Friday, March 4, 2005

Government Reports Massive Abuse of Treatment Resources, Tries to Shift Blame The Drug Czar's "blog" (where EVERY day is Tuesday!) reported today (Tuesday, March 4): "A Wake-Up Call: Admissions to Treatment for Marijuana use Increases Sharply" The startling data: Admission rates for primary marijuana increased nationally by 162 percent between 1992 and 2002 Their conclusion: The report serves as a "wake-up call" for parents and young people who still view marijuana as a so-called "soft drug." The one little bitty problem is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports their conclusion. Fortunately, for a little better perspective, the Drug Czar touted this AP article, which had the integrity to get some proper perspective: Advocates of legalizing marijuana disagreed, saying the trend was largely due to an increase in marijuana arrests and had almost nothing to do with more people seeking treatment because they thought their own health was at risk. "They have the option of going into treatment for marijuana or going to jail," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. FBI records show a substantial increase in marijuana-related arrests during the decade studied, from about 340,000 in 1992 to about 700,000 in 2002. Bingo! If treatment was actually needed for severe addiction based on marijuana use (which is contrary to all scientific data that shows marijuana only triggers mild dependency at most), then where is the data that shows that these people really are suffering from addiction problems (as opposed to just having marijuana listed on their intake form). Well, SAMHSA spokesperson Leah Young had it all covered with this snappy comeback: "Being forced into treatment does not indicate you don't need it." Yeah, and being a spokesperson doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. The sad thing about this is that massive amounts of resources are going to "treat" tons of people with a mild dependency similar to, or lesser than, caffeine simply because they got caught with a joint. Of course the treatment industry is having a ball. If marijuana treatment admissions increased 162%, so has their income. Since the treatment industry depends on marijuana admissions for its livelihood, any change in status would threaten their financial health. Legal marijuana would probably reduce their admissions by 50%. This helps to explain why people like Andrea Barthwell and Peter Bensinger (two of the drug war pushers who have been opposing medical marijuana in Illinois) are so keen to block any change to the legal status of marijuana. They are financially tied to treatment and its related industries. Andrea Barthwell has huge ties to the treatment industry, including her Encounter Medical Group, which has provided services to the Cook County Juvenile Drug Court Program since 1977. Peter Bensinger (former DEA head), joined forces with fellow drug prohibitionist Robert DuPont and created Bensinger, Dupont & Associates. The company has provided a variety of services to business and government, including drug testing and substance abuse consulting. Their clients include U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Department of Transportation, they U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Illinois State Police. Their reported revenues in 2000 were $3,900,000. A 2003 report estimates sales at $28,900,000. Nice increase. The drug czar cannot continue to spout these treatment statistics as if they support his position. Anything more than a surface reading raises more questions about the government's relationship to monied interests than any real concerns about the dangers of marijuana. Even on Tuesday. Update: Just as a reminder, I've covered these statistic games by the Drug Czar before in detail. Treatment Statistics or, The Drug Czar is Lying to You. This is where you can dig into the details and find numbers that come at least a little bit closer to revealing the truth. Example: Let's take a look at how many are in treatment because they decide that they have a problem (This would also include cases where the parents or other family members decide the person has a problem and refers them to treatment). That would be a much more interesting figure. Well, only 16.6% of those in treatment for marijuana were self/family referred. 31.2% of those in treatment for alcohol were self/family referred, and 63.4% of those in treatment for heroin were self/family referred. In total, of all people in treatment only 2.5% are self/family referred for marijuana use. 10:58:33 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Four Victims in Alberta Several people have passed on articles to me about the tragic killing of four RMCP officers by a maniac who had a marijuana grow-op and ended up killing himself. There have been a number of good discussions about this around the web. The best I've seen so far is this article in the National Post of Canada: Why the War on Drugs Can Never Be Won by Jonathan Kay. Yesterday, four police officers were killed by a pot thug in Alberta. For those who still believe the war on drugs can be won, it will be but one more reason to pound the chest and call for zero tolerance. But common sense dictates otherwise: These four men were not victims of drugs. They were victims of the war on drugs. This is not the best time to make this point. When men in uniform -- men with wives and children and mortgages -- are gunned down by criminals, our first human impulse is not to question the mission of the fallen. But we must: There are many good reasons to put one's life on the line -- soldiers, firemen and even taxis drivers do it all the time in a day's work. But the campaign against reefer, that is not one of them. The number of people who died yesterday trying to fight the marijuana trade exceeds -- by four -- the total number of people known to medical science to have died from a marijuana overdose, ever. ... Four more drug war victims. 6:26:29 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Positive press response in Seattle The Kings County Bar Association proposal was released yesterday to the press and, while it's gotten no coverage to speak of so far outside of Seattle, both the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post Intelligencer gave it some nice positive coverage. It is clearly being seen as an opening salvo in a long-term effort. Proponents of the controversial idea, outlined in a report released yesterday, say continuing to deal with drug addiction as a crime instead of a medical problem is not only expensive, it simply doesn't work. They say letting the state regulate now-illegal drugs would curb all kinds of problems in society that the so-called war on drugs has failed to address, including gang violence, petty crime and drug use by kids. "It's time for us to take a fresh look at how we are dealing with the use and abuse of drugs in our society," said the Rev. Sandy Brown, executive director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, which also stands behind the proposal. "Our solutions aren't working. ... They've actually created injustices that need to be fixed." Supporters acknowledge the idea is too new and controversial to get off the ground this year, despite a state Senate bill that proposed a first step. Bar association President John Cary said the idea, for now, is to get a discussion going about a sweeping drug-policy overhaul. The Seattle P.I. article not only gave the proposal a good overview, it focused on positive comments by supporters, and even reasonable responses by opponents. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng said the way drug cases are handled "continues to be an important issue that deserves further discussion and study." In a written statement yesterday, he said, "While I don't agree with the Bar Association's proposal, it's important to note that we have made significant changes in our criminal justice system with regard to decreasing sentences and increasing treatment options for drug offenders." Within all of that, the one real negative -- naturally from Tom Riley of the ONDCP -- sounded remarkably ignorant Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said he didn't see how "making drugs less difficult for addicted users to get stems the problem." He suggested the idea would also invite a flood of lawsuits. "A state or municipality would have to be crazy to take on the legal liability that would come with distributing products with such known, catastrophic health consequences," Riley said. It's so like the Drug Czar's office to not even discuss the proposal's merits, but just throw out ridiculous statements that have no foundation. Probably the key statement was made by Senator Adam Kline: "I think the King County Bar Association is light-years ahead of the Legislature in assessing the need for a radical sea change in the policy on drugs," Kline said. Exactly. And we need to work on helping the legislature catch up. 6:13:28 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Liberals and Prohibition Serial Catowner has written an interesting and provocative post for Guest Drug WarRants. Check it out and leave your comments. Remember, anybody that would like to write your own material about the drug war is welcome to do so for Guest Drug WarRants. Just send me your post. 5:54:52 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []