Thursday, February 3, 2005

They've got until tomorrow to answer February 4 is an important deadline for Health and Human Services, and I'm curious to see what will happen. Here's the background: As I've discussed at length in previous posts (here's one example), the government has unfairly blocked and delayed approval procedures for medical marijuana for years and years. They developed practically circular systems of review that allowed them to put off appeal after appeal without even exiting the DEA structure. However, a new law was put into place -- The Data Quality Act -- that "gives people the right to challenge scientific information disseminated by federal agencies.  The law demands that agencies respond to petitions within two months." Nice. Finally a way to get a fast response to something. Not approval for medical marijuana, but perhaps a way to make the government own up to their lies. On October 4, 2004, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed a petition to Health and Human Services charging the agency with spreading inaccurate information about marijuana's medical value. On December 4, 2004, Health and Human Services filed for a 2-month extension to answer the petition. Of course. Now, that extension is up tomorrow. I'm not sure if they're allowed to file for more extensions, but eventually that's got to stop or a judge is going to step in and stomp on them. But just to be sure, let them know at HHS that you're paying attention. Send them an email telling them to answer the petition. (It'll only take a few seconds.) And quite frankly, I have no idea how HHS will answer it, although I can't wait to see their answer. ASA was pretty gutsy with their petition. The petition also contains lots of reference materials backing up their position, but here is the actual petition request: RELIEF REQUESTED: ASA requests the following corrections: HHS states that "there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any medical condition," which is disseminated on federal government websites (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a010418c.html, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/notices/2001/fr0418/fr0418a.htm ) and in the Federal Register, 66 Fed.Reg. 20038, 20052 (April 18, 2001). ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: "Adequate and well-recognized studies show the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity." HHS states that "a material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding that marijuana has been accepted by qualified experts" and "it is clear that there is not a consensus of medical opinion concerning medical applications of marijuana," which are disseminated on the government websites and in the Federal Register, 66 Fed.Reg. 20038, 20052 (April 18, 2001). ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: "There is substantial consensus among experts in the relevant disciplines that marijuana is effective in treating nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity. It is accepted as medicine by qualified experts." HHS states that "a complete scientific analysis of all the chemical components found in marijuana has not been conducted," which is disseminated on the government websites and in the Federal Register, 66 Fed.Reg. 20038, 20051 (April 18, 2001). ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: "The chemistry of marijuana is known and reproducible." HHS states that marijuana "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," which is disseminated on the government websites and in the Federal Register, 66 Fed.Reg. 20038, 20039 (April 18, 2001). Based on the corrections above, ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: "Marijuana has a currently accepted use in treatment in the United States." Will there be an answer, or another extension? 10:36:36 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

How the drug war breaks down cooperation between citizens and police Two different stories. In both cases, it's about the drug bust, not about people and police working together. Libby at Last One Speaks: Not Fit for Man Nor Beast Melissa at D'Alliance: Mother arrested for almost bringing heroin to her son at school I'm a little less certain of the second one (need more facts), but what it appears we have here are two situations where people have learned the lesson that cooperating with the police is a bad idea while this drug war is going on. And this kind of thing happens every day (well, maybe not specifically -- these are both pretty strange stories -- but at least in principle). The thing is, I have a great admiration for police, and know some pretty good ones. The problem is that the drug war itself creates a cyclical adversarial situation where the people they are there to serve and protect are losing, or have lost, their motivation to provide cooperation and assistance. 8:19:03 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Mark Souder, drug warrior buffoon I haven't talked about Rep. Mark Souder for awhile. For those who don't know, he is the one who came up with the notion of adding a question regarding drug convictions to student financial aid forms. The stupidity of this is obvious -- it makes no sense to deny aid to a student who made a mistake when they were younger and paid for it. You should be encouraging education. Souder now claims he only intended it to apply for convictions while going to school, but it still doesn't make sense to kick poor students out who have a conviction for marijuana. What will they do? I guess they can go and sell drugs for a living. Anyway, a fabulous group called Students for a Sensible Drug Policy has been working hard for years to overturn this provision, with help from others in the drug policy reform community. As others have reported, there is good news in that a congressional committee has recommended eliminating the provision. We still have to see what Congress will do. Anyway, what got me going this morning was this statement in today's MSU State News: But [Souder spokesman Martin] Green said because students are using federal money, they should obey federal laws. "The reasoning behind the law is simple. Students who receive taxpayer money to go to college have to obey the law," Green said, adding it was Souder's belief that if students are using drugs, they probably are not making the most of their education. So transparent. If it really had anything to do with obeying the law, why is it that the only law involved is drug law? Why doesn't it ask "Have you been convicted of breaking any law" and deny aid to those who committed violent acts or tax fraud? It's not about obeying the law. It's about Souder's own personal counterproductive war against drugs. And Mark, there are lots of students who don't make the most of their education. Maybe it's the purchase of an Xbox, or being hooked on soaps, or blogging, or hanging out, or... But you see, Mark, there's already a way to measure that. It's called grading. Students are graded on their work and if they don't do well, they flunk. If their overall grades fall too low, they lose their financial aid. It may not be perfect, but it's a whole lot better than your cockamamie ideas. 8:05:53 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Crunching the numbers on Caballes Julian Sanchez at Hit and Run has further thoughts on Caballes... A few fairly obvious problems occur to me belatedly. The first is that to the extent that law enforcement officers now feel increased license to do indiscriminate sweeps, the conditions under which prior accuracy rates were ascertained in the field no longer apply. ... Let's grant that the dog is 95 percent accurate. Now, you might think that sounds pretty good -- 95 percent certainty would surely count as probable cause, right? The problem is making the error -- and I wonder whether maybe the justices did this -- of inferring from a 95 percent accuracy rate that you're only going to end up physically searching one innocent person for every 19 who really do have drugs. But if searches are indiscriminate, that's wrong, because the vast majority of motorists won't have drugs. This concept starts generating some scary numbers. For example, if you posit that the dog is 90% accurate (and from what I've read that's not bad) and that 2% of all cars are carrying drugs (surely that's a high number), then this is what you'll get: Out of 1,000 suspicionless sniffs, 2% (20) will have drugs. Of these, 18 will be caught. 980 will not have drugs; of these innocent drivers, 98 will will have their cars torn up. So out of 116 alerts by the dogs, 18 will actually have drugs, or 15.5% of those searched. Not very good. Those 98 innocent drivers who have their cars searched -- will that be considered a "reasonable" 4th amendment search? Try your own numbers at the linked applet. 12:06:44 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []