|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, September 6, 2003 |
More Fun with Numbers...
A new report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (released yesterday) is being reported in the news today: New U.S. survey finds millions of new drug abusers (The Washington Times touts: "22 million Americans are addicts"),
This study involved extensive interviews with individuals who were paid $30 each for their time. The report showed that there are 22 million substance abusers in the United States.
Now the SAMHSA study also reported that "Over 94 percent of people with substance use disorders who did not receive treatment did not believe they needed treatment."
Naturally, our drug czar immediately jumped in to promote his agenda:
"A denial gap of over 94 percent is intolerable," said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "People need to understand the addictive nature of drugs and not presume that they are all right when everyone around them knows better."
Now, first of all, over 2/3 of that 94% were categorized in the study for alcohol abuse. Second, some of the definitions that the government uses for substance abuse border are ridiculous. For example, someone having a problem with their marijuana use is classified as a substance abuser, even if that problem is the fact that the drug is illegal. (Here's a great idea -- we could reduce levels of substance abuse by legalizing marijuana!)
Naturally, the drug czar sees a "94% denial gap." He wants to convince people that all use of certain arbitrarily determined drugs is harmful. However, a 94% denial gap tells me that there's a problem with the data. Certainly, there are some people who need treatment for alcohol or other drugs who aren't getting it. We need to focus on those. Not arbitrarily create inflated numbers through poor methodologies and junk science in government studies.
5:15:17 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, September 5, 2003 |
Propaganda and Terrorism: Brought to you by the DEA
The Drug Enforcement Agency has a museum (check out the bizarre opening flash sequence!) The entire concept is an outrageous glorification of DEA propaganda and abuse.
Their recent exhibit is the most disturbing: "Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists and You."
Now there are a lot of people who have taken advantage of all those who died in 9/11, and used the tragedy for their own self-promotion, but none are as crass and insulting as the DEA.
The exhibit has been running for some time at the main DEA museum location and at their online version (this photo of the main exhibit has been unavailable at their site recently). The exhibit is now moving to The Science Place in Dallas, Texas, where it opens on Tuesday (the exhibit was going to open next Thursday -- that's right, on September 11 -- but they decided to start it a couple of days early).
In one of the descriptions of the exhibit in Dallas, you realize just how far the DEA has gone in their exhibit:
"We worked closely with the New York Police Department and the Port Authority to go to Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills landfill for artifacts," Mr. Fearns said. "That's where the exhibit starts, with this reconstruction of elements from New York and the Pentagon and photos from Pennsylvania."
That's right. Children's toys and twisted I-beams. Death and destruction to glorify the DEA.
If you're in the Dallas area, consider joining one of the protests against this exhibit at The Science Place (Saturday, September 13 and Saturday, September 20, 11am to 3pm at Fair Park at The Science Place).
According to Craig Johnson, a student at UTD and leader of Students For a Sensible Drug Policy [University of Texas at Dallas chapter], the demonstrators are a group of concerned citizens who believe that "it is shocking for the DEA to exploit Americans' grief and anger over the tragic events of 9/11."
"I am appalled that The Science Place is lending its prestige and spending its funds on an exhibit by the Drug Enforcement Administration," says Suzanne Wills of Dallas, a member of the Drug Policy Form of Texas, another of the groups represented. "In all its policies the DEA is the antithesis of science. The most glaring, inhumane, and disingenuous example is its refusal to allow researchers a supply of cannabis for medical trials approved by the Food and Drug Administration."
Johnson added "while this crude exhibit remains in Dallas, it is our intention to counteract it with a campaign to show the public what little respect the DEA has for actual science, and the unintended but disastrous consequences of drug prohibition. Because of our government and the DEA huge profits go to the underworld, kids sell drugs to kids, diseases are spread by non-sterile syringes, and burglaries for money to buy drugs are epidemic."
Note: A former DEA agent (Celerino Castillo) will be speaking out against the DEA at the September 20th protest.
OK, let's look at the title of that exhibit again:
"Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists and You."
"Target America." Yep, that's exactly what the DEA has been doing for decades -- destroying lives, filling prisons, eviscerating rights, stifling research, and spreading lies.
"Traffickers, Terrorists and You." Mostly "You." Remember that traffickers profit because of the war on drugs. And to the extend that terrorists benefit from drug profits it is also because of the profitability caused by the war on drugs. So that leaves... The DEA is targeting You.
And you're paying for it.
This week's newsletter readings (both mention the protests in Dallas):
This just in...
8:16:14 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, September 4, 2003 |
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
- Franklin P. Adams (1931)
Every friend of freedom . . .
must be as revolted as I am
by the prospect of turning the U.S. into an armed camp,
by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users
and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.
- Milton Friedman
5:33:17 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 3, 2003 |
Catching up
A number of things came up recently that slipped through the cracks on this blog as I reported on other issues, and I thought I'd do some catching up with our Drug Czar...
 Interesting reading: "John P. Walters Marijuana Rhetoric Could Prove Bush Re-election Liability" at BBS News.
A dangerous trend: Nine states have passed zero tolerance laws regarding drug use and driving. While I agree that driving while impaired is wrong and should be punished, these laws involve drug tests which do not test impairment, but rather whether there are residual traces of the drug in your system (like if you smoked a joint a couple of days ago). In some cases, a positive test could mean a 20-year sentence. Naturally John Walters is calling for nation-wide implementation of these laws. This story describes the issues involved.
"Bush team's prohibition drug policy is a bust" Bruce Alexander Knight writes this excellent OpEd for the Oregonian, which includes:
Unfortunately the drug czar has not yet learned the central lesson that prohibition doesn't work.
Drug Czar on Continuing Campaign of Lies
I noticed a blitz last week of press releases picked up by Yahoo News, targeting cities around the country with new statistics regarding drug abuse and emergency room visits. (Yahoo did identify them as press releases. However they were published without question.)
In every one of these articles you'll find the following:
"This report proves that marijuana is more harmful than many people think," said White House Director of National Drug Control Policy John Walters. "The rising levels of marijuana potency that we've seen over the last several years correspond with dramatic increases in people seeking emergency medical care for marijuana-related incidents
Now the source of this startling information is DAWN: Drug Abuse Warning Network, which states that a main purpose for providing statistics is to assist the DEA and the ONDCP in their efforts, and also admits (pdf) that there have been serious questions raised about the methodology used.
The complexities and limitations of the system, coupled with lack of detailed historical documentation, lead to inevitable misinterpretation of DAWN data...There was little public documentation of DAWN's data quality, and a few published studies raised concerns that measurement error in DAWN was substantial and systemic...Because DAWN monitors episodes, not individuals, data are misinterpreted if analysts view them as prevalence measures...DAWN data were often assumed to represent heavy or chronic drug users, although the validity of that assumption has never been assessed.
So what does DAWN do? They pick hospitals in major cities and have someone there check the charts for mentions of drug abuse connected with emergency room visits (including toxicology tests and patient interviews). For their purposes, the term "Drug Abuse" includes any use of an illegal drug for recreational purposes. Up to 4 drugs can be "mentioned" per patient visit. And it doesn't matter if the drug mentioned actually had any connection to the reason for the visit. According to DAWN:
For example, if records for a given patient "mentioned" marijuana, this does not mean that marijuana was the only drug involved in the ED [Emergency Department] visit or that the marijuana caused the ED visit.
Now the final DAWN report showed that there were 47 marijuana "mentions" per 100,000 population. This doesn't even mean 47 people per 100,000. It could be the same guy 47 times. And 3/4 of those cases involved more than one drug.
So let's review Walters' statement again:
"This report proves that marijuana is more harmful than many people think," said White House Director of National Drug Control Policy John Walters. "The rising levels of marijuana potency that we've seen over the last several years correspond with dramatic increases in people seeking emergency medical care for marijuana-related incidents.
What a load of crap.
10:20:16 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 2, 2003 |
A Wake-up Call for Local Communities
Walter in Denver has the the details on a $1 billion lawsuit against Bethlehem, PA on behalf of John Hirko, Jr., a 21-year-old man who was shot 11 times in the back by police in a drug raid that also burned down his house.
Yes, that's $1 billion with a B.
John Hirko is one of the unfortunates profiled on my Drug War Victims page, and finally a wrongful death suit is coming forward. However the suit turns out, it may serve as an important wake-up call that there are consequences to the unconscionable way we fight this failed war.
Time and time again, the families of drug war victims watch while the police are cleared with the words "justifiable shooting." And really, in many cases that's right. It's often not the fault of the police that they've been put into this military-style confrontation that so often results in collateral damage.
Unfortunately, it may take actions like this to make communities wake up and realize that drug task forces are a liability. In this case, a huge taxpayer liability. The family of Donald P. Scott received a settlement of $5 million from county and feds in a fatal botched raid in Malibu, where the authorities were hoping to seize his property. Denver paid off $400,000 for killing Ismael Mena.
Meanwhile, the lawyers for the Tulia defendants are filing a civil rights lawsuit against a variety of county entities, and Swisher County (realizing that they're in enough trouble) has refused to help the prosecutor in that case in the defense of misconduct charges.
The taxpayers are already dumping tons of money down the drain in the war on drugs, but the government has been largely successful in hoodwinking the public as to their contribution. Now that local budgets may be decimated by lawsuits, people may start to wake up. In fact, every local council that cooperates with a federal drugs task force should be made aware of this.
If your city or county is involved, or considering involvement with, a military-style drugs task force, stop by their next council meeting and ask how they plan to come up with a billion dollars if they're sued. Ask them if they've come up with an acceptable number of innocent casualties to go along with their decision to use no-knock raids for pot. And then let me know how they react.
8:33:29 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, September 1, 2003 |
Privacy, your home, and legal pot in Alaska
One of the interesting things that happened while I was gone this weekend is the fact that the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled on Friday in favor of the legal use of marijuana in certain circumstances.
"With regard to possession of marijuana by adults in their home for personal use, (the law) must be interpreted to prohibit only the possession of 4 ounces or more of marijuana," wrote Court of Appeals Judge David Stewart in the conclusion of the unanimous decision.
The ruling made the national news as one of those odd tidbits that they like to insert, but the media has missed some of the larger ramifications of the ruling.
The background: Article 1, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution reads:
"The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed..."
Read that again. "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed." Sounds like Alaskans were pretty smart when they put together their constitution.
In 1975, in the case of Ravin vs. the State of Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that personal in-home use of marijuana was a protected right of privacy. Later, the legislature set a limit of 4 ounces for personal use.
Then, in 1990, a voter initiative criminalized marijuana possession of any amount. The current case of David Noy finally challenges that statute by claiming that the statute violates constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals agreed, and now it's up to the Alaska Supreme Court to hear an appeal. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn itself, when it made such a compelling argument in Ravin.
The Ravin case is particularly interesting. It's worth reading the full original decision, authored by the late Justice Rabinowitz.
Rabinowitz not only drew upon the specific right of privacy in the Alaska constitution, but also brought up a huge list of cases involving the United States Supreme Court establishing a right of privacy, and a particular expectation of privacy in one's own home. Rabinowitz concluded that privacy in the home is a fundamental right and requires a greater level of proof for the government to assert an interest.
the authority of the state to exert control over the individual extends only to activities of the individual which affect others or the public at large as it relates to matters of public health or safety, or to provide for the general welfare. We believe this tenet to be basic to a free society. The state cannot impose its own notions of morality, propriety, or fashion on individuals when the public has no legitimate interest in the affairs of those individuals. The right of the individual to do as he pleases is not absolute, of course: it can be made to yield when it begins to infringe on the rights and welfare of others.
Further, the authority of the state to control the activities of its citizens is not limited to activities which have a present and immediate impact on the public health or welfare. It is conceivable, for example, that a drug could so seriously develop in its user a withdrawal or amotivational syndrome, that widespread use of the drug could significantly debilitate the fabric of our society. Faced with a substantial possibility of such a result, the state could take measures to combat the possibility. The state is under no obligation to allow otherwise "private" activity which will result in numbers of people becoming public charges or otherwise burdening the public welfare. But we do not find that such a situation exists today regarding marijuana. It appears that effects of marijuana on the individual are not serious enough to justify widespread concern, at least as compared with the far more dangerous effects of alcohol, barbiturates and amphetamines....
Thus we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied.
Now attention is again being paid to this 1975 Alaska decision, and it is likely that the Alaska Supreme Court will affirm it. This is of particular interest as the United States Supreme Court has shown a significant current interest in privacy, particularly privacy in the home. This could pave the way to a future U.S. decision regarding federal marijuana laws.
9:35:38 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
