The blogs.salon.com server goes offline December, 2009. All content is moving to http://www.drugwarrant.com
Drug WarRant
Friday, October 24, 2003
Happy Birthday to Me...
Yep, today's my birthday, which means I'm... Well, let's just say that I'm old enough to remember when we weren't declaring an all-out war on our citizens, when drug policy meant caring for those who were addicted, before the expansion of the drug war escalated the violence and fed the growth of large criminal enterprises and large criminal government agencies.
For a moment, I considered making a pathetic birthday pitch for contributions to this site or purchases on my wish list. But then I thought about my own wish to contribute more to some important organizations.
So, if you have any desire to recognize my birthday, consider making a contribution of any amount to my birthday designee this year:
At this page, you can easily make a donation with a credit card or through PayPal, and your donation will be matched dollar for dollar up to $250. You can also direct your contribution to assist any of dozens of other drug policy reform organizations.
Drug Sense/Map provides internet service for much of the drug policy reform community as well as providing the most extensive database of drug related newspaper articles in the world. I rely on this organization constantly for my research.
Help them out, and after you do, if you feel like it, I'd love to hear about it: email
. Thanks.
A sample of his work from "Keeping Drugs Away from Your Children"
It's a sad, indeed tragic, fact that Nixon's war on drugs has actually made it 7 times MORE likely for your child to come into contact with illegal drugs. The reasons are very straight forward: As the government increases the criminal penalties associated with prohibition, the price of various illegal drugs is increased. The increased price means greater profits for drug dealers. These greater profits attract more and more dealers, and especially, young teenagers.
Last week, we were treated to one of the standard drug war cheerleader columns that could have been a press release from the Drug Czar. But this was by a Pulitzer Prize and Light of Truth winning, Presidential Medal of Freedom receiving, former Managing Editor of the New York Times. So what's up?
For those who haven't followed Rosenthal's writings over the years, or the glee with which drug policy reformers have responded to the rich wealth of stupidity in his drug war pieces, it's a strange story.
Today, I'm going take you on this little exploration of a supposed journalist who has spent much of his career spreading propaganda, and even conspiring with the ONDCP to find ways to use the press and the government to attack drug policy reformers.
The specialists say legalization of it would create mass addiction and vastly multiply the cost of drug treatment.
What specialists? Unspecified. Based on Rosenthal's past references to "specialists," they tend to be drug addiction personnel who make their living from the war, or even work for the Drug Czar. History shows us that the mass addiction scare is completely false. Experiences in the Netherlands and past decriminalization in the states have demonstrated at most, a mild increase in use, and generally a decrease in addiction.
John Walters, the head of federal drug enforcement, says that of the 7 million Americans who need treatment for drug addiction, 60% are hooked on marijuana. "Marijuana is at the heart of drug problems," he says.
Here, Rosenthal takes Walters' distortions and stretches them further. This is one of the recent favorites of the drug warriors. The fact that 60% of those in treatment are there because of marijuana has nothing to do with dependence or addiction or being "hooked." It's because the criminal justice system is putting people in treatment who are caught using marijuana (regardless of any dependence issues) and treatment is used in the same way to deal with positive drug tests in the workplace, schools, etc. In fact, the over-use of treatment for marijuana users is actually reducing treatment availability for those who need it for harder drugs. (If we made everyone who was caught eating chocolate go through treatment, then I guess we'd say they're all hooked and that chocolate is at the heart of the drug problem.)
Experts also point out that one marijuana cigarette contains as much tar as four tobacco cigarettes.
Rosenthal tries to infer danger above that of tobacco (which is legal). Yet, studies have shown no established link between marijuana and mortality, unlike tobacco.
For example, marijuana has now been shown to cause physical dependence and physical withdrawal.
True. So have snack foods. The National Institue of Medicine showed that dependency rates for marijuana use are dramatically lower than those for tobacco and alcohol (which are legal), and "marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs." In fact, addictions specialist Jack Henningfeld (see, I can use specialists, too) ranked marijuana lower than caffeine in dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal.
[quoting a statement by "prominent specialist" Dr. Herbert Kleber] "Unfortunately, the American public too often is sold a bill of goods by a clever campaign funded by a small group of billionaires who have engaged in extraordinary advertising and political manipulation."
This is a favorite rant of Rosenthal's -- that the drug reform movement is heavily funded and using their great resources to hoodwink the public with an expensive advertising campaign. Well, let's see, so far my pay for doing this has come up to a whopping $0. And most of the drug reform organizations I know are being run by interns and begging for funds to pay for their web server space and postage (more on this tomorrow). However, on the other side, the ONDCP has an almost unlimited budget paid for by... us, the taxpayers. Whose propaganda ads do you see on national television all the time? (Oh, and by the way, the prominent "specialist" he quoted is a former deputy drug czar!)
Via TalkLeft. Glenn Reynolds' column today at MSNBC -- Breaking the Law -- points out that there are too many laws, and notes:
Sometimes -- not often, but sometimes -- the best way to get a law changed is for people to ignore it.
According to SAMHSA, over 19 million Americans were current illicit drug users in 2002. I wonder if that qualifies as enough people ignoring the law to change it.
Glenn also notes:
...law is like anything else: when the supply outstrips the demand, its value falls. If law were restricted to things like rape, robbery, and murder, its prestige would be higher. When we make felonies out of trivial crimes, though, the law loses prestige.
This is particularly appropriate to drug laws. Since so many people use (or have used at some time in their lives) an illicit drug, it's hard for them to get excited about assisting law enforcement. Additionally, since the laws for drugs are so harsh, they devalue more important violent crimes. If a criminal could get 20 years to life for a drug offense, the additional penalties for things like murder have little deterrence. In fact, violence can seem a reasonable tactic by the criminal to attempt to avoid capture for drug crimes. (Rarely do drivers try to shoot it out with the police to avoid a $75 speeding ticket.)
Now I'm not advocating ignoring drug laws, but it is important to note that they are ignored, and have been by every segment of society, from the most underprivileged to the extremely privileged (like future American Presidents). It's time to realize that drug laws are bad laws, are ignored, and should be changed.
Update: Corrected the figure of drug users from "annual use" to "current illicit drug use" and added citation link. Thanks, Mithras.
MacAttack, a new blogger in the UK, has this piece of satire about England's move to re-classify marijuana, including harpooning public figures on both sides of the Atlantic:
...There has also been immense pressure from America over the move. George Bush released this statement: 'Cutchy cutchy coo Tony, ohhhh, you know you like it behind the ears... good boy,' before going on to suggest a change in United Kingdom policy.
'We believe, in the United States of Americana, that a hard stance should be taken on drugs because of the dangers of serious adictivication and termination. They should all be prizonified - us folks can't have people running around with things that could kill people, then where would our country be?' he concluded, before tickling Tony behind the ear again.
The Blair Administration leapt furiously to the defence of their softly softly approach to the drug problem... by offering America our prisons...
The best coverage of the recent ONDCP circus with the New England governors can be found at the Boston Phoenix.
Despite compelling evidence of the bloated costs and wasted resources devoted to our two-decade-long war on drugs, not to mention shocking racial disparities in arrests and sentencing for drug charges -- all documented by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, the Justice Policy Institute, and the Sentencing Project -- the Bush administration has embraced the gulag approach to dealing with the societal problems caused by drug abuse. This, more than anything else, was evident at last week's anti-drug summit organized by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Forget about meaningful discussion. Indeed, in keeping with the Bush administration's general assault on patients who smoke pot to manage their illnesses..., the federal government will go to extreme lengths to prevent the push for legalizing medical marijuana -- and last week's panel was no exception. If anything, it amounted to a one-sided exercise suggestive of propaganda such as Reefer Madness (1938), whose characters are driven insane by taking a puff of a joint.
Barthwell, who's become the ONDCP mouthpiece on medical marijuana by penning op-eds against the cause for newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Kansas City Star, and Newsday, kicked off her remarks with a blunt statement of opposition. Medical marijuana, she said, is "the worst scam" drug legalizers have perpetrated on this country. She went on to dissect the scientific research. Interestingly, she and her fellow panelists fixated on the fact that patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes typically have to smoke it - a delivery method that, they claimed, isn't "scientifically proven."
Interesting indeed. I keep hearing from the government's medical "experts" that medical marijuana can never be accepted because it's smoked, and that's not medicine. Forget for the moment that it's not true, since other delivery methods like vaporization are possible. It's still ridiculous. We have accepted medicines that involve bombarding the body with radiation or ingesting poisonous substances. Accepted medications are delivered orally, anally, by injection, by inhaler, and with a patch. Accepted medications have acceptable side effects of having your hair fall out, severe nausea, and even death.
By intervening in what has traditionally been a state and local matter, federal politicians endanger public safety, threaten civil liberties, and weaken Constitutional safeguards.
Although the article oddly ignores the drug war, the points made are extremely pertinent to what's been going on with the federalization of drug crime.
Given their longstanding support for the Drug War, it's fair to ask:
Why haven't President George Bush or his tough-on-crime attorney general, John Ashcroft, uttered a word criticizing Limbaugh's law-breaking?
Why aren't drug czar John P. Walters or his predecessor, Barry McCaffrey, lambasting Limbaugh as a menace to society and a threat to "our children?"
Why aren't federal DEA agents storming Limbaugh's $30 million Florida mansion in a frantic search for criminal evidence?
Why haven't federal, state, and local police agencies seized the celebrity's homes and luxury cars under asset-forfeiture laws?
Finally, why aren't bloviating blabbermouths like William Bennett publicly explaining how America would be better off if Limbaugh were prosecuted, locked in a steel cage and forced to abandon his wife, his friends, and his career?
Last night, I watched The Untouchables again on TV. I really enjoy this movie -- it's got a great cast and some fabulous cinematic moments (the baby carriage sequence in the train station, the showdown on the border...), and it's a good story.
The only problem is that I cannot watch that movie without constantly noting the parallels between the prohibition of that time and the one we suffer through today.
Both Eliot Ness and Al Capone were creations of prohibition.
Capone used prohibition to create a huge, profitable black-market alcohol operation -- and since much of the population used the product, it gave him additional cover. The violence he used were part of the black-market "business" to protect the profits. (Legal businesses use marketing, lawsuits and regulations to protect their business, while black-market business use violence and murder.)
Capone was also able to protect his business through the corruption of law enforcement (again because of the massive profits).
Ness was put in the position of stretching (even breaking) the law to pursue Capone.
"You wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of your men to the hospital, and you send one of his to the morgue."
Today, it's often (though not always) a different kind of stretching and breaking the law, through drug task force tactics and the incursions on civil liberties. But all the parallels exist -- the black-market profits, increased violence, corruption, loss of public respect for the law, innocents caught in the cross-fire, and excessive law enforcement tactics.
At the end of The Untouchables, there's a fascinating little moment that shows how little prohibition has to do with what it's prohibiting. Most of Eliot Ness' team has been murdered, and he has finally put Capone away for tax evasion when he's approached by a reporter:
Reporter:They say they're going to repeal prohibition. What will you do then? Ness:I think I'll have a drink.
Interesting parallel there with a recent statement by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about marijuana:
"Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal."
Prohibition generates its own life, spawning the warriors on both sides, and feeding off the devastation.
- Watching The Untouchables as good film-making -- entertaining.
- Seeing that we have not learned anything -- depressing.
Yep, today's my birthday, which means I'm... Well, let's just say that I'm old enough to remember when we weren't declaring an all-out war on our citizens, when drug policy meant caring for those who were addicted, before the expansion of the drug war escalated the violence and fed the growth of large criminal enterprises and large criminal government agencies.
For those who haven't followed Rosenthal's writings over the years, or the glee with which drug policy reformers have responded to the rich wealth of stupidity in his drug war pieces, it's a strange story.
MacAttack, a new blogger in the UK, has 
The only problem is that I cannot watch that movie without constantly noting the parallels between the prohibition of that time and the one we suffer through today.
