Drug WarRant Saturday, June 25, 2005 Medical Marijuana raids in San Francisco My first reaction was to jump all over the story (which has been reported elsewhere) of DEA raids on medical marijuana operations in San Francisco (so quickly after the Supreme Court decision). Given the official stories of money laundering and ecstasy, etc. in conjunction with the busts, however, I decided to wait until I had more information. After reading the latest report from the Legal Campaign Director with Americans for Safe Access, I am now prepared to call "shenanigans" at the DEA and the SFPD. Here's the report: In order to explain ASA's reaction to the recent raids, we offer this as at least an interim analysis. First, is has become clear that the DEA and SFPD (among other local law enforcement agencies) were operating collaboratively to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries at least two of which had been open for a number of years, supplying patients with much-needed medicine. This cooperation would appear to contradict the city's medical marijuana sanctuary resolution from 2001 , as well as the District Attorney's comments from last week in the SF Bay Guardian affirming patients' rights and expressing an unwillingness to cooperate with the feds. Second, the bulk of the indictments are for marijuana cultivation. This was evidenced by the fact that the dominant agency during the raids was the DEA, and that what was most visible was numerous plants being hauled out of the facilities. While three indictments were for possession with intent to distribute ecstasy, and another two were for "money laundering," these allegations are from proven and represent a common tactic by the feds to create a smokescreen for their real intentions. In fact, the "money laundering" accusations appear to be levied as a result of operators simply depositing money from medical marijuana proceeds into a bank account. The allegations of ecstasy distribution has no physical connection to any of the dispensaries. Third, allegations of "organized crime" within a certain ethnic community works to pit dispensing facilities, patients, and people in the "movement" against each other in a "divide and conquer" strategy. Accusing only Asians of illegal acts allows the feds to claim that the activities were gang-related, thereby splitting liberal support for medical marijuana playing on fears of the Asian mafia. Fourth, the fact that the DEA made statements that differentiate medical from non-medical also points to a "divide and conquer" strategy. The truth is that the federal government does not believe marijuana is medicine regardless. Their position and intent is not an accident, but likely well planned to broadcast to California and the nation that dispensaries (and they are implicitly grouping all dispensaries in this strategy) are just front operations for drug dealing and organized crime. At a time when over 40 cities and counties are deliberating regulations on dispensing, this is no mistake. Fifth, no evidence appears to exist that these operations were anything but medical marijuana operations. Again, two of the three dispensaries had been operating for years, providing medicine to countless patients. The amount of marijuana seized is consistent with the needs of the patients to whom they were providing medicine. Therefore, this is a time to come together in defiance against raids such as these and for the medical marijuana movement to speak as a united front. Similar federal activity happened a couple of years ago, but, due to a strong patient response, the feds backed off. The drug war and the feds' war against medical marijuana is a political one, that, despite having very real ramifications, is typically fought on the streets as opposed to a courtroom. Before buying into their "divide and conquer" strategy, ASA invites everyone to think critically about what has happened and join us in fighting back against this affront to patients. Let us not forget that Bryan Epis, Ed Rosenthal, and Scott Imler (among many others) have all been named criminals by the Federal government. Yep, it appears that the DEA is back to business as usual -- using taxpayer money to harass sick people. 5:17:34 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Friday, June 24, 2005 Shooting fish in a barrel OK, sometimes I just need a little entertainment, and a column comes along that does the trick very nicely. In this case, it's an OpEd by former Niles Police Chief Ray Giovannelli in the Journal Online (Northwest Chicago Suburbs): How To Win The War On Drugs (with a title like that, I had to check it out). Finally, a court case decision I can live with. Recently, the United States Supreme Court kept alive the federal government's authority to enforce marijuana laws, even if states legalize it. In spite of this decision, the small but vocal groups of drug users and/or elitists - such as George Soros - who have been lobbying for drug legalization since the 1970's, will continue their campaign. Note the absense of the word "medical" in the description of the Supreme Court decision. And "drug users and/or elitists"? WTF? What would be the motivation for "elitists" to push for drug legalization? Ah, this is Ray's way of explaining why so many intelligent non-drug users advocate reform -- they must be part of this bizarre group of "elitists." He then lists our arguments: Their points of logic include: * The drug war has failed. * We have filled our prisons with first-time, non-violent drug offenders. * If drugs were legalized, drug dealers would go out of business. * Some drugs, especially marijuana, are medicinal. * We are spending an inordinate amount of money on the drug war. Let's take a closer look at this litany of allegations. OK, not bad. Not exactly how I would have framed it, but a reasonable list. Let's see how he takes us down. First, as for the failing drug war, in 1979 the United States hit its peak of drug use for the 20th century. Approximately 24 million citizens were drug users. By 1992, due to the combined efforts of law enforcement, prevention and treatment, the number of drug users declined to about 11.4 million. That's over 50 percent, despite some increases in marijuana use by high school students over the past few years (source: International Association of Chiefs of Police). Just imagine, if we could reduce gang violence, teen pregnancy or HIV/AIDS by over 50 percent in a little over a decade. Could anyone in their right mind call that a failure and demand we stop the campaign? Seems like a reasonable argument, right? Until you do a little further digging. First, data on trends of drug use over time are horribly unreliable. They rely on self-reporting (which often reflects on public view at the time), and they are hit by changes in methodology (even the government charts have a bold line through them showing this). Plus, you can pick and choose figures to support just about anything. Take a look at this Drug Use Trends Factsheet from the White House ONDCP. (there is plenty of other data out there, but this is useful enough for this purpose). If you look at overall population drug use in the past month, then Ray's figures seem close to being correct (14.1% in 1979, down to 7.1% in 2001). But let's have some fun with these numbers for ourselves: Lifetime drug use has gone up from 31.7% in 1979 to 41.7% in 2001 Lifetime drug use for those 35 and older has gone up from 11.8% in 1979 to 38.4% in 2001 - more than tripled! Past month drug use has gone up from 5.9% in 1993 to 7.1% in 2001 Past month marijuana use for those 12-17 has gone up from 3.4% in 1992 to 8.0% in 2001. Past month cocaine use by High School seniors has gone up from 1.9% in 1975 to 2.1% in 2001 Past month drug use by 8th graders has gone up from 3.2% in 1991 to 9.2% in 2001. There are all sorts of games you can play with the numbers. But if you spend some time with them like I have, there's no way that you can see justification for declaring "victory" in the war on drugs. The other point Ray makes there (about HIV or teen pregnancy) is just plain ignorant. You can't compare them. And this is largely because Ray is talking about drug use, not drug abuse. Unfortunately, the government does a very poor job of tracking drug abuse (they don't want to acknowledge the existence of non-abusive use), but I would bet that it may have actually increased as a result of the drug war (certainly not decreased). So a more fitting analogy for Ray to use would be as if the government had managed to reduce people having sex by 50%, yet the rates of HIV and teen pregnancy remained the same. (That would certainly not be cause for rejoicing.) Second, as for the idea that it's a bad thing to fill our prisons with self-proclaimed first-time users and non-violent offenders, our nation is experiencing a very low crime rate phenomenon for the past several years which has run concomitant with high prison populations. Simple coincidence? I don't think so. "I don't think so"? That's the justification for putting non-violent offenders in jail? (and note the sarcastic "self-proclaimed") Is it possible that there might be other reasons? For example, the crime trend went sharply down from 1993 until about 2001 when it started to reverse and climb again. Might that relate to the state of the economy and jobs? Third, to the assertion that legalizing drugs will put dealers out of business. To accomplish this, they have to be assuming that the legalization will be total, that is, no restrictions or conditions at all. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc., sold over-the-counter, because applying restrictions will require illicit sources for users and defeat their claim that dealers will simply disappear into history. By the way, fools do not run drug cartels. These are shrewd, criminally minded people who will devise other ways to hurt you. This is just bizarre. Of course, you can apply restrictions. It's called regulation, and we do it with cigarettes and alcohol and lots of other things. You can regulate it and tax it and condition it like crazy -- you just have to make it easy enough to get so that it's not profitable to sell on the black market. That allows for much more regulation than we have now (particularly related to age). And the other argument is equally bizarre -- we'd better let the drug cartels continue to sell drugs, or else they'll find some even worse fiendish thing to do to us, just because they like hurting us (not because of profits or anything). Fourth, medical marijuana? Maybe, but if so will it require a doctor's prescription or some other regulations? If the answer is yes, those who do not need the drug for medical purposes will have to break the law to get it. Huh? I have no idea what he's saying here. I think it's that we shouldn't allow medical marijuana (after all earlier said "Finally, a court case decision I can live with"), in part because recreational users will have to break the law... No. I'm lost here. Lastly, they claim the cost of the drug war is too high. Government was created to provide internal and external security for its citizens. Drugs are a threat to both. The portion of the federal budget spent on our entire criminal justice system is about one-to-two percent. This is hardly an excessive portion of that budget to spend for an essential government service as mandated by the constitution. Furthermore, the war on drugs only accounts for a fraction of entire criminal justice system. Drugs are a threat to our security? That's actually impossible, unless we fear a day when marijuana plants, left unchecked, will uproot themselves and march on Washington, ripping apart the White House brick by brick, like the Ents at Isengard. (Ah, let me savor that thought for a moment...) What he may mean is that the profits from illegal drugs can fund criminals and terrorists -- that's a problem with prohibition, not drugs. I also love the fact that he calls it "an essential government service as mandated by the constitution"! Is this what the constitution mandates? He concludes (and this is where it gets really loopy): I hope you can sense the lunacy in this effort to turn loose the deadly substances that have torn the fabric of our society and threatened future generations with the ravages that afflicted those of the '60's, '70's and '80's. Ultimate victory over drug use can be achieved by education, research, treatment, enforcement and efforts as simple as public outrage, similar to that directed toward tobacco use, or a citizen's demanding a nation-wide, up-or-down vote on the issue of legalizing drugs. Oh, yeah, the ravages of the 60's and 70's and 80's. Remember when all those druggies grew up and became... stockbrokers. Oh, yeah, and Presidents. (But I love the colorful language: "turn loose the deadly substances that have torn the fabric of our society and threatened future generations with the ravages that afflicted..." Very nice.) But we can win! If we just have "a nation-wide, up-or-down vote on the issue of legalizing drugs." Again, may I say: WTF? This up-or-down vote meme has gotten so pervasive that now Ray is suggesting a national vote on drug legalization? How would this work? Put it on the ballot of all 50 states? I'd love to see the wording on that one. Well, that's it for this OpEd, folks. Been fun. A big hand to Ray Giovannelli (who has his own column called "Giovannelli Central"). Former Chief of Police. Ignorant, but funny. 11:09:29 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] 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 [] Wednesday, June 22, 2005 Urgent Action Item Via Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. Rep. Bobby Scott ( D-VA ) will introduce an amendment in the next day or two to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill to shift $10 million to the Department of Labor's Reintegration of Youthful Offenders Program from the Department of Education's Student Drug Testing program. Take away from a bad idea (student drug testing) and give to a good idea (helping youthful offenders get their lives on track). Sounds like a smart plan to me (which means it's not likely to pass). Lets give it every chance and contact your Representative. But do it now -- this Amendment could come up any minute (see links at the top of the page). 6:56:40 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Senator gets Hodgkin's Disease, supports medical marijuana Link Arlen Specter says he "may introduce legislation" in the Senate in favor of medical marijuana. The U.S. senator, who has long supported the use of human stem cells for disease research, told Your Humble Narrator yesterday that he's in favor of a state's right to decide whether to allow its doctors to prescribe marijuana. Specter himself, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, could be a candidate for medical marijuana use. I'm very appreciative of Senator Specter's decision to support medical marijuana. (And it should be noted that he has supported it in the past, though perhaps not this vocally.) However, wouldn't it be nice if the majority of our Senators, Representatives, and Presidents had the compassion, intelligence and morality to see the rank stench of their denial of medicine to sick people? Must they (or their loved ones) get sick for them to see what must be done? 8:36:56 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, June 21, 2005 Illiterate Voices Our good friends at Educating Voices are at it again. These are the folks (led by Judy Kreamer of Naperville, Illinois) who helped Andrea Barthwell lie about sponsorships for the Illinois Marijuana Lectures. Earlier today, they had a "scoop" at their website. In bold font and in two places they proclaimed that: "Federation Of State Medical Boards Opposes the Smoking of Marijuana For Medicinal Applications - Unless Approved By the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." (Screen shot of that page earlier today - pdf) A couple of suggestions to Judy when it comes to promoting big "scoops." Generally, reporting the publicly available results (pdf) of a delegation that happened over a month ago isn't a "scoop." A scoop preferably should have some correct information (especially a month after the fact) and should in particular not get the facts exactly wrong. Educating Voices now has a "clarification" up at their site. Here's the actual resolution as voted on at the Federation of State Medical Boards: Resolution 05-1, offered by the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, reads as follows: Resolved, that the Federation of State Medical Boards oppose the smoking of marijuana for medicinal applications unless approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration; and be it further Resolved, that the Federation of State Medical Boards create a special ad hoc committee to review and analyze the use of marijuana for medical purposes; and be it further Resolved, that the committee develop recommendations for use by state medical boards in developing rules and policies to regulate the medical use of marijuana. The Reference Committee heard testimony from Director Walters of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy about the adverse effects of drug abuse and utilization of marijuana for recreational purposes and about its policy on the utilization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. [...] ACTION: 384 - Resolution 05-1, Use of Marijuana, NOT ADOPTED Yeah, that part about it not being adopted, in bold and underlined -- you can see how Judy missed that. I love the fact that the Federation chose not to adopt it despite the visit (at taxpayer expense) of Judy's friend John Walters to spread more lies. So basically, we have a resolution put forth by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts (isn't that the state that thinks that the discovery of fossils in the ground are a hoax?) that is soundly rejected -- but Illiterate Voices proclaims a victory. Then, when they got caught, they promoted the Kansas resolution (voted on back in February) as their new "Scoop." One more note: Further down on that "Scoop" page, check out the headline on the article about the Raich decision: The U.S. Supreme Court Bans Use Of Medical Marijuana Gee, I didn't know the Supreme Court could do that, did you? Of course, the Supreme Court did no such thing, but that doesn't stop Illiterate Voices! Their website states that "The EVI Board Members have a total of over 300 years of experience and expertise in drug prevention." Perhaps they should try for a G.E.D. [Big thanks to Krissy at MPP] 8:05:44 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] The mess of the drug war Loretta at US Marijuana Party blog has pieces of a horrific story involving the trial of a man accused of killing three cops in the process of a drug bust. There have been charges that the bust happened because payments to the police officers for protection had stopped, and there are conflicting stories as to the shootings. With the limited information available to me, I'm not about to begin to defend or excuse actions of anybody involved. All I know for sure -- if it wasn't for the drug war, this wouldn't have happened. 8:03:22 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Lollipops and Liquid Pot Last One Speaks has a couple of items to check out: Sativex goes retail in Canada -- That's right, the liquid form of marijuana called Sativex® is now available by prescription in Canada. Next stop, the U.S. (as soon as they can convince everyone that the plant is bad, but the liquid form of the plant is good). Don't they have something better to do? talks about the hemp flavored lollipops that are getting a ton of free publicity through lawmakers trying to outlaw them. There's another article on this here, with some bizarre notions. "We should not have these out and available for kids to acquire these kinds of tastes. I'm concerned it could be a stepping stone to smoking marijuana," Mr. Spade [D-Tipton] said. Yeah, that's right. People smoke pot for the taste. Lenawee County Sheriff Larry Richardson agrees. "I'm all for it," he said. "Kids tell me it tastes like the real stuff. I definitely think we should put controls on it." So how do kids know it tastes like the real stuff? Of course, Last One Speaks has it right: It's perfectly legal, it doesn't get you high and frankly it doesn't sound like it would necessarily even taste that good. In fact, if these leglislators didn't make such a big deal about it, most kids probably wouldn't even notice they were on the shelf and would opt out for the Sweet Tarts instead. 7:50:25 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Sunday, June 19, 2005 The latest in technology - drug testing that catches... everyone. This has been reported in a variety of places already, but is worth noting: A minister tested positive for cannabis today at a voluntary session designed to show the capability of a high-tech drugs testing machine. Edwina Hart, Social Justice Minister at the National Assembly for Wales, had not been using drugs, but the result showed that her hands had been cross contaminated with traces of the substance, from door handles, money or other public areas. She said: "You could pick it up from any where couldn't you?" Conservative Assembly Member William Graham, who had arranged for police to demonstrate the drug testing machine at the Assembly, also tested positive for cannabis. Radley Balko at The Agitator has the best take on this: This technology is already here in the U.S., and at risk of appearing the Luddite, threatens to make the Fourth Amendment obsolete, or at least more obsolete. If virtually all of us have traces of some illicit substances on us, then virtually all of us are subject to further searches. Meaning none of us any longer has the the right "to to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." 9:48:53 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Texas governor prefers broken criminal justice system GritsForBreakfast has the bad news. Lots of good work in the Texas legislature this year was undone by Governor Perry's veto pen, including a bill to require police to inform drivers of their fourth amendment rights, and a fix of the probation system. Condolences to the people of Texas. 9:33:16 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] The Staggering Inability to Add 2+2 Reuters has an article today: Mexico's Fox under fire as drug war spirals. Poor Vicente Fox. We used to wine and dine him and show him off at fancy parties. Now we don't return his calls. MEXICO CITY, June 19 (Reuters) - In the first four years after Mexican President Vicente Fox took office, he became Washington's sweetheart in its war on drugs with his crackdown on traffickers. But an escalating gangland turf war that has killed at least 600 people south of the U.S. border this year has soured the romance, with serious doubts raised about Fox's ability to rein in the violence. A senior U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration official, Anthony Placido, told Congress last week that Mexico's corrupt police forces were "all too often part of the problem rather than part of the solution" in fighting the drug cartels. Fox won office in 2000, ending 71 years of one-party rule and promising to clamp down on the multibillion-dollar cross-border trade in cocaine, marijuana and heroin. Profitable black-market trade with high demand, plus increased prohibition, equals increased violence and corruption. Basic arithmetic. "The honeymoon period following the capture of these top drug traffickers is now over for Fox," Jorge Chabat, a Mexican security analyst, told Reuters. "We are now seeing a return to the relationship we had during the 1990s between Washington and Mexico that was characterized by conflict and reconciliation," he added. Analysts say the real problem is the heavy U.S. demand for cocaine and marijuana and the ability of the drug cartels to pay off police, politicians and judges inside Mexico. The analysts are giving all the hints, but it seems the drug warriors can't count to 4. 9:23:33 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []