Thursday, June 18, 2009

This Weiner's arguments are flaccid Former White House Spokesman Robert Weiner wrote a letter to the New York Times... and then released a press release stating that he had done so: Drug Legalization Would Be 'Catastrophe', Says Ex-White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner; Drugs Have Not 'Won The War'; Op-ed Letter in New York Times Today Former White House Drug Policy Spokesman Robert Weiner is attacking the arguments of the most recent drug legalization advocates: "They invite a catastrophe of greater drug use, car crashes, school and work dropouts, hospital emergency room cases, and crime including domestic violence and date rape." Really? And you know this... how? How about if I said "Allowing people with the last name 'Weiner' to walk free in this country invites a catastrophe of child pornography, global thermonuclear war, hangnails, and disruptions in the space-time continuum." Sure, I can say that, but it's meaningless and completely lacking in any factual support, as is his statement. He continues: "Legalization would be a catastrophe. (Some) use the analogy of legal alcohol. But we have an estimated 15 million alcoholics in this country and 5 million drug addicts; do we want the 5 to become 15? Again, where does this come from? Is there some magical property that any legal substance will automatically result in the same number of abusers? Are there 15 million tobacco addicts? 15 million caffeine addicts? Were there 15 million salvia addicts when it was legal in all the states? And are they all unique? This is absurd. Each drug is different and has different results. There's absolutely no evidence that there would be any more addicts to currently illegal drugs when they become legal. "Parents, police and the American people know that taking away the incentive of the normative power of the law would increase drug use and related car crashes, school dropouts and work absences. That is why the law has remained in place. "Hospital emergency rooms would be flooded, and crime would return to the crisis levels of the 1970s and '80s, when drug use was at its highest. Domestic violence and date rape would be substantially higher. The majority of arrestees in 10 major American cities recently tested positive for illegal drugs, a remarkable indicator of a link between drugs and crime." Ah, start with false conjecture after false conjecture and then, yes, you push the blatant dishonesty. Implying a causal link, not just a correlation. Wow! A lot of stroking, Mr. Weiner, but you still have nothing measurable. 7:21:54 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Odds and Ends Some good stuff that may have slipped through the cracks... An embarrassing interview with the drug czar -- Scott Morgan Rolling Stone's June issue takes an in-depth look at the evolving political climate surrounding drug policy (a portion is available online), including a deliciously embarrassing visit with drug czar Gil Kerlikowske. Remember Kerlikowske's recent statement about not calling it a "war on drugs" anymore? Well, guess what he's got in his office: ...despite this sudden outbreak of sanity, rumors of the drug war's death are greatly exaggerated. Visitors to the drug czar's office in Washington -- formally known as the Office of National Drug Control Policy -- are greeted by the visage of Uncle Sam on a poster declaring, WE ARE AT WAR. ARE YOU DOING ALL YOU CAN? You really couldn't ask for a better exhibit in the total incoherence and rank dishonesty of the drug czar's claim that our drug policy isn't a war. I don't blame him for trying and it's certainly encouraging that we've reached a point at which the drug war is so controversial that they're trying to change its name. But how could they possibly forget to take down the damn sign? I mean, really, did they forget that Rolling Stone was stopping by? This really shows the total incoherence and dysfunction that is our federal drug policy. Take that, Governor. Rhode Island passed a bill to allow a small number of "compassion centers" -- medical marijuana dispensaries -- to give patients a legal means of purchasing their medicine. Governor Carcieri vetoed the bill. So the Senate voted to override the veto 35-3, and the House went 67-0. That's power. Rhode Island gets its dispensaries, and Carcieri looks weak for opposing them. Radley Balko is interviewed at The Atlantic on law and order, non-knock raids, etc. Part 1 -- Part 2 -- Part 3. (they're very short - could easily have been done in one). Credit where credit is due. I have often taken the AP to task for their articles on marijuana and drug policy, but this one, which has been widely circulated in papers all across the country, is remarkably good! 11:35:14 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []