|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Friday, May 19, 2006 |
Open Thread
There's a couple of articles that I've been meaning to discuss, but others have done a good job of taking them on, so I'll link instead.
I'm off to play a gig in Iowa. Back in a couple of days.
11:52:18 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Colorable Suspicion?
Just got this from Tom at DARE Generation Diary
Stop Congress From Expanding School Searches
Students for Sensible Drug Policy is asking for your help to stop a bill that would further curtail the rights of students in public schools all across the country. The so-called "Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006" (H.R. 5295) would make it easier for teachers and school administrators to search students' lockers and bags for drugs and other contraband. SSDP needs your help to make sure that this bill never becomes law.
Currently, in order for a teacher to search a student's locker they need to have "reasonable suspicion" that the student is in possession of illegal drugs. H.R. 5295 would change the standard needed for a search to "colorable suspicion," a term that has been made up entirely for this bill. Essentially, a teacher would need nothing more than a hunch in order to search a student's locker or possessions.
This bill is nothing more than another attack on the constitutional rights of young people by the federal government. Students should never have to check their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.
Please take two minutes to send a letter to your member of Congress asking him or her to oppose H.R. 5295. SSDP has created a pre-written letter that you can easily send by visiting http://capwiz.com/mobilize/issues/alert/?alertID=8779706
Colorable Suspicion? WTF?
As far as I knew, a blank sheet of paper is "colorable" and that doesn't seem to be much of a standard for searching anything. So I decided to look up "colorable".
- Meant to deceive; not genuine.
- Seemingly true or genuine; plausible.
So... a suspicion that is not genuine? Or maybe one that is seemingly true?
"Well, gee, my suspicion was... plausible."
Ah, yes, we see the direction the Fourth Amendment is heading.
The right of the people 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In general, people and their possessions shouldn't be searched unless someone can come up with a plausible reason to do so.
11:14:51 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
The media needs education on the economics of the drug trade
Marcela Sanchez has an interesting article in today's Washington Post: Bolivia's Morales Wants to Expand Coca Use
The article covers most of the salient points about the issue that have been covered here and elsewhere, but glaringly absent is any understanding on the part of Ms. Sanchez of two critical points regarding cocaine trade:
- Cocaine eradication and interdiction does not work.
- Demand for cocaine is relatively inelastic.
If you understand these two simple facts (and these are not just opinions, they are demonstrable and provable), then parts of her article make no sense. Such as:
One might say that by arguing that more cultivation is needed, Morales is already recognizing defeat in efforts to stem the supply of coca leaves for the illegal market. Also, it seems naive to think that encouraging coca growers to produce crops for products yet to be marketed would be any more successful than crop substitution has been for overall reduction of illicit coca use. Meanwhile, drug traffickers, with their highly sophisticated means for developing and delivering their product worldwide, would be the first to profit from increased production.
The flawed assumption here is that the production of legal coca will somehow bail out the traffickers who have not been able to produce enough cocaine on their own or allow them to vastly increase their market. But the economics of the drug trade do not support this assumption.
Additionally, it is ridiculous to assume that marketing of new products must occur before their production (ignoring the fact that Morales has been working on international allowances, discussion of new products and working to give farmers some hope simultaneously). And dismissing the effort as one as likely to fail as other crop substitutions shows ignorance of the culture.
Morales is attempting to develop a unique market for a product that his people are particularly well-suited to supply. That deserves both support and kudos. If he is allowed by the international community to do this, it will improve the health of the legal economy in Bolivia, while reducing the fiscal power of the drug traffickers as an overall percentage of the country's "actual" GDP.
Marcela needs to go back to school.
10:52:07 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
This is Bill O'Reilly's brain...
Via Media Matters
May 17:
O'REILLY: You know, this immigration thing is very interesting because it -- it points out a lot of things, bigger issues that y'all should be aware of. You know, Mexico doesn't care about us. Mexico doesn't care about the United States. And, you know, it -- it -- we have to be friends with them. I mean, we just can't be enemies with them. But we're dealing with a country that is -- you know -- is so corrupt and so out of control that we -- you know -- we have to deal with them on a certain level. But we certainly can't let their corruption infect us, and it has, particularly with the drug trafficking.
You know, when you have the volume of narcotics, millions of tons of narcotics coming across the southern border -- if I'm the president of the United States -- that alone makes me put the [U.S. National] Guard on the border and not 6,000 guards. I would have 30, 40 thousand down there, because the damage that narcotics do to the fabric of society -- my makeup artist for the TV side -- I don't need makeup for radio, but some people say --
LIS WIEHL: Yeah, it would help.
O'REILLY: Yeah, thank you -- was mugged the other day; punched in the face in Greenwich Village. Now, who does that? Drug addicts desperate for money. So, this poor woman is walking down the street trying to support her little son, some guy walks up to her, punches her in the face and takes her purse. Now, nine out of 10 of these guys are drug addicts.
So, she is a victim of the Mexican drug corruption. And -- and -- and all you have to do is multiply that by 10 million and you see how all of this corruption in Mexico has infected our society. Yet, you have these pinheads in Congress -- see, they're not gonna get mugged. President Bush isn't' gonna get mugged. All right.
It's a wonder that his brain doesn't just leak out his ears. It doesn't seem to be attached to anything.
12:01:17 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 18, 2006 |
National Parent Vigil
Today in the mail, I received an envelope from the Drug Enforcement Administration. What a delight! I so seldom hear from them.
It was my ticket to "A Vigil for Lost Promise" on June 8. (Sent by official DEA taxpayer mail, of course. Would they do the same for this Vigil for Lost Promise?)
The event will be at the DEA headquarters (600-700 Army Navy Drive) between the two DEA buildings. Several security checkpoints will make sure that only those with tickets get in and that their names are cross-checked with the list. Bags and purses will be searched. No signs or placards will be allowed.
Here's the part that got me:
The following items are prohibited: glass bottles, knives, firearms, illegal drugs.
Illegal drugs are prohibited at a DEA event? What a surprise!
I'm not sure what it says about the DEA or their view of the intended audience receiving this letter... So people are coming to an event that is taking place at DEA headquarters where they know they will be searched and that the DEA has their name and address. And they're going to think "Gee, I think I'll bring some illegal drugs to take the edge off this bummer of a vigil"? How bizarre.
7:23:10 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
The False Threat of Liberal Drug Laws
Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune
States and nations don't seem to lose anything when they stop treating drug use as a crime. But there are gains to be had: more police time to combat violent criminals, less need to build prisons, and fewer young lives scarred by arrest and imprisonment for behavior that does no harm.
7:04:36 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Science: The Drug War's Latest Victim
The war on drugs is an attack on rationality.[...]
Isn't it a sign of mental disorder when distorted reasoning is unchanged by empirical evidence? What is it about marijuana that drives our politicians insane?
- Salim Muwakkil of In These Times with another reaction to the FDA statement.
6:33:00 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Karen Tandy, Temperance Soldier?
Over at DARE Generation, you can watch DEA head Karen Tandy tell people that legalizing alcohol was a failure.
Her criteria for that judgement (and for her opposition in the same piece for drug legalization)? That use increased. Not abuse. Use. And of course, nothing about all the violence and corruption (and the myriad other problems) associated with prohibition.
I tire of these political appointees who conduct their job solely by lies and insulting the intelligence of the people. It is our country, not theirs. They are our employees and it's time to show them the door.
8:37:09 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 |
FDA approves cannabinoid
Via The Drug Update:
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (NYSE:VRX) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given marketing approval for Cesamet (CII) (nabilone) oral capsules. Cesamet is used to treat nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional anti-emetic treatments.
"There is still a significant unmet need in treating one of the most feared and severe consequences of life-saving cancer therapies,"said Timothy C. Tyson, Valeant's president and chief executive officer. "With the approval of Cesamet, Valeant is proud to offer a solution that will help alleviate one of the most common side effects of chemotherapy." [...]
The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be nearly 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2006. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of all patients receiving chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Although the use of anti-emetic agents decreases the incidence and severity of CINV, symptoms continue to occur in 40 to 60 percent of patients.
"There is a need for cannabinoids, such as Cesamet, for patients who have exhausted conventional treatments but are still coping with the debilitating side effects of chemotherapy," said Neal Slatkin, M.D., DABPM and director, Department of Supportive Care, Pain and Palliative Medicine at City of Hope.[..]
Cesamet should be used with caution in patients with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse or dependence and marijuana use, since Cesamet is similar to the active ingredient found innaturally occurring marijuana.
Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall.
11:51:39 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Loretta Nall on MSNBC
I haven't been reminding people enough about Loretta's campaign for Governor in Alabama, but she continues to be on a roll and gathering attention.
The latest -- this snickering report on MSNBC, which actually did manage to bring up the issue of marijuana legalization and Loretta's campaign without completely dismissing it, by noting that degree of attention her campaign is receiving.
Keep at it, Loretta!
10:50:17 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
HHS pressured to respond
[Thanks to Dano in comments]
Well, it turns out that Americans for Safe Access has decided that the number of delays by Health and Human Services (see below) qualifies as illegal avoidance of the Data Quality Act. They have sent a letter to HHS:
Dear Mr. Jarman:
I write to request an immediate response to our appeal of your denial of our Request for
Correction of Information under the Data Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes, P.L. 106-554 ("The Act"). Although that appeal was received by the Office of Public Health and Science ("OPHS") on May 20, 2005, your office has repeatedly delayed in issuing a definitive response, claiming a need for "additional time to coordinate Agency review." See Letter from John S. Jarmin to Joseph D. Elford, dated April 12, 2006. Just eight days after the latest such letter, however, on April 20, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") publicly announced the results of this coordinated agency review in an Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine. See Exhibit A. Now that these agencies -- the FDA, Drug Enforcement Administration and Office of National Drug Control Policy -- have already publicly announced that they "do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes," id., there is no reason your office needs additional time to respond to our pending appeal for the reason you stated on April 12th.
As I explained previously, time is of the essence in a public health issue such as this one.
The Data Quality Act is an amendment to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires administrative agencies to (1) develop guidelines to ensure the "quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information" they disseminate to the public and (2) "[e]stablish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines." 44 U.S.C. § 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes. Because the Act is intended to "ensur[e] the timely flow of vital information from agencies to medical providers, patients, health agencies, and the public," the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") Guidelines require the agency to respond to such requests within 60 calendar days. See HHS Guideline D.2.c.2.
Pursuant to this law, on October 4, 2004, Americans for Safe Access ("ASA") filed a
Request for Correction of information disseminated by HHS regarding the Marijuana
Rescheduling Petition filed by Dr. Jon Gettman in 1995. More than eighteen months have
elapsed since ASA filed this request and nearly a year has elapsed since ASA appealed the initial denial of this request. Coordinated agency review which caused this delay was unnecessary, see Letter from Joseph D. Elford to Dr. Steven Galston, dated December 20, 2004, but, now that it has been completed, this cannot possibly serve to justify an even greater delay. I hope and expect that HHS will issue a final determination of our appeal in the 60 days you anticipate. If not, ASA will file suit in federal district court to compel this.
Sincerely,
Joseph D. Elford
Chief Counsel
Americans for Safe Access
So HHS is under the gun now. What will they do? Remember that HHS is one of the four entities (along with Congress, the Executive, and the DEA) that has the power to re-schedule marijuana.
Here is what ASA is demanding:
* HHS states that: "there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any medical condition." 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." 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." 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." 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."
Go to comments and tell us how you think HHS will respond. Will they actually respond this time? If so, what will the response be?
10:32:12 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
HHS continues to stall
Eric Sterling reminds me of something I've neglected for awhile.
You see, there's this law called the Data Quality Act that allows for forcing the correction of inaccurate information disseminated by government agencies. The great thing about it is that the agency is required by law to respond in 60 days. Given the way the government has tried block drug policy reformers at every step through delays and circular appeals processes, this seemed like a great avenue to pursue (the first petition to reschedule marijuana took 22 years to go through the process). Americans for Safe Access put forth a petition in October, 2004.
Ah, but it turns out that the law doesn't have much by way of teeth and if the agency doesn't respond in 60 days it can turn to... itself and grant itself an extension. Once it issues a ruling, you can appeal that ruling... to the same agency, which then must respond within 60 days or... grant itself an extension. Yes, this is how our government works.
Here are a few of my posts on the subject.
- My first post on it, in October, 2004
- My disappointment with a second extension by HHS
- Recap of the first three extensions so far in April, 2005 and my conjecture of how HHS would respond.
- Late April, 2005 HHS finally responds by saying it doesn't need to respond at this time. ASA appeals the "response."
- Update on appeal process in August, 2005 as HHS continues to grant itself extension after extension on the appeal.
And now, 19 months into the 60 day process comes the latest:
Date: April 12, 2006
To: Joseph D. Elford, Esq.
Americans for Safe Access
Dear Mr. Elford:
Your appeal of the denial of your Request for Corrections under the Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS) Guidelines for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public, received by OPHS on May 20, 2005 is still under review.
We wrote to you on February 07, 2006 indicating that we would need additional time to complete our response to your appeal. At this time we are continuing to prepare our response but require additional time to coordinate Agency review. Our goal is to have a response to your appeal within 60 days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
John S. Jarman, Excutive Officer,
Office of Public Health and Science,
Office of the Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services
8 days later, the FDA came out with its outrageous statement against medical marijuana with the statement:
A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.
This, of course, is precisely the incorrect information that the ASA petition is trying to correct and that the HHS is dragging their heels in responding.
The deceit and delaying tactics are unbelievable! Despite my interest in the process, I even dropped the ball for a while because it just dragged on so long. That's what they want -- that we'll lose interest (or die) before they actually address the issues. But they won't get away with it in the long run. Eventually, they'll run out of stalling tactics and the courts will have to step in.
12:09:34 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 15, 2006 |
It's another hammer we can put on people
Eric Sterling found this unbelievable quote.
"...[I]t's another hammer we can put on people," says Delaware State Police Captain Chip Simpson, commander of the special investigations section, praising a brand new law, "Brett's Law," that places a plant, salvia divinorum, in Schedule I of the state's Controlled Substances Act.
Yeah, because that's the job of the police, right? To put the hammer on people.
Maybe somebody can arrange to put the pink slip on Chip Simpson.
11:24:13 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Anti-Drug Overdose?
A really fabulous article by Marnell Jameson in today's Los Angeles Times
[...] Today, at 14, the Los Angeles girl dismisses much of what she learned in the drug-education program, saying that when she's older she plans to follow the more moderate example set by her mother and father.
"My parents know how much alcohol they can handle. They only drink socially -- and wouldn't drink and drive." Further, she credits her parents, not school lessons, with helping her turn down tobacco, alcohol and drugs -- all of which she's been offered. "I learned what I know at home," she says. To her, the anti-drug program seemed out of touch.
Increasingly, many academic scholars and government researchers agree. They point to a growing body of evidence that supports Mariana's instincts. One-size-fits-all lessons do little to prepare kids for the real drug choices they're likely to face, these experts say. By condemning all drugs as bad -- not distinguishing between legitimate medications and, in moderation, alcohol -- such programs can confuse kids and ultimately cheapen their own messages.
The article goes on to explain clearly the drawbacks, dangers and outright failures of most of the popular drug education programs. It also specifically talks about the value of fact-based education.
It might not be a bad idea to forward this article to your local school district.
10:39:14 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Thailand's drug war
Three years ago...
BANGKOK - The death toll in Thailand's brutal 10-week-old war on drugs has soared to 2 275, or more than 30 killings a day, police said on Wednesday. [...]
The three-month campaign against drug barons and traffickers was launched by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who said his forces would "X-ray every square inch" of the country to root out the drug trade. [...]
Several local and international human rights groups have condemned the violence, with Amnesty International likening Thaksin's campaign to a "de facto shoot-to-kill policy" of anyone believed to be involved in the drug trade. [...]
Last Saturday, Thaksin said his drugs war would continue beyond April, with possible strategic modifications, until December 2, which he predicted would be Thailand's day of victory over drugs.
The drug blitz is focusing on methamphetamines, which flood into Thailand from Myanmar.
Today:
Methamphetamine use among teenagers in and around Bangkok is more than seven times higher than it was prior to the 'war on drugs' declared by the government three years ago, an ABAC Poll has revealed.
Pollsters calculated that more than 41,000 teenagers took methamphetamine, commonly known as ya ba, in the past 30 days, a 723-percent increase from the 5,060 teenagers estimated to be using the drug following a survey made in May 2003.
One of the bloodiest drug wars in the world, and guess what? It doesn't work.
This is an important lesson to all those who say "If only we cracked down more, we could win this war."
[Thanks, Allan]
10:10:26 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 14, 2006 |
If only people could learn from the drug war...
Drug policy reformers have been talking about the dangers of corrupt government over-reach and the intrusion of the federal government on individual rights and freedom for some time. And this isn't just coming from a theoretical libertarian principles perspective. It is a practical understanding on the part of people from varied political backgrounds based on witnessing the destruction first-hand.
So pardon us for being a little bit frustrated that people are taking so long to learn the lessons.
When the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal broke and the world was shocked, we already knew about the everyday prison torture here in the United States (disturbing video).
When the world finally realized that Guantanamo was filled in part with people held indefinitely for no particular reason, we already knew of similar cases in the war on drugs (such as Isidro Aviles, who was intimidated into accepting a 23-year sentence based on possession of $52 cash and ended up dying in prison -- his mother still doesn't know the cause).
As each new and expanded instance of government spying on American citizens in the name of the war on terror is revealed and serious people start discussing whether it should be of concern that the government is perhaps weakening the fourth amendment, our jaws drop and we wonder if the country has slept through the devastation of the 4th Amendment in the name of the war on drugs. This was done with no demonstrable benefit (and, in fact, seriously increased dangers) to American citizens. And yet we discuss the "merits" of government intrusion in the name of the war on terror as if there was no historical perspective.
We hear about innocent people killed by our soldiers in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people are outraged; others are saddened but philosophical -- after all, some collateral damage is expected in war. And yet we've seen the loss of innocent lives for years right here in this country, when military tactics are used domestically in the war on drugs.
And now, in the war on immigration, it is expected that President Bush, in his Monday evening speech, will call for the deployment of thousands of troops within the United States to protect the border. But you see, if this is true, we already know what will happen. We've been there before.
On May 20, 1997, Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. (pictured left) was herding his family's goats 100 yards from his home on the US-Mexican border in Redford, Texas, as he did every day. Six days before, he had turned 18 years old.
Unknown to Esequiel or any of the other residents of Redford, a group of four Marines led by 22-year old Corporal Clemente Banuelos had been encamped just outside the small village along the Rio Grande River for three days. After watering his small flock of goats in the river, Esequiel started on his way back home when the Marines began stalking him from a distance of 200 yards.
The four camouflaged Marines were outfitted with state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and weapons. Esequiel carried an antique .22 caliber rifle -- a pre-World War I, single shot rifle to keep wild dogs and rattlesnakes away from his goats. The autopsy showed that Esequiel was facing away from the Marines when he was shot. He probably never knew the Marines were watching him from 200 yards away.
Thus it was that a 22 year-old United States Marine shot and killed an innocent 18 year-old boy tending his family's goats. This outrageous act was the inevitable consequence of a drug prohibition policy gone mad. Esequiel Hernandez was killed not by drugs but by military officers of the United States government.
If only people could learn from the drug war. We've tried to teach, but they won't listen. - They snicker uncomfortably because we said the word "drugs" or "marijuana."
- They dismiss us and our information because they assume we are part of the "long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
- They ignore the whole issue because it's only about criminals, right? And why should we care about them?
- They shuffle back and forth uncomfortably and say "I agree with you, but we really can't afford to make the drug war a political issue right now."
But the really scary people are the ones who say: "We haven't won the war on drugs/terror/immigration/_____ (fill in the blank) because we've made the government obey the law. We need to give them more tools to fight these wars, even at the expense of individual rights. After all, 911/meth/crack/super-pot has changed everything."
These are the ones who are willing to give up their prize possession -- a free country with a government of, by and for the people -- for a handful of "magic" beans.
9:47:25 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
