions
Hereâs the perfect illustration of how not to handle an encounter with police:WHEELING -- The Ohio County Sheriff's Department initiated a traffic stop early this morning at the Mount de Chantal Kroger.After getting permission to search the vehicle, deputies found nearly a half a pound of marijuana, a digital scale, baggies and blunt wraps, along with some cash.25-year-old Andre Smith of Wheeling, 20-year-old Jeff McGhee of Wheeling and 18-year-old George Oliver were arrested and taken to the Northern Regional Jail.One of the suspects later admitted to deputies that the marijuana was purchased out-of-state, and he planned to sell it. [WTRF]Of course, thereâs no guarantee that refusing the search will prevent it from happening, but it often will, and if police search you anyway, youâll at least have a shot at getting the evidence thrown out in court. Iâve discussed this exact issue with dozens of defense attorneys and the answer is always the same: if the suspect refused consent, the charges are frequently dropped. I recently met a defense attorney from Kansas who called Flex Your Rights to order a copy of our video. Doing criminal defense in Kansas, this guy deals with traffic stop arrests all day every day. The drug war in Kansas is initiated on the highways and then fought out in court, and this lawyer is the guy you want to know if you get jammed up in a traffic stop. He said he gets very few clients who refused consent, and as a result a lot of his work involves negotiating plea bargains for drug cases. On the rare occasion that he gets someone who actually had the presence of mind to refuse the search, they walk. Heâs a badass and he knows how to annihilate improperly seized evidence.Every case is different and police misconduct is a virus, but the bottom line is that giving consent will always destroy you if thereâs anything in the car. Itâs just that simple. Donât play their game.
Americaâs Meanest Prosecutor Refuses to Resign
When a new president takes office, it is typical for all U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations. Yet, one of our nationâs top prosecutors says sheâs just not going to do that, and it happens to be Mary Beth Buchanan, whose career is defined by outrageous drug war grandstanding, flagrant assaults on free speech, and countless other acts of vindictive and unethical conduct. Radley Balko chronicles Buchananâs disgusting legacy and notes the likelihood that this is all a big ridiculous stunt to leverage herself into future positions of political power. Fine, I say. Obama should still give her the axe. If she subsequently plays the victim card in a run for governor or senate, so be it. Such a campaign would finally provide a long-overdue referendum on all the despicable crap sheâs done.
Elderly People Who Grow Pot in Albania
Apparently, Albania is Europeâs 2nd ranked marijuana producer, due in small part to the desperation of elderly Albanians who grow pot because they canât work and their children have moved away and they canât afford their prescriptions. So, as you might guess, the Albanian government is waging total war on the elderly, which is ridiculously easy under Albaniaâs crazy marijuana laws. The result is a bunch of impoverished old ladies going into hiding, while the real drug traffickers remain the only people in Albania who make any money.Meanwhile, with Amsterdam bowing to international pressure and closing some of its coffeeshops, perhaps the Albanian government should consider turning this mindless marijuana policy on its head and raking in those mischievous "drug tourism" dollars nobody seems to want. Seriously, you live in Albania. You canât afford a U.S.-style drug war, so donât try.
Can Both Sides of the Drug War Debate be Completely Wrong?
Drug policy academic Mark Kleiman is back with another simultaneous assault on both the drug czar and drug policy reform. I enjoyed Pete Guitherâs response.
More than just a swerve over the line.
This really happened to me, and it just goes to show yet another invasion of rights, and harrassment the police and government can throw at
The Discovery of 2,700-Year-Old Marijuana is Pretty Cool
I havenât yet discussed last weekâs news that a major head stash of marijuana was found in the tomb of an ancient Chinese shaman. Itâs significant because the stuff was clearly well grown, with an apparently decent THC content. My analysis: awesome.Unfortunately, researchers couldnât get the seeds to germinate, which sucks for breeders because the âTomb Raiderâ strain wouldâve taken Amsterdam by storm. Of course, it wouldâve been even cooler if it had been seedless to begin with, proving that even cavemen could grow better pot than the nauseating schwaggy sawdust being sold on the streets of D.C. and New York as we speak. Regardless, this is another reminder that the cannabis plant has been with us from the beginning. The logical assumption is that its properties are intended to be useful to mankind, especially after those properties are revealed to be unique and widely regarded as beneficial by the population. Trying to eradicate it is as stupid as it is impossible. It was here 3,000 years ago, and it will still be here 3,000 years in the future. Unless, of course, the drug war has completely destroyed the earth by then.
Are Cocaine Users Killing the Rainforest?
The argument that cocaine users are destroying the environment is rapidly leading its proponents into a spiraling abyss of irony and incoherence: If you're into charlie, snow, or a few lines of snort, Colombia's Vice President Francisco Santos Calderón has a message for you: your cocaine use is a "predator of the rain forest" and a serious threat to human life.â¦"Cocaine use requires a disposable income and during the week many users drive hybrid cars and recycle. Then, on the weekend, he or she destroys everything they believe in," Calderón said. [Huffington Post]Wait, what!? Did he just say that cocaine users are successful and well-educated? Shall police start profiling Prius drivers for drug searches? I remember the good old days when cocaine was supposed to make you steal things and kill people. I canât even begin to imagine why youâd argue that cocaine is part of a healthy lifestyle if your goal is to make people stop doing it. If all this is true, then we can conclude rather easily that the problem with cocaine is how itâs produced and sold (which can be changed) rather than what happens when people use it (which cannot). The two options are 1) illicit cocaine cultivation in the rainforest, or 2) regulated cultivation somewhere else. There is no third option in which everyone agrees not to do coke. If you wait for that to happen while the rainforests burn, youâre a bigger part of the problem than the party people who drive Priuses.
Federal 9th Circuit Appeal - Legal help required! Challenge of Constitutionality based on property right infringements/Oppressive Class war-fare
Briefly - I was arrested in Feb. 2007 for MDMA distribution along with 4 co-defendants (including my supplier, my investor, and 2 kids I hadn't ever met.)
Drug Reform Does Not Only Mean Controlled Substances
I want to provide some extra detail and explanation about my last blog entry now. The previous one consisted almost entirely of a letter I wrote to our future president, Mr.
D.C. Pays Dearly After Letting a Medical Marijuana Patient Die in Jail
As a toddler, Jonathan Magbie was struck by a drunk driver. He survived for 23 years, paralyzed from the neck down, until one day he was arrested for using medical marijuana to treat his pain. Magbie died in jail four days later.This week, Magbieâs family settled a wrongful death suit, bringing this unfathomable tragedy back into the spotlight:Attorneys for his mother, Mary R. Scott, declined to provide details of the financial settlement, which she reached with the city, private contractors and the insurance company that covered doctors at the hospital. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Scott, called the settlement "substantial" in a news release.â¦Magbie's mother was furious that the judge did not give her son probation, the typical punishment for first-time offenders. Magbie, paralyzed since being hit by a drunk driver at age 4, had no criminal record. Retchin told a judicial commission that she sentenced Magbie to jail because he said he would continue to smoke marijuana to alleviate his pain. [Washington Post]He was literally singled out for using medical marijuana and being honest about the fact that his condition required continued use. Anyone still struggling to understand the persecution of patients in the war on medical marijuana need look no further than this. And, as Dan Bernath at MPP points out, voters in Washington, D.C. overwhelmingly passed a law back in 1998 to protect patients like Jonathan from arrest. If Congressional drug warriors hadnât continually blocked the implementation of D.C.âs medical marijuana law, Magbie would probably never have been arrested, never died in jail, and D.C. taxpayers wouldnât have to foot the bill for the mindblowing callousness and incompetence that took his life.
Not Arresting Marijuana Users is Too Confusing For Police
Voters in Massachusetts have overwhelmingly voted to stop small-time marijuana arrests, but the law-enforcement community doesnât understand what that means:BOSTON - Amid confusion among police and prosecutors, a voter-approved law to decriminalize the possession of marijuana goes into effect on Jan. 2, according to a spokeswoman for the state attorney general.â¦Agawam Police Chief Robert D. Campbell said there is a tremendous amount of confusion about the law.â¦"Somebody has to come up with a mechanism," the chief said.Geline W. Williams, executive director of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said there are some "very, very significant" problems with putting the law into effect. [The Republican]Fortunately, an apparent super-genius named Terence J. Franklin has come up with a theory:Amherst Town Meeting member Terence J. Franklin, who supports Question 2, said the new law should be easy to put in place."Why not just leave people alone?" Franklin added. "What's the big deal? That will solve all the worries."Now thatâs what Iâm talking about. Maybe we should let this guy write the ballot language from now on. Seriously though, itâs understandable that police are entering into some new territory here. Still, thereâs no question what the voters have in mind. Most people donât think possessing marijuana should get you arrested and charged with a crime. There may be some details to iron out, but itâs really pretty silly to act like this is gonna turn the criminal justice system upside down. To even argue that is basically to admit that marijuana enforcement rules your world. Opponents of Question 2 campaigned tirelessly to convince voters that marijuana enforcement was a low priority and that penalties were lenient. If there was even a shred of truth to any of that, then implementing decrim should be simple.