Drug WarRant 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 | Related  | 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 | Related  | 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 | Related  | 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 | Related  | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, February 2, 2005 When a family member won't be helped Over at The American Street, Kevin Haydon poses a difficult question about how someone opposed to the drug war is supposed to deal with a family member who has willfully let his addiction damage those around him. A spirited discussion in comments there includes my response (#16). 10:41:13 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] SOTU on Drugs I missed it. He must have mentioned it when I ran to the bathroom for a minute. You know, the State of the Union... the part where he talked about cutting all those wasteful drug war programs to reduce the deficit? Damn, I really wanted to hear that part. Did he mention my name? After I made the suggestion, I halfway thought that I might be invited to sit in the balcony next to Jenna or something, so I could be pointed out for making such a sensible suggestion to eliminate expensive, counterproductive, and wasteful government programs. But I understand that the seating there is limited. Hope they replay it. Did he get a standing ovation for that part? 10:14:32 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Attorneys General go after the DEA The Attorneys General of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia (30 of them) wrote a very unhappy letter to director Karen Tandy, complaining about how the DEA is dealing with pain medication and concerned that the DEA is "infringing on the legitimate practice of medicine or exerting a chilling effect on the willingness of physicians to treat patients who are in pain." Read all about it, including the actual text of the letter, at The Agitator. 8:48:14 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] More on Cheryl Noel ______, who says she is a friend of the Noel family, wrote to say how appalled she was at most of the news coverage of the Cheryl Noel tragedy. She has written a letter to the Dundalk Eagle (the one paper I found that provided some balanced coverage) to thank them and to also add some details. I don't know if the Eagle will publish it, but regardless, I thought it would be good to share it here. Letter removed at the request of the author. I have not independently verified the statements in _______'s letter, but I have no particular reason to doubt her, and if true, they paint a very disturbing picture. Given these statements, along with what's been reported so far, I would hope that someone in Baltimore county is doing some further investigation, and yet as far as I can tell there's been no press mention at all since the Dunkalk Eagle story. I welcome hearing from others who knew Cheryl and her family, or who have additional information about any investigation. Update The person who wrote this letter originally gave me permission to print it and then later asked me to remove it and I am following their wishes. I don't know what that means and still welcome anyone who has more details on the Cheryl Noel story. 8:36:56 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, February 1, 2005 Illinois, Medical Marijuana, and Andrea Barthwell Medical Marijuana is back in the Legislature in Illinois. HB 407 has been introduced in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Representative Larry McKeon. Creates the Medical Cannabis Act. Provides that a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition and the person's primary caregiver may be issued a registry identification card by the Department of Human Services that permits the person or the person's primary caregiver to legally possess no more than 12 cannabis plants and two and one-half ounces of usable cannabis. Provides that a person who possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, for the medical use of cannabis; provided that the qualifying patient or primary caregiver possesses an amount of cannabis that does not exceed 12 cannabis plants and two and one-half ounces of usable cannabis. Amends the Cannabis Control Act to make conforming changes consistent with the Medical Cannabis Act. Effective immediately. Illinois Drug Education and Legislative [IDEAL] Reform is working on the push to get Illinois as the next state with legal medical marijuana. Both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times have, in the past, run editorials supporting medical marijuana and reprimanding the federal government for trying to interfere. The Tribune even noted that: A 1998 poll by the Center for Governmental Studies at Northern Illinois University found 67 percent of Illinois residents believe "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients." I'll be following this closely. Now, the story shifts direction slightly. Remember Andrea Barthwell? Former Deputy Drug Czar. She was, according to her accounts, a recovering alcohol and drug addict, who became a treatment specialist and went on to the Drug Czar's office where she focused on using tax dollars to lobby against medical marijuana in particular. Then she left the ONDCP to take a stab at becoming the Republican candidate for Senate. The Illinois Republican party decided to go with Maryland's Alan Keyes, instead. So what's she up to now? It turns out, she has created an organization that involves having her travel around the State of Illinois lecturing about the evils of marijuana! Check it out at: Illinois Marijuana Lectures. The web site was just created a week ago, in time for a tour of lectures tied to the new medical marijuana bill. I missed her lectures in Peoria, Bloomington, and Decatur, but there's more to come. Her next set of lectures: February 8, 2005 9:30 - 12:30 Marijuana Lecture (Alton) St. Clare's Hospital, Professional Office Building, Auditorium B. 915 E. 5th St. February 8, 2005 3:00 - 5:30 Marijuana Lecture (Belleville) Chestnut Health Systems, 12 N. 64th Street February 9, 2005 10:00 - 12:30 Marijuana Lecture (Mt. Vernon) Rolland Lewis Building, Veteran's Park Each of these will involve a lecture, followed by a "strategic planning session." If anyone is able to attend one or more of these to pass out some fact sheets with the real truth about medical marijuana, let me know. If you want to see what's included in the lectures, you can view the powerpoint presentation in various formats here. It's very clinically detailed and Andrea is very smooth and professional. Her lies aren't nearly as blatant as the drug czars.' She adapts to criticism from drug reformers and addresses those points -- always with a little mis-direction. She's a formidable foe, which makes her even more dangerous. She says what people want to hear, and surrounds it in scientific sounding descriptions. But basically it's the same lies dressed in a pretty gown: Marijuana is more dangerous because it's more potent Medical Marijuana is nothing more than a "Trojan horse designed to lead to the legalization of a dangerous drug." Marijuana is somehow filling treatment centers with marijuana addicts, more than any other drug, including alcohol, and despite all scientific evidence, it's because they're addicted, not because they were forced to attend treatment. Smoked marijuana can't be medicine, and we should reject it and trust to the government's drug approval systems (the same one that's been blocking marijuana research, while fast-tracking Vioxx). More lectures are promised, including the Chicago suburbs. One thing that is clear. This is specifically a matter of lobbying, despite any claims that they are merely informing people about dangers of marijuana. The brochure for Illinois Marijuana Lectures includes as part of the agenda: The Illinois situation The Illinois strategic plan. The Illinois Legislative threat assessment. How you can make a difference. Where's the funding coming from? This part requires lots more questioning. It's particularly interesting on the heels of all the illegal government covert propaganda that's surfaced. So let's look at the sponsors. There are two (in addition to Andrea). Educating Voices is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that cannot, by law, lobby. It's headed up by Judy Kreamer from Naperville. The other sponsor is very interesting: Great Lakes Addition Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Network. This organization, housed in the Jane Addams College of University of Illinois at Chicago, is funded by taxpayer dollars through SAMHSA. Why are they funding a series of lectures designed to derail medical marijuana legislation? Is there a connection to Andrea's old job with the ONDCP (which has authority over SAMHSA)? Andrea's son David (a recent Yale graduate working in Arlington, VA) has designed the Illinois Marijuana Lectures website. Interestingly, it appears that he is also working on in Intranet site for... Great Lakes ATTC. Wonder how he got that gig? While the information is incomplete, I think further investigation is in order as to who is funding this anti-medical marijuana effort by the former deputy drug czar. Update: Good news. The medical marijuana bill was referred to Human Services Committee today. 9:21:03 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Militarizing our Police I was working on a post about a billboard that was put up in my town, but then it came down after a very short time. Could it be that others here found it as offensive as I did? This billboard is for Task Force 6, a multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement unit. Now regular readers of the Rant will know that I am not a big fan of drug task forces of any kind, but unlike many others I've reported on, Task Force 6 in Illinois had not had any public scandals or anything to even really alert me to its existence... until this billboard. Let's zoom in on the part on the right: What genius came up with this marketing strategy? Try to analyze this in terms of the audiences they may be trying to target. Target audience A: Gangs and other criminal organizations that sell illegal drugs. Now I haven't belonged to a gang, but I've seen some, as I'm sure you have. Picture yourself in their group, making tons of money off of black market drugs. You see this billboard. Do you say "Whoa, that's scary. We better stop selling drugs and get jobs at McDonald's," or "We'd better get some bigger guns." Somehow I'm not seeing an increase in fast food applications, which means we may need to watch out for heavier duty cross-fire. Target Audience B: The community, to feel good about being kept safe. I'm sorry, but as a community member, the idea of armed soldiers with army gear conducting military operations in the middle of the night in my neighborhood does not make me sleep better. Finally, the thing that concerns me most about this billboard is that Task Force 6 thinks it's appropriate to do this. This means that they have already built up that mindset that they are conducting a war on enemy soil. This kind of attitude leads to such concepts as "acceptable civilian casualties" and the use of any kind of violent tactic to achieve the mission. It is undoubtedly men like these who Cheryl Noel saw entering her bedroom before she died. 9:25:47 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []