|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, November 27, 2004 |
Raich Update
"I can see the day comin' when even your home garden's gonna be against the law."
-Bob Dylan
Good article by Fred Gardner in the weekend edition of Counterpunch: Ashcroft v. Raich: Medical Marijuana and the Supremes
One important point that Fred caught -- something I had noticed in my first reading of the government's brief, but hadn't commented on:
Among the feds' arguments is one usually left unspoken: prohibition serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations. As expressed in the Solicitor General's brief, "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the CSA would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances." It would also undercut "the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs." That's as close as the government has come to acknowledging that wider cannabis use would jeopardize drug-company profits.
And that's where the compelling government interest truly lies. (There's no other logical reason to explain why the government has acted in such a bizarre manner regarding medical marijuana.)
Fred Gardner also explains the Rehnquist part of the equation (and he will not be at the oral arguments):
The absence of Chief Justice Rehnquist (undergoing treatments for cancer) works to Raich's advantage. As a young lawyer in the Nixon White House, Rehnquist helped write the Controlled Substances Act. His questions during the OCBC [U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative] oral argument were overtly hostile. And he's considered results-oriented (fight the war on drugs) rather than principled (curtail the overarching commerce clause). Of course Rehnquist could still read the transcript and vote on the Raich case, even if he's too sick to attend the oral argument. He could even write an opinion (or have his law clerks do so)... If there's a 4-4 tie, the opinion of the 9th Circuit stands, but doesn't become binding authority on the rest of the country.
Update: By the way, if anyone's actually going to be attending the oral arguments on Monday morning, I'd love to hear from you.
5:43:03 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, November 26, 2004 |
With Thanksgiving over, the Christmas shopping season is in full swing (of course it started some time ago much to my annoyance, with Christmas displays going up in stores in September!).
I thought I'd give you my own suggestion for Christmas presents: buy hemp. It's a really good idea for a number of reasons.
Now it is true that hemp products can be a little more expensive than other products, but here's a few reasons why it's worth it:
- Hemp products are quality products (the food products are more nutritious, clothing products are more durable, body products are more healthy, etc.)
- Hemp products are good for the environment
- When you give hemp products, you have the chance to educate others on the value of industrial hemp while giving them something they'll really like.
- Every time you buy hemp products you're sticking it to the DEA, which has unsuccessfully attempted to block many of them.
- You are contributing to the development of a potentially huge industry that could help to shape the country's views on the cannabis plant.
To find a physical store near you that sells hemp products, you can try the Industrial Hemp Products Retail Stores Directory.
Of course, you can always just Google hemp products, or hemp foods, or hemp clothing and get tons of options. If you want to make sure they're a responsible company, you can check to see if they're one of the Hemp Industry Association member sites.
And here are a few online stores to check out: [Note: I am not personally recommending any of these sites unless I mention that I've gotten their products. I'm just providing these as options to explore. Also note: Any companies that wish to send me samples of their product in exchange for a review on this site are welcome to do so.]
- Ruth's Hemp Foods - I love their SoftHemp shelled hemp seeds, and their hemp bars are quite good. (This one I can specifically vouch for)
- Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps sells hemp soaps and food items, and even has a nifty Gift Basket for only $49.95.
- Beautiful hemp stationery and note sets from Bar Harbor Hemporium
- Lots of fun hemp products at Botanical Earth, including bandannas, beanie hats, toiletries bags, back scrubs, guitar straps, dog collars, body scrubs, flying disks, shopping bags and more.
- Hemp flour, Hemp Nutts, hemp coffee and more from Hemp Nutts
- Johnny Hempseed has some cool hemp sandals. More great sandals at Barefoot Cobbler.
- Hemp Candles at Way Out Wax
- Hemp Particle Board, plus twine, rope and more at Hemp Traders
- Great hats, bags, scarves and more at Hemp Sisters
- Hemp Dip -- a healthy alternative to tobacco - useful for those trying to quit (leaves you with fresh breath and does not promote tooth or gum decay).
- Check out these beautiful patterned napkins in hemp/cotton from Tribal Fiber.
- Get your Hemp Balm, the hip trip for lips, along with massage oils and liniments at The Merry Hempsters.
- The skin care collection at The Hempest looks delightful.
- Get some hemp yarn or fabric from Golden Hemp and make your own clothes.
- There are some nice fashions at Sweet Grass Fibers and beautiful women's clothes at Earth Speaks and Sativa Hemp Wear.
- Clothing, wallets, backpacks, hats, body care products and lots more are at Spirit Stream Trading Co.
There's also hammocks
diapers, bread, jeans, salad dressings, paper, hemp animals (hempies), pillowcases, and more.
Why not have your Christmas shopping make a statement? You'll feel better about it.
6:30:35 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
'Tis the Season')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"> 
|
|
|
|
Thursday, November 25, 2004 |
|
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 |
Time to switch from Marijuana to Vioxx
I am so sick of drug warriors telling us that marijuana is not medicine, and that it's dangerous because it hasn't gone through a certain set of approval hoops, including FDA approval. This, despite the fact that marijuana has been used safely for thousands of years, by millions of people without a single recorded case of a fatal overdose, or any indications of connections to mortality. And it is this "danger" from which we wish to protect terminally ill patients. ("Yes, if you stop smoking marijuana, you may die in a couple of months. However, if you continue to smoke marijuana, in 30-40 years, you might have taken in enough carcinogens to give you another disease, although there's no proof of that, and we can't have that. So, we're going to have you die now.)
And then I read this article in the Christian Science Monitor: How drug-approval woes crept up on FDA. The article tells how the FDA is influenced by the pharmaceutical companies, and some of the disasters that make it through because of the greed and commercial interest. An example: Vioxx made it through FDA approval for a while before it got yanked. In the meantime, it's estimated that 139,000 people had heart attacks and strokes from taking it and 55,000 people may have died.
Pharmaceutical companies don't want medical marijuana to succeed because they can't make money off something you can grow in your back yard. Pharmaceutical companies want the FDA to fast-track their synthetic drugs because those are money trees.
And we're the ones who pay. And die.
7:24:07 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Cannabis Clubs Can't Communicate in Canada?
Loretta at the US Marijuana Party Blog is reporting a sophisticated Denial of Service internet attack on a number of Canadian cannabis and activist websites. She notes that the timing is suspect as it coincides with planning efforts for a protest of Bush's visit to Ottawa in a few days.
Interesting.
7:07:07 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Profile of a Gypsy Cop
Be sure to check out the investigative report over at Grits for Breakfast on a "Gypsy Cop" (Part 1 and Part 2). This series really highlights how out-of-control drug task forces are in terms of accountability.
A system that allows this kind of abuse not only harms the people, but it undermines the reputation of and respect for good, honest, law enforcement officers out there.
12:10:39 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 |
Prohibition Causes Crime
Posted today at Alternet, A Prohibition-Style Crime Wave, by Anthony Gregory, The Independent Institute:
the more the government spends on the drug war, the more violent crime increases. Eliminating drug prohibition could reduce the homicide rate in the U.S. by 25 to 75 percent, according to economist Jeffrey A. Miron.
In his research for Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, Dr. Miron found that homicide rates and drug-law enforcement move in tandem in a variety of ways. As the drug war intensifies, the black market in drugs becomes more profitable, and those willing to risk prosecution and heavy prison time often become more willing to flout the law in other ways. Gang warfare becomes the norm, just as it did with alcohol prohibition, and innocent bystanders fall victim to the crossfire spawned by the drug laws. Dealers in the illegal drug trade have no nonviolent recourse in the courts or through legal arbitration to resolve disputes, and arguments over drug transactions or other matters fuel violent score settling within the illicit drug market.
I've mentioned Miron and his work before, but it's always great to see this kind of analysis discussed.
This concept is something that is not a huge surprise to those of us in drug policy reform, but it can seem counter-intuitive to the lay person who has had it drilled into their head that more laws and more penalties are needed to reduce crime.
10:37:57 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Law Enforcement and Prohibition
A couple of things to talk about regarding law enforcement and prohibition.
 A fascinating article in Sunday's Summit Daily News: The Task at Hand, by Reid Williams, comparing the approaches to the drug war in different counties in Colorado.
He starts by talking about some of the counties, like Summit, that are actively using task force money and building drug cases...
"I don't think we'll ever put ourselves out of work," Woodman said.
Woodman's statement reflects the diligence of a career law enforcement officer as much as it does the fatalism of a realist. He and the task force take their work seriously, but Woodman knows it's an uphill battle.
On the one hand, Woodman said that as long as the people of the state of Colorado, and the United States, deem it appropriate that certain drugs are illegal, those laws will be enforced.
But on the other hand, Woodman said, "It's frustrating. I could send my son out with $50, and in an hour he'd come back with whatever I asked for."
...and shows the almost desperate attempts to justify the activity:
"Sure, every case we build is a success," Woodman said. "It might sound cliché, but our success is the old adage: If we can change one person's life, get them to where they're no longer involved in that, we did well. And we've had that."
(Of course, Woodman is not facing up to the fact that they're not just changing one person's life. They're sending one to prison, and creating a job opening in crime for another person. Not something to be proud of.)
The article then moves on to Aspen:
For the past 17 years of his five terms as sheriff, Braudis has spoken out against undercover drug enforcement work and task forces, and his citizens have supported him.
Braudis believes the drug war was lost 30 years ago, that drug addiction is a medical issue not a legal issue and that, for his officers, it's an expensive, dangerous and not-so-beneficial proposition.
They do enforce drug-related laws in Pitkin County. If a citizen calls in a complaint, deputies investigate. People pulled over for traffic stops with a stash in the glovebox still pout when it gets confiscated.
And if other agencies need to come in to Pitkin County to conduct a sting, Braudis gives them deputies to secure a perimeter or enhance the safety of an operation. But that's where Braudis draws the line.
He doesn't think task forces will find, much less catch, "Mr. Big."
He must have some smart constituents.
And, of course, the article touches on a well-known sherriff against prohibition,
San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters agrees, even feels more strongly about the subject - he wrote a book called " Drug War Addiction."
...
Masters likens the current attack on drugs to prohibition. In 1919, Congress approved the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating beverages.
Masters said that now, like the 1920s, the federal government is telling local governments what's right and wrong, and the result is an increase in use of the prohibited substance and a rise in crime and violence surrounding it.
The sheriff said he just doesn't see the sense in it.
"The year before Sept. 11 ( 2001 ), we busted 750,000 Americans for marijuana and one terrorist," Masters said. "And ( Attorney General John ) Ashcroft is telling everyone we'll fight the war on terror just like we fought the war on drugs. That's how far from reality they are - - they're busting bong manufacturers as if bongs cause people to use drugs."
There are more stories, and the whole article is worth reading. Very well done and gives you a very interesting picture.
Which leads to:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)
You've heard me talk here before about LEAP -- a really incredible organization of current and former law enforcement officials who oppose prohibition. They have a speakers bureau of qualified individuals who will talk at major events or Kiwanis club meetings. Look at their calendar. It's amazing. And this is how you reach a very important segment of the population. As important as student reform groups are, there's no way a college student can go in to a Rotary Club and convince them that the drug war is wrong. Get a police officer or judge with 20 years of experience telling them that war is a failure, and you've got their attention, big time.
Mike Smithson just let me in on LEAP's upcoming plans, and they sound good, so I thought I'd share them with you.
- LEAP has begun its first ad campaign that will go for 7 months beginning in December, 2004. We are targeting talk radio show hosts and we'll advertise in their trade magazine for 6 issues, send the radio show hosts a CD with snippets of our speakers, and then we'll attend their annual conference in May, 2005.
- Retired police Captain Peter Christ tours the Quaker States eastern areas for 3 months, Jan. 24th-May 1st, 2005. In an area bordered by Scranton, Lancaster and Philadelphia, Christ will spark the debate across this area. See the website for details.
- Ohio Tour starring Judge Eleanor Schockett. Central and Southern Ohio will see Judge Schockett from Jan. 31st to Feb. 12th, 2005. Civic groups and colleges will get to hear the Miami-Dade County Judge explain what the criminal justice system is really like.
- The St. Valentine's Day Massacre---2005. Judge Jim Gray from the Superior Court of Orange County California travels east to speak at Smith College in Northampton, MA, then Brown University in Providence, RI and then Wesleyan in Middletown, CT. Feb. 15th-17th, 2005.
- Judge Gray returns to take a bite out of the Big Apple. March 12th-17th, 2005. Judge Gray speaks at Columbia and John Jay College along with a great debate planned at one of the Unitarian churches. More presentations planned.
I'm particularly looking forward to the last item. I'll be in New York that same week. Anybody want to join me? I'm a fan of Judge Jim Gray, as well as his book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs".
10:21:20 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, November 22, 2004 |
Radio Host agrees with The WeedMan
Scott sent me a great sound file -- it's a very interesting clip from a radio program in Bristol, VA (WFHG FM) on November 7th. It's a little under 11 minutes long, and I've reduced it to around 4.95 megs as an MP3. The radio host read a long email from The Weedman and not only agreed with the points made, but mentioned that she had researched and verified his facts. Excellent piece.
Download by right-clicking:
TheWeedMan.mp3
Alternate site: TheWeedMan.mp3
(Please let me know if you have trouble downloading it. Also, because of bandwidth issues, I will probably only leave it up for a week or so and I'll change this message when I take it down.)
8:29:22 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Scientific American calls for marijuana research
In the December 1, 2004 issue, the Scientific American editorial Marijuana Research starts out with a very brief point that conclusively demonstrates the obvious logic behind a call for marijuana research.
The human brain naturally produces and processes compounds closely related to those found in Cannabis sativa, better known as marijuana [see "The Brain's Own Marijuana," by Roger A. Nicoll and Bradley E. Alger. These compounds are called endogenous cannabinoids or endocannabinoids. As the journal Nature Medicine put it in 2003, "the endocannabinoid system has an important role in nearly every paradigm of pain, in memory, in neurodegeneration and in inflammation." The journal goes on to note that cannabinoids' "clinical potential is enormous." That potential may include treatments for pain, nerve injury, the nausea associated with chemotherapy, the wasting related to AIDS and more.
The editorial then demonstrates how marijuana research is discouraged by the federal government.
Yet outdated regulations and attitudes thwart legitimate research with marijuana. Indeed, American biomedical researchers can more easily acquire and investigate cocaine. Marijuana is classified as a so-called Schedule 1 drug, alongside LSD and heroin. As such, it is defined as being potentially addictive and having no medical use, which under the circumstances becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Any researcher attempting to study marijuana must obtain it through the National Institute on Drug Abuse ( NIDA ). The U.S. research crop, grown at a single facility, is regarded as less potent--and therefore less medicinally interesting--than the marijuana often easily available on the street. Thus, the legal supply is a poor vehicle for studying the approximately 60 cannabinoids that might have medical applications.
They then show how the government not only discourages research, but actively steers the limited research that it approves.
The government may also have a stake in a certain kind of result. One scientist tells of a research grant application to study marijuana's potential medical benefits. NIDA turned it down. That scientist rewrote the grant to emphasize finding marijuana's negative effects. The study was funded.
The editorial concludes:
The reasonable course is to make it easier for American researchers to at least examine marijuana for possible medical benefits. Great Britain, no slacker in the war on drugs, takes this approach: the government has authorized a pharmaceutical firm to grow different strains of marijuana for clinical trials.
This call for marijuana research is not a closet campaign for drug legalization--easing research barriers would not require that marijuana be reclassified, nor would it have any bearing on individual states' decisions to approve limited use of medical marijuana. As a 1995 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association said, "We are not asking readers for immediate agreement with our affirmation that marijuana is medically useful, but we hope they will do more to encourage open and legal exploration of its potential." After almost a decade of little progress, we reiterate that sentiment.
A very nice straightforward and clear editorial from a fairly popular scientific magazine.
And it helps point out the biggest hypocrisy in the federal government's approach to medical marijuana: It is intellectually, morally, and scientifically dishonest for the government to claim that there is insufficient evidence of the medical benefits of marijuana on one hand, while supressing research on the other. If the government actually cared about the truth, upon seeing the strong public support for medical marijuana and the number of states passing medical marijuana laws, they would immediately encourage, support and fund comprehensive research to settle it once and for all.
2:22:27 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
