|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, April 2, 2005 |
And yet, the drug war continues without pause...
(From CNN: Report: Colombia drug war failing.)
A new White House report showed that a massive aerial spraying offensive last year failed to dent the area of coca under cultivation in Colombia.
But President Alvaro Uribe vowed on Friday to press ahead with U.S.-financed fumigation of cocaine-producing crops.
The war on drugs in Colombia, the world's main cocaine-producing country and a major supplier of heroin, has cost more than $3 billion in U.S. aid here since 2000. Critics of Washington's effort say the report indicates the Colombia and U.S. governments are losing the war.
"The U.S. government's own data provides stark evidence that the drug war is failing to achieve its most basic objectives," said John Walsh, of the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank critical of U.S. drug policies in Colombia.
The report by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said that despite a record-setting aerial eradication offensive, 281,694 acres of coca remained in Colombia at the end of 2004 -- an increase from the 281,323 acres left over after spraying the year earlier.
Walsh also pointed out that prices of cocaine and heroin have been steadily dropping over the years on U.S. streets, indicating availability of the drugs has not diminished.
What do you do when what you're doing doesn't work? Why, keep on doing it, of course.
But President Alvaro Uribe vowed on Friday to press ahead with U.S.-financed fumigation of cocaine-producing crops.
And if you're the Drug Czar's office, you just make up stuff.
David Murray, a top official in the White House drug office, insisted there were positive signs...
The White House drug office said that while the area under coca cultivation remained "statistically unchanged" over the previous year, the fumigation diminished the potential production of cocaine...
1:25:31 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Some Interesting Reading
 Jacob Sullum on the conviction of pain doctor William Hurwitz in Dose Response
Misconceptions about pain treatment could put a doctor in prison for life
In a potentially related story, UNM Doctors Discover Way to Measure Pain. Interesting, if true.
The Bitter Pill at Wired.
Buprenorphine could end heroin addiction, curb disease, and cut crime. But bureaucrats, doctors, and much of the treatment industry are just saying no. A case study in why the best technology doesn't always win.
In The Mirror: Heroin for Health A New Scientific Study Investigates the Potential Benefits of Giving Hard-Core Addicts Their Daily Doses
Why Drug Task Forces Must Go 101 -- Grits for Breakfast.
Reefer Madness
What is it about medical marijuana that makes everyone act so funny?
A powerful expose on some local media malfeasance in the medical marijuana story.
Flag Firefighters Contest City's Drug-Testing Policy
Flagstaff firefighters absolutely refuse to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. It's a violation, they say, of their constitutional rights.
Good for them! Now a judge will decide.
[Thanks to Scott and MAP.]
12:27:46 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, April 1, 2005 |
Bush to re-classify Marijuana
Amazing news, and about time! From the New York Tribune:
April 1, 2005. WASHINGTON DC: President Bush today announced the administration's decision to change the classification of cannabis (marijuana) under Controlled Substances Act (CSA) scheduling. While there had been some speculation that a re-classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 might be possible to allow controlled use of so-called "medicinal" marijuana, the President surprised experts by removing marijuana from the CSA entirely.
"The federal government has more important things to do than waste a lot of time and money on marijuana enforcement," said the President. "There are terrorists out there who hate our freedoms, and our efforts should be focused on them."
When asked if he really intended that marijuana should be declassified not only for medical purposes but for recreational purposes as well, President Bush replied. "Well, that's up to the states, as it should be. I believe that each state can choose that decision as they so choose."
Some critics charge that the decision is simply a matter of the President pandering to the traditional conservative base that supports states' rights. Complaints that the Republican leadership had abandoned federalism had been threatening to cause a split within the party.
Legal scholars are scrambling to figure out how this decision may affect the upcoming Supreme Court ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft.
Hmmm, I think I'll find out where the nearest National Park is.
[An April Fools Post. Have a great day.]
7:06:31 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 31, 2005 |
Why the Market Argument is Bogus in Raich
While waiting for the Supreme Court decision in Raich, it's still fun to do a little speculating. So I was interested to read Mike's post at the Ashcroft v Raich category of the Crime and Federalism blog, discussing the government's market argument.
While Mike disagrees with the reasoning of the market argument, he claims that it will prevail with the Justices (9-0 or 8-1). Here's how he describes it:
- Congress has chosen to enter the broader market of regulating controlled substances. Once of these controlled substances is marijuana.
- Every time a person purchases medical marijuana, he does not turn to the illicit drug market. Because fewer people purchase drugs illegally, demand for illegal drugs decreases. This decreased demand causes the prices to go down. In a similar vein, Judge Posner observed: "[L]aw enforcement activity raises the cost and hence price of illegal drugs and as a result of the price increase reduces their consumption."
- Since the price of illegal marijuana has decreased, people who could not have afforded marijuana, can afford the reduced price. Thus, there are more drug users.
- Congress has a legitimate interest in keeping drug prices high (as part of its scheme to keep drug usage low).
- Therefore, Congress may regulate non-commercial marijuana use to keep prices high, and thus demand, low.
Strangely, this is a fair representation of the government's market position, which I find completely absurd. Here, for example, is an exchange during the oral argument:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: If we rule for the Respondents
in this case, do you think the street price of marijuana
would go up or down in California?
MR. CLEMENT: I would be speculating, Justice
Kennedy, but I think the price would go down. And I think
that what -- and that, in a sense, is consistent with the
government's position, which is to say, when the
government thinks that something is dangerous, it tries to
prohibit it. Part of the effort of prohibiting it is
going to lead to a black market, where the prohibition
actually would force the price up. And there is a sense
in which this regulation, although not primarily designed
as a price regulation -- the Controlled Substance Act, I
think, does have the effect of increasing the price for
marijuana in a way that stamps down demand and limits the
-- and in a way that reduces demand. And I think that's
all consistent with Congress' judgement here.
Yep, very similar. The thing is, for Mike's prediction to hold, it seems to me that the Justices would have to have very thick skins considering how ridiculous they'll look.
Consider this. For the market argument above to hold true, you must accept the following:
- The government's strategy requires that medical marijuana patients purchase marijuana from criminals. If grandma in her wheelchair doesn't go out to the corner and score some pot, then Congress' legitimate interest will be undermined.
- If the government's strategy requires more people to use marijuana to keep the prices high (so they can reduce consumption), then any success would automatically be a failure. If they keep consumption high, thereby raising prices, then consumption will be reduced, but that will lower the price, which will increase consumption. Oh, No!
Surely, the Supreme Court Justices must have a little bit more sense of self-worth than to actually write an historic commerce clause ruling in support of such a ridiculous circular argument? I would hope so.
Now this doesn't mean that the government can't legitimately use the argument in other situations that price increase is a desired means toward reducing consumption. For example, they could argue that crop eradication increases prices, thereby reducing consumption. But they can't legitimately argue that they need people to use illegal marijuana in order to keep prices up, to reduce consumption.
At least, not without educated people laughing in their faces.
6:18:16 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Anslinger, I mean, Walters, hits a new low
One of yesterday's entries on the drug czar's blog:
The Red Lake Shooter and Drugs
Some disturbing content on the Red Lake shooter's blog has come to light. Jeff Weise, the teenager who allegedly shot and killed 9 people at Red Lake High School, Minnesota wrote, "I'm nothin' but your average Native American stoner. I'm mellow half the time, mostly natural, but mostly drug induced as well. I'm not a junkie, or an alcoholic, MJ is my gal' of choice."
Here's the article referenced (annoying registration required).
John Walters, do you really want to go there? "Disturbing content..." Oh yeah, let us connect the dots and say that marijuana caused him to shoot up the school?
Of course, this was a long article and you found that little reference from one of his older writings buried in it. Let's get a sampling of a few other things in that article.
He was taking large doses of the anti-depressant Prozac, which has been connected to violence in other youths, some said. He frequented a neo-Nazi Web site and admired Hitler. ...
"My mom used to abuse me a lot when I was little," he wrote on one page. "She would hit me with anything she could get her hands on, she used to drink excessively too. She would tell me I was a mistake, and she would say so many things that its hard to deal with them or think of them without crying." ...
On July 21, 1997, Weise's 31-year-old father committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest; some members of the band have said he was involved in an armed standoff with police when he did it. ...
On March 5, 1999, his mother was a passenger in a car driven by Elizabeth May Jourdain. They were in Shakopee and it was about noon when Jourdain ran a red light and slammed into a tractor-trailer making a left turn.
Jourdain was killed and Joanne Weise suffered a serious injury that left her brain-damaged. After recuperating from her injuries, she had to be placed in an assisted-living home where, Jeff would later write, she "had to re-learn how to tie her shoes." ...
"On anti-depressants. Seeing a therapist... That's about it. I got a brand new pair of cuts on my wrists that are gonna turn into beautiful scars some day." -- An excerpt from Weise's profile at yahoo.com
Oh sure. It was the marijuana.
Harry J. Anslinger, a liar and a racist who was one of the prime contributors to marijuana being illegal today, used to spread false stories about a young man who killed his entire family while on pot. Walters must just be trying to emulate his idol.
9:42:09 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
We put our freedom in their hands
The Las Vegas Review Journal is justifiably suspicious about this atrocity:
Editorial: Metro cop planted drugs in suspect's car
Sheriff says suspensions will suffice
While officers were in the process of arresting local resident Mark Lilly last July on suspicion of selling harmless legal substances and claiming they were narcotics, an official police spokesman now admits, canine officer David Newton placed real controlled drugs in Mr. Lilly's vehicle. He has since contended he did so "as a training exercise" for his dog.
It seems pointless to ask whether contaminating active crime scenes is an accepted time, method, or location for a canine "training exercise." A better question might be what Officer Newton was doing carrying narcotics to an active crime scene in the first place. Has he been charged with possession of those narcotics? Were they of a quantity that would get anyone else automatically charged with "possession with intent to sell"?
Police next expect us to believe officer Newton "forgot" he had placed the drugs in the car, whereupon officers Kevin Collmar and David Parker searched the car, found the planted drugs, and charged Mr. Lilly with possession of actual controlled drugs without proper licenses or prescriptions.
Read the whole article. It's really bizarre. It's also scary. And regardless of whether the officers were corrupt or somehow criminally stupid and negligent, suspension is insufficient.
There can be no tolerance when it comes to the issue of law enforcement officers planting drugs on people. We put our freedom in their hands.
Any one of us could find ourselves in prison for years based solely on a corrupt officer planting drugs. In particular when you have multiple officers testifying against you (as in this case) - what court will believe you're innocent?
You have to make it clear. In this case, Sherriff Bill Young should be fired for not firing the officers, and then they should be fired. Period.
[Thanks to Scott for the tip.]
12:22:35 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 30, 2005 |
Jacob Sullum takes on the Times
Check out this excellent rebuttal at Hit and Run to yesterday's stupid New York Times article on medical marijuana.
Yesterday, in anticipation of the Supreme Court's imminent decision in Ashcroft v. Raich, the medical marijuana case, The New York Times ran a bizarre story that suggests cannabis is more likely to drive a patient insane than relieve his symptoms. "There remains much confusion over whether marijuana in fact has any significant medical effect," declares Times reporter Dan Hurley. The confusion, it turns out, is mostly in his own mind. ...
11:58:56 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 28, 2005 |
New York Times Writer Can't Read
Dan Hurley's article tomorrow in the New York times is a strange, unbalanced article about medical marijuana, giving a lot of space to opponents, and then claiming there isn't enough "clinical" evidence to support medical marijuana.
The problem is that he can't even read his own article.
Take a look first at some of the "problems" he mentions (or quotes):
Yet there remains much confusion over whether marijuana in fact has any significant medical effect. ... But the reality is, we don't know. ...While little scientific evidence supports such a lifesaving role for marijuana ... There's not been a randomized, controlled trial demonstrating that marijuana or any cannabinoid is any more effective in controlled seizures than a placebo ... We have a product that has been legitimized without any evidence of efficacy. ... researchers said that the results should be interpreted cautiously, because the study had been intended to test only short-term benefits ... Showing clinical benefit in humans has been an elusive beast. ... But the clinical studies just aren't there. ...
Boy, you'd really get the notion that clinical studies haven't supported medical marijuana, wouldn't you. But then he says:
In 1997, Dr. Donald Abrams, an oncologist and assistant director of the Positive Health Program at the University of California at San Francisco, became the first doctor authorized by the National Institute of Drug Abuse to receive marijuana to conduct research to determine if it provided medical benefits.
Now more than a dozen California researchers are studying it under the auspices of the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. [emphasis added]
Isn't the big story here why the federal government has restricted studies? Can't you read your own article, Dan?
There are plenty of problems with this ignorant article, including presenting the questionable (and controversial) schizophrenia study without noting that the study did not, in fact, diagnose any schizophrenia or psychosis.
Come on, you can do better than that, NYT.
10:49:26 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Up to 50% of Canadian Press Reporters have Sex with Chickens
Via Hit and Run comes this bizarre factoid presented by Lorraine Turchansky in the Canadian Press
Up to 50 per cent of users can be addicted after the first dose of crystal meth...
What does that mean? Up to 50 per cent? Can be? Zero fits that definition. The only thing that can be determined for sure is that exactly 100% of people named Lorraine Turchansky who write for the Canadian Press don't know what they're talking about.
10:35:11 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 27, 2005 |
Are We Losing the War on Drugs?
An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy
By David Boyum and Peter Reuter
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
(Released March 25, 2005)
How Goes the "War on Drugs"?
An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy
By Jonathan P. Caulkins, Peter H. Reuter, Martin Y. Iguchi and James Chiesa
RAND Drug Policy Research Center, funded by The Ford Foundation
(Posted March 21, 2005)
Two major scholarly research sites, two almost identical critiques of the drug war (note that one of the authors worked on both).
In both cases, the studies are grossly flawed in that they operate under the assumption, for the purposes of the study, that prohibition can be the only model. Therefore they almost completely ignore:
- Side-effects of prohibition itself such as prohibition-fueled violence
- The impact of other potential models, such as legalizationa and regulation, on their recommendations. (Imagine a doctor recommending a course of treatment for obesity, and being able to recommend surgery or drugs, but not exercise or dieting. Such a limited diagnosis would be quackery.)
Despite the fact that the flawed studies depend upon a continuation of some mix of prohibition and treatment, both were extremely harsh in their evaluation of current drug policy.
These are not radical think tanks. They're solid, well-respected, and often called upon to testify in Congress. These devastating attacks on the current administration's policies could be quite powerful. Both had very nasty things to say about the reliance on incarceration, and both criticized the emphasis toward marijuana prohibition.
Before I give you highlights from the studies, there's one point that I found particularly interesting. I'd often wondered why the administration is so obsessed with marijuana, yet I hadn't thought it through. It's really quite simple. After getting failing grades in the past because of an inability to show results in the drug war, the government set a goal of reducing drug use by 10%.
How do you do that? Work on treating hard-core drug addicts that cause the most trouble? No, they're too small a number and take too long to affect. However, the largest number of actual drug users are casual marijuana users -- it's easy for them to quit, so that becomes a great target for reaching stupid goals like a reduction of 10% in drug users. So the administration has consciously and intentionally crafted a policy that specifically goes after casual marijuana users who are not a problem, while neglecting drug addicts who have a problem.
It also affects other aspects of their policy:
- Harm Reduction? No, that's good for long-term health, but doesn't give them immediate reduction of numbers. Better to go for abstinence only policy for potential short-term numbers gain even if it's worse in the long-run (and if an addict dies, that helps the numbers too).
- Reality-based education? No, that's better for long-term, but abstinence-only education gives them short-term numbers gain.
- Medical marijuana? No, those people still count as drug users under federal statistics.
So, as both studies note, the very numbers-based approach to goals encourages drug policy that is completely backward and counter-productive.
9:58:12 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
