Thursday, June 23, 2005

No amendment to cut federal drug testing dollars after all The action alert I gave yesterday has been rendered unnecessary, as the amendment has been withdrawn. Here's a report from SSDP's legislative director Ross Wilson: Today, we witnessed the frustrating nature of politics in Congress and how good policy proposals can get brushed aside in the name expedience. Nonetheless, we took some important steps forward in drumming up congressional opposition to student drug testing. While Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) spoke on the floor of the U.S. House about the importance of his planned amendment to cut student drug testing and use that money to fund youth offender reintegration programs, he never offered the amendment. Rep. David Obey (WI), the lead Democrat on Appropriations, had pressured members of his party NOT to offer amendments in the interest of being able to leave to go home for the weekend. After speaking about the numerous fundamental problems with the appropriations bill in question and offering his own amendment to re-fund public broadcasting, Rep. Obey declared, "No amount of fixing can fix this bill....If members are serious about wanting to get out today, it would be nice if they could recognize the fact that we cannot dispose with 47 amendments in two hours." The House ultimately did not complete consideration of the bill and will convene again tomorrow to do so. Nonetheless, this should not diminish the work of Congressman Bobby Scott to address concerns about drug testing and the importance of youth reintegration programs. In his remarks, he pointed out the proven ineffectiveness of student drug testing and the numerous organizations that oppose it. I'm unaware of previous debates about student drug testing on the floor of the U.S. House. SSDP, DPA, and the other organizations that signed on to our letter urging support of the amendment created a firestorm on Capitol Hill about student drug testing. After delivering our letter to all 435 voting members of the House, Reps. Bobby Scott and Danny Davis (D-IL) circulated their own letter to their colleagues soliciting support for their amendment. Almost immediately thereafter, notorious drug warrior Congressmen Mark Souder (R-IN) and John Peterson (R-PA) responded with their own weak letter opposing the amendment, alleging the efficacy of student drug testing to reduce drug use and the Supreme Court's "support" for such programs. (Of course, the court's 2002 decision specifically refused to opine on the public policy wisdom of drug testing.) Thanks once again to Jenny Janichek from Roosevelt University SSDP for getting Rep. Danny Davis's support on this. Thanks also to those who e-mailed and called their representatives to ask for their support of the Scott/Davis amendment. We will continue to build on the alliances forged in the process of pushing for this amendment and hope to offer a similar one next year. Amazing how Souder just keeps popping up like some kind of Energizer bunny extolling the virtues of anything related to prohibition and opposing anything that would actually help people. 5:59:23 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Sativex futures An article in the National Post, mostly discussing GW Pharmaceutical's stock prospects (and it's poor cash position) concluded with some interesting points about the future of the liquid form of marijuana called Sativex®. But Evolution Securities' Mr. Senior said there are numerous ways to raise funds, including a standard equity fund-raising, convertible debt or a loan from Bayer against future royalties. He said there is a 90% chance Sativex will be approved in the U.K. within 12 months, thus paving the way for European approval. Approval in the U.S. is still at least three years away, he said, but Health Canada's decision should put some pressure on American authorities. Sativex will inevitably find its way into the U.S. illegally, which may prompt authorities to explore the issue of medicinal cannabis. "We continue believe it is a case of 'when rather than if" Sativex will be approved," he said. Fascinating. 4:36:30 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Drug Czar's numbers called "funny math" It's nice to see that the Drug Czar is not always getting a free ride when it comes to the crap he calls "data" coming out of his office. The latest: Representative Tom Davis (R-VA) and Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) have asked the General Accounting Office to double-check the administration's cocaine-production estimates. There is so much conflicting data coming out, with the Drug Czar claiming that cocaine production has dropped by 30 percent of the past three years. But some American counternarcotics officials and drug-trade analysts call such triumphal pronouncements misleading. A U.S. government task force, they note, estimated that cartels last year produced more than twice the amount of cocaine claimed by the White House. A report released last week by the United Nations maintained that cocaine output is actually on the rise. The debate over drug numbers matters because Congress uses the White House figures as a measuring stick when determining the best way to spend nearly $1 billion annually in counternarcotics programs in South America. [...] The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced in March that cocaine production last year in the three Andean nations totaled 640 metric tons, down from 900 metric tons in 2001. Touting these numbers at a recent congressional hearing on Colombia -- which provides 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the United States -- John Walters, the head of the White House drug office, said: "We are heading in the right direction, and we are winning." But the White House figures contradict other tallies and strike some as funny math. According to the State Department, U.S. and Latin American security forces seized a record 373 metric tons of cocaine last year. Walters' office thinks annual consumption of the narcotic in the United States alone is about 300 metric tons. Taken together, the two figures exceed the White House estimate of the total produced in 2004. Speaking on condition of anonymity for security reasons, a U.S. official familiar with anti-drug operations insisted that South America "could easily be producing well over 800 metric tons of cocaine per year." (In the Houston Chronicle) Maybe people will start noticing that there's a whole lot of funny math coming out of that office. 8:33:30 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []