Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Quote of the day ...comes from reader BD in comments: Isn't it interesting that Angel Raich, totally cognizant and aware of her pain, didn't arouse as much sympathy from our public servants as Terri Schiavo did? 7:46:44 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Mark Souder is the scum of the earth [First off -- welcome to post number 1,000 at Drug WarRant. What a ride! When I started this blog just under two years ago, I expected to be posting once or twice a week. Obviously I got a little more involved than that.] Now, on to Mark Souder. Why is he the scum of the earth? Because he's using the death of a 14-year-old girl for his cheap drug war theatrics. Today on the floor of the House, he invoked the death of Irma Perez as an indictment against the entire medical marijuana movement. He also did so last year when this amendment came up. He did it on his website for awhile, and he did it in the Washington Times last week. Here's what Souder said in the Times: The consequences of this kind of quackery are real and tragic. Last year, 14-year-old Irma Perez was laid to rest in California after dying from an ecstasy overdose at a party. Her friends, having recognized that Irma felt unwell after taking the MDMA pill, attempted to give her marijuana because they believed "that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients." Had she received early -- and real -- treatment, Irma likely would have survived the overdose. Now here's the full story as reported at the time: According to several sources close to the investigation, Perez had a strong negative reaction April 23 after taking a blue pill presumed to be MDMA, known on the street as ecstasy. Toxicological tests are still pending to show whether the pill was contaminated with other substances. Perez complained of feeling awful and said she felt like she was "going to die," the sources said. In response, her friends gave her water and helped her take a bath. She also was given ibuprofen and possibly marijuana, apparently because the friends knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients, sources said. The two girls also contacted a 17-year-old boy who allegedly supplied them with the drug and asked him for advice, the sources said. He has since been arrested on the same charges as the two girls. [Note: Toxicology tests later confirmed the ecstasy, but there have been no further public reports as to why Irma died from that dose. Ecstasy overdose deaths are extremely rare and usually require 48 tablets or more. There are, however, rare liver conditions that prevent the body from breaking down Ecstacy. None of these questions were ever answered publicly.] The real point is -- this had absolutely nothing to do with medical marijuana. The friends also thought to give her ibuprofen. Would Mark Souder outlaw that? These friends were searching, grasping at any straw to do something, except the one thing that they very clearly knew -- contact adults for help. Why didn't they? Because they were scared. Because they had been made more afraid of getting help than of letting their friend die. Marsha Rosenbaum had the right response to this tragedy. Missing from our educational efforts is a fallback strategy of harm reduction for those teens who, like Perez and her friends, say "yes" despite our efforts. In addition to providing sound information about alcohol and other drugs, young people should learn to recognize signs of distress and know that they can and must get help. This was not what happened in Perez's case. For five hours her friends tried on their own to help, using makeshift methods, such as giving her a bath. Perez finally lapsed into the coma from which she never recovered. ... Many in law enforcement, such as Commander Trisha Sanchez of the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force, agree that the message we send our teens should be clear. The use of alcohol and other drugs is a poor choice, but if you do experiment and there is a problem, you will not be punished by calling for help. But what does Mark Souder say about harm reduction? He has attacked the notion of harm reduction as even being valid. So he is opposed to letting kids know that they can get help. If anybody is responsible for the death of Irma Perez (and many like her), it is people just like U.S. Congressman Mark Souder, who put the drug war above the lives of the citizens. For him to attempt to pawn off his own guilt as a contributor to mass murder on those who are trying to help the sick is the lowest of the low. And yes, Mark Souder is the scum of the earth. [Note: The DEA's Karen Tandy also used this story to cravenly promote the fiction that medical marijuana is a myth that kills. So Mark will have some company.] 7:08:50 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

What to do now that we lost the Hinchey vote Official vote breakdown here. The Drug Policy Alliance also has a list of how the Representatives voted. You can send them a message saying what you thought of their vote at that link. But don't stop there. Here's a letter I just sent to my local paper: To the editor: On June 6, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government has the constitutional power to arrest medical marijuana patients who are obeying state law. It did not, however, say that it was a good idea. Even Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion supporting the government, acknowledged the evidence of the medical value of marijuana and suggested that the issue might be "heard in the halls of Congress." Americans agreed in a Mason-Dixon poll last week, with 68% saying that the federal government should not prosecute medical marijuana patients. On June 15, Congress had the chance to pass the Hinchey amendment to the Justice appropriations bill. This would have stopped the spending of federal tax dollars to harass sick people who are obeying both their doctor's advice and state law. Where was Representative Gerald C. (Jerry) Weller (11th District)? For the third year in a row, he voted to use our tax dollars to send armed federal agents after old, sick people in California. Is this where we want our money spent? Are our borders secure? Has Osama been caught? Does Weller think we're made of money? This was not an amendment to legalize marijuana, or even to legalize medical marijuana. This was only about letting 10 states enforce their own laws and allow their patients to follow the advice of their doctors. Nor was this about the message we're sending to children. As was documented clearly on the House floor, the use of marijuana by teens actually dropped after California passed medical marijuana (perhaps seeing grandma using it to keep down her chemo medicine takes away some of the allure). No, there's nothing in Weller's votes that could help his Illinois constituents. Maybe Representative Weller is just happy spending our money to help out his pharmaceutical buddies. My tax dollars were hard earned and I don't appreciate Weller throwing them away. Respectfully submitted for publication. - Pete Guither [Note: if this letter inspires you, please go ahead and use the ideas but add your own wording. It should be your thoughts, not mine.] Beyond that, we still have work to do. We gained 13 votes this year. 47 more to go. Some phone calls, some visits, some elections... Support the Truth in Trials Act in the Senate and the State's Rights to Medical Marijuana Act in the House. Continue to put pressure on the administration regarding re-scheduling of marijuana. The Supreme Court decision opened up some possible doors for future litigation. And most importantly, we need to continue to get support from the people. Vocal, unashamed support. Take this time to talk to people about it. Write letters to the editor. Be active. Let's make this the election cycle when politicians can no longer ignore the public's opinion on this issue. To do that we have to insure that the people will hold them accountable. 5:22:29 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Hinchey Watch - Day 2, part 2 [See full proceedings through the Hinchey Amendment in the post below] In this post, we'll continue to watch items in the proceedings. C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho) has put forward an amendment to restrict the "sneak-and-peek" search warrants and brings back judicial oversight. Some nice stuff about the importance of the 4th Amendment. Ron Paul comes forward in support of this one. Some more extremely nice statements about the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, this amendment is ruled out of order and had to be withdrawn. Voting is now taking place on the earlier amendments. Hinchey will be the fifth vote. First vote is 15 minutes, but I believe each successive vote is 5 minutes, so, if true, that means we'll have a result on Hinchey by around 2:30 pm Eastern. Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner. An amendment to increase funds (by transfer) for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program in the amount of $126,152,000. Failed. My recaps of the Hinchey floor debates from past years: 2004, 2003. Hinchey is on C-Span right now giving an overview of his amendment. It's for the layman, and he's doing a nice job. Nothing new for us, but clear. He doesn't think he has the votes. Doesn't think that Congress is ready -- that it's driven by a narrow ideology. He's hoping for an increase in votes. Phone lines are open. Every single caller was on our side. Memo to phone callers: try not to sound like you're actually stoned when you call. Nice call from a Republican lady who has glaucoma whose daughter convinced her to try marijuana and it helped her. Phone lines closed. Hinchey vote is next. Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment Vote: Party-line so far. 70 yes, 100 no. Why won't Republicans vote for this? 103 yes, 162 no. That much pharmaceutical money? 132 yes, 211 no. Looks like we're going to lose. Final: 161 yes, 264 no, 8 NV Only 15 Republicans voted in favor, and 54 Democrats voted against. (All 1 Independent member voted in favor.) Roll Call available here: Roll 255 Calvina Fay gloats (and fails basic math concepts). ... This amendment was defeated in Congress today by nearly double the votes. "This victory is yet more proof that this is truly the end of the medical marijuana scam," says Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. ... With that, she proceeded to kick out the crutches of a woman suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, yelling "Take that, you druggie bitch!" 12:25:25 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Hinchey Watch - Day 2 The House of Representatives is about to continue with consideration of amendments to the Justice Appropriations bill. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment (preventing the use of federal funds to harass sick people in medical marijuana states) will most likely be considered today, with 30 minutes of debate. There will also be a number of other amendments related to drug war funding. I'll be following the action here throughout the day. Sidebar: How the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment has done in the past. 2003 Voting: Aye No Rep 15 208 Dem 136 65 Ind 1 0 Total 152 273 2004 Voting: Aye No Rep 19 202 Dem 128 66 Ind 1 0 Total 148 268 We need a gain of about 60 votes this year. 11:15 am Eastern: Slogging through the amendments. First, a quickie. The chairman offered an amendment (apparently having found some extra dollars somewhere), increasing COPS by $34 million and $34 million more to go after meth. (This was passed on voice vote.) Another amendment was then offered to increase funding to COPS (at the expense of NSF). There must be a lot of lobbying being done by law enforcement groups. Now, from what I understand of the purpose of Community Oriented Policing Programs, it sounds good -- more cops on the streets on regular beats, getting to know the community, etc. However, I'm very suspicious of the federal ties/controls on the program and their interest in developing drug war tactics through the COPS program. Anytime the federal government is in a position to control (even partially) local law enforcement, it is bad for the community. 12:30 pm Eastern: Nothing new regarding drug policy. Recent items have mostly been about the U.N. and Cuba. 12:45 pm Eastern: Rumor has it that Hinchey will come up within the next 1/2 hour. [But first, we're going to talk about not having a global tax. Passed.] Hinchey-Rohrabacher 12:56 pm Eastern: Here it is! [Note: this was blogged on the fly and is intended to give a general approximation. The actual transcript will be available tomorrow.] Hinchey is giving the intro, detailing how marijuana actually helps sick people and yet the DEA has been targeting them. Unconsionable for us to deny this just because "narrow ideological bias against that drug in Congress." Quotes Institute of Medicine Report. Quotes Stevens from Supreme Court about the Democratic process "may one day be heard in the halls of Congress". Lays into opponents. Does not legalize marijuana, etc. Medical organizations.... He's ripping through a whole bunch of points. Very well done. Our amendment is about compassion. Taxpayers' dollars should not be spent on sending patients to jail. It's about states rights and compassion. Peterson (PA) on the other side: Marijuana is not harmless. There's Marinol. There hasn't been enough testing. Marijuana use curtails the development of the brain. Blah, blah, blah. Same old stuff. Encouraging young people to use marijuana. He has friends who grew up with marijuana "was the hot issue" and they became "somewhat dull and have stayed that way their entire life." (Peterson seems a bit dull to me). Marijuana is not needed in this country. It should not become legal in any way in my view. Sanders (our side): Makes nice dig about not disagreeing with the capacity of Peterson's friends. Then says that most of Peterson's points were irrelevant. "Let's not decide on a political basis that no state is competent to regulate the practice of medicine in that state." [Remember, that all of this is very quickly typed on the fly so wait for exact quotes from the transcripts]. Let's leave it to the states and not pretend to be doctors by playing them on C-Span. Steve King (Iowa): Does the whole FDA approval thing. Then says it's about slipping the camel's nose under the tent, so that those who want to can eventually legalize marijuana. All sorts of medical organizations have rejected medical marijuana. It's just a social agenda to legalize. And this society will be more replete with this hallucinogenic drug and will lead to others. Nancy Pelosi - [nice to see the Minority Leader showing up for this.] Says that it's about compassion. Says nice things about the committee leaders. Says this amendment is timely coming after the Supreme Court decision. Make sure you know that what we are talking about here is states passing their own laws and initiatives. Emphasizes that a doctor's prescription is needed. They should be able to do so if their states allow it. We've lost 20,000 people to AIDS in my district and I've seen personally how medical marijuana has helped these people directly with wasting syndrome, etc. And it's not just AIDS. Begs to differ about lack of support by science. Notes the IOM report (quotes from it). Mentions other medical journals and how medical marijuana inhibit pain, improves quality of life, etc. Many medical associations support with doctors prescription under state law. Lists a number of such organizations. 92% of American's seniors support this (recent AARP poll) Lists a number of church organizations that support this -- impressive list. "We must not make criminals of criminally ill people -- slip of the tongue -- seriously ill people." [Nicely done.] Souder [Oh, boy.] this is a pro-marijuana effort ... dangerous drug ...shysters and quack... carbolic smoke ball promised to cure everything and snake oil [brings out old ads to show these old horrow show items] They made people drunk, just like marijuana makes you high. Brings up the Irma Perez story again. [I swear I'm going to burst if he does this again to this young girl -- I'll blow up about it later] Linked to heart disease, lung cancer, suicide, mental illness.. dangerous... more than 400 chemicals.. It's used for recreational reasons, not really for medical purposes. Doctors prescribe to everyone. Marijuana coffee houses. People growing tens of acres and hiding behind medical marijuana. Supporters exploit sick people. It's not proven, not true., etc. Marinol has been approved. Marinol is great, etc., etc. Proponents are perpetuating a fraud saying that home-grown pot, reefer, weed, etc..... [Aaaarrgghhhh.....] Rohrabacher: Says it should be about states. He thinks that the drug may well be harmful, and many other drugs may be harmful, but we empower doctors to make those decisions and we trust them to make those decisions. But simply to override all the powers of the people of the states is unconstiitutional. Our founding fathers wanted these decisions to be done in the states. The only thing we're deciding here is should we use federal money to override these decisions in the states? Let's not have a power grab in the federal government. Wolf: Opposed. Interferes with law enforcement. More young people are in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or any other drugs [same old nonsense from ONDCP] Sends wrong message to children. Confusing and wrong message. Farr (CA): (co-sponsor) It has not been a problem in California. It does not get drugs in the hands of kids. It doesn't hurt law enforcement. Supreme court didn't strike down those laws. This is about whether Congress will step in and prevent states from relieving pain. Don't bust old ladies. Gallegly (CA) [should be recalled by his constituents] Someone who smokes 5 joints per week may be taking in as much cancer-causing chemicals as pack of cigarettes a day. Woolsey (CA) I believe Doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana for their patients. My mother suffered from Glaucoma, and marijuana relieved her greatly. She's gone now, but I'm certain I'm speaking for her today in asking that others be allowed... Blumenauer (OR) Teen use of marijuana since the approval of medical marijuana by the state of California has gone down. Shows charts. It is outrageous that the federal government would intervene where states like mine are taking these steps. [mentions death with dignity in Oregon] Kucinich (OH) - support - Trying to raise marijuan to some sort of boogey-man when we have people suffering and we're going to deny that to them? Because of some shibboleth about marijuana? DeFazio (OR) Are we for states' rights or not? I guess not if we disagree with what the states say. It's not about legalization. This is something that should be made available in a compassionate way... Lofgren (CA) I oppose legalizing marijuana but support this amendment. Gave an example of someone who was relieved by marijuana but had to go out and buy it illegally -- why should we force cancer patients to do that? I cannot understand why we would interfere with their ability to get help. Jackson-Lee (TX) support - I ask kindness, respect and love for those who are suffering. Allow this to go forward so we can help the dying and allow the 10th amendment so states can do what they wish. Hinchey: Opponents have shown 19th century arguments for 21st century issues. This Congress says to those 10 states "I'm sorry but you can't do it." This Congress should be about relieving pain, not based on 19th century prejudices, biases. Let's pass this amendmenet [his time expired] Wolf: Accuses Hinchey of being inflammatory. [Right.] Souder: Getting high is the same as getting smashed. Starts listing other drugs that can help. Physicians shouldn't be making up FDA law. This is, in fact, asking to repeal the FDA. This isn't about states' rights - it's about the states over-riding the federal government, which they can. It's a bogus debate. Nobody's going after individual doctors [really?] - we're going after those big marijuana plantations with signs up in front saying this is medical. We're not buying into the college dorm viewpoint that this is somehow medical. We've seen the vote decline here in the last few years and we'll see it decline even more this year. [time ended]. Now we just have to wait for the vote. 9:13:02 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []