Thursday, May 12, 2005

Drug Czar Caught in Fraud Jacob Sullum at Hit and Run has the story. At a May 3 press conference calling attention to what he described as "growing and compelling evidence...that regular marijuana use can contribute to depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia," federal drug czar John Walters presented the parents of a Colorado Springs 15-year-old, Christopher Skaggs, who was caught smoking pot with friends behind his school in January 2004 and committed suicide that July. The press and public were encouraged to believe that marijuana made him do it. But as the Marijuana Policy Project notes (in a press release that's not online yet [ed. now it is]), it turns out the teenager tested negative for cannabis at the time of his death but positive for alcohol. What's more, at least four drug tests conducted in the months before his death did not find any traces of pot. [...] Busted. Add to this, the Drug Czar's implications regarding Jeff Weise (the Red Lake shooter), and he's becoming more and more like his hero Harry J. Anslinger every day. Anslinger in 1961, looking back at his reefer madness career: "Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or more marijuana "reefers." As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. I think Walters is channeling Anslinger. 11:29:39 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

40 Years for Eating a Joint Loyal reader Brian sent this one in to me from Tyler, Texas Morning Telegraph... POT EATER GIVEN 40 YEARS IN JOINT Timothy Wayne Whitlock traded a joint for "the joint" - marijuana for 40 years in prison. The Troup man was convicted of tampering with evidence Wednesday for eating a "doobie" in front of an officer who stopped him for a traffic violation. A Smith County jury sentenced the man after about one and one-half hours of deliberation and found him guilty after five minutes of consideration. The third-degree felony was enhanced to a first-degree felony because of the 31-year-old's three prior trips to the penitentiary. He faced 25 years to life in prison. Idiot District Attorneys Joe Murphy and Jason Parrish actually asked for the maximum: life in prison. Now it certainly appears that Whitlock is no choir boy... He has two felony burglary of a building convictions and a felony driving while intoxicated conviction. He also has eight misdemeanors, including two driving while intoxicated charges, resisting arrest, fleeing police, two thefts and two possession of marijuana charges. ... and I don't know Whitlock -- he may be the scum of the earth and the personification of evil -- but that still doesn't justify 40 years for eating a joint. A criminal justice system that allows for such a sentence is cruel, is in violation of basic human rights, is un-American, and is in desperate need of radical reform. Update: Readers disgusted vet and sixtyfps point out this story, and TalkLeft has more about some that aren't getting 40 years... The FBI announced today that criminal charges are being filed against 16 current and former U.S. soldiers, cops, prison guards and an INS agent who allowed 1,230 pounds of cocaine to get through Arizona checkpoints and accepted more than $222,000 in bribes. As disgusted vet says... The punchline? They might get PROBATION! 4:36:07 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Pain Wars Just as recently it seems that more mainstream sources are questioning, or outright condemning, the drug war in Colombia, it's also nice to see more taking on the DEA and its war on pain. USA Today has Prescriptions for Painkillers are Harder to Get and the Washington Examiner has an editorial: Pain relief is major casualty of drug war. The Agitator (who's been all over this) and TalkLeft, have more on these articles and the issue in general. The Examiner editorial is quite strong -- starts out: As federal prosecutors target physicians who prescribe large doses of pain-killing drugs because they can also be abused, doctors are increasingly afraid to provide relief for sick people with intractable pain. As Pain Relief Network President Siobhan Reynolds said, "Ninety-eight percent of doctors won't touch [chronic pain patients] with a 10-foot pole." That shows how this effort by the federal government is, in essence, a criminal act of massive proportion (and provides additional justification for the need to get the feds out of medical decisions). The editorial concludes: The system is indeed broken when the federal government is more concerned about the welfare of drug addicts than the 25 million Americans identified in a 2002 National Institutes of Health study who live with unrelenting pain - while the means to alleviate it remains just beyond their reach. Here, I believe the Examiner is being a bit sarcastic. They know that the federal government doesn't really give a damn about the welfare of drug addicts. And yet, if you look at it, the entire supposed reason to have the feds involved in pain medication diversion is to prevent addicts from getting drugs. So yes, in this case, the paper is saying that the policy of the DEA is to prevent addicts from getting drugs at the expense of those legitimately in pain (hence, caring more about addicts that pain sufferers). In actuality, the DEA only cares about getting busts, some notches on its belt, and more funding. It's hard for us (who see all the hypocrisy of the drug war) to imagine, but the entire drug war (with all the costs, and prison, and killing) is supposedly fought to prevent some people from voluntarily using drugs. Reasons for Drug War Avoiding the harm that may occur to some people who are voluntarily using drugs. Costs of Drug War Billions of dollars Huge numbers incarcerated Booming black-market economy Profitable criminal industry Impure, unsafe drugs Hobbling of doctors and medical treatment Death Government corruption Reduction of citizen support for law enforcement Targeting of children by criminals Increased violence Destruction of families and communities ... And, of course, it doesn't even work. 9:59:07 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

The Raich Speculations Continue... It's Jim Lindgren at Volokh Conspiracy this time... The beginning of the post is a glance at a new study that purports to be able to predict Supreme Court decisions based on the number and tenor of questions asked in the oral arguments. And the numbers correlate fairly well to rule against the party that gets the most questions. If so, as Jim notes, that would bode poorly for Raich, as Barnett got a lot more questions than the government (although I think that the tenor of them was not so certain). Of course, the problem with such a method is that it really can hold true only in cases where the Supreme Court has pre-decided the outcome (and it may, in fact, be an indication that most cases are pre-decided and oral arguments have little value). If the Justices had not yet reached a majority in Raich, then the number of questions in oral is probably irrelevant. Jim goes on to look back again at Wickard and does a good job of getting to the nub of the issue in Raich (something I've discussed before). Reading Wickard, which is a pretty weakly reasoned case by my lights, reminds me that the Supreme Court is in a bind in Raich. Either the Court has to follow the Constitution and strike down federal drug regulation of intrastate noncommercial uses of marijuana (a controversial decision to follow the rule of law), or it has to expand Wickard radically, rendering the Commerce Clause almost (though not quite) a dead letter. Stated another way, the Court either has to expand its federalism jurispridence slightly (eg, Lopez & Morrison, but in the controversial drug area), or it has to limit Lopez & Morrison to their facts by radically expanding federal power under the Commerce Clause. It can't stand still. Perhaps that is why the Court has been so slow to render an opinion. Exactly. This is the point, I think, that many miss. Voting for the government is not a vote to continue things as they are -- it is, in fact, a potentially dramatic expansion of federal power. Voting for Raich might seem, on the surface, a radical action, yet such a decision could be narrowly tailored. Tough one. ... and our next possible chance to find out is Monday. 9:19:49 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []