|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Friday, June 30, 2006 |
Independence Day
[I'll be gone for a few days (without much internet access), helping my parents celebrate their 84th birthday (Mom's is on July 4)]
 I'm pleased to see that the American Flag will fly free this weekend, narrowly escaping Congress' attempt to cage it and make it subservient to their political agendas.
Take a moment to remember what July 4th is about.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence did the founders say that they were doing this in order to form a powerful and unaccountable central administration. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence did the founders say that this was necessary to prevent the cultivation and consumption of a plant. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence did the founders say that they were doing this in order to lock up millions of nonviolent American citizens, or to give police the power of storming into and ransacking your house in the middle of the night.
Independence Day is not a celebration of military victory. It is about deciding to be free, and declaring to the world the importance of that freedom -- freedom from tyranny. But it's a decision that must be reaffirmed constantly, or tyranny will infiltrate and proliferate.
Reaffirm now.
9:33:46 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, June 29, 2006 |
Once again, task force shoots someone in drug raid, sorts it out later
I'm not sure I can say what really happened this week with the shooting of Kenneth Jamar in Huntsville during a drug raid, but it sure doesn't seem like the task force has a clue either.
They're sure that what they did was OK -- they just can't 'splain it too well.
1:08:43 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 |
Hichey amendment loses. Time to write letters.
The vote was 163 in favor, 259 opposed.
In my opinion, those who voted against it did so, for the most part, for one of two reasons:
- Fear of appearing soft on... anything.
- Fear of getting reduced campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.
I'll tell you one thing for sure after listening to that debate. I felt proud to be on the side of Hinchey and the others debating in favor of the amendment (as, apparently, were those in the gallery). The opponents were dried up husks of stale, debunked, and irrelevant prattle.
So what do you do next?
Well, the first step is to find out how your Representative voted. That roll call will be available here (at the time of this post, the vote isn't available yet, but keep trying). I already know how mine voted (unless he didn't show up), because he has a record of being both corrupt and a jerk.
So I'm starting on my letter to the editor in the local paper. I'm going to talk about how he voted to continue blowing our local taxpayers' money on having the feds harass sick people in other states who are following their doctor's advice and state law. I'm going to mention that Citizens Against Government Waste called it a waste of federal resources and said that it "proves that the government is incapable of exercising any kind of fiscal restraint." I'm going to mention that the Presbyterian Church recently joined the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association in supporting medical marijuana. I'm going to mention that most recent polls have shown that over 70% of Americans support the right of seriously ill people to use medical marijuana. And I'm going to conclude that if my Representative wants to go on his own to some other state and interfere with a doctor and patient following state law, that he's welcome to do it on his own, but he shouldn't be spending our tax dollars on it.
Go ahead. Start work on your own letter. If your Representative voted the right way, thank him or her for it.
If your Representative voted the wrong way, then let your displeasure be known in your local paper. If yours is a state without medical marijuana, then ask why he/she's wasting your tax dollars to interfere in another state. If yours is a state with medical marijuana, then ask why he/she's wasting your tax dollars to sabotage the wishes of his/her own state! (And ask if they remember what state they're from, or do they think they're from Washington DC?)
I'm giving you an outline that you can use -- and there's no problem with using the exact same points I am, but write your own letter (newspapers hate getting form letters). Remember to follow the letter-writing guidelines of your paper. You generally must include a daytime phone number so the paper can verify that you sent the letter. Most papers won't accept a letter over 250 words (some even less). Microsoft Word and other programs have a word count feature that will help you. It's a good idea to trim your letter some after you write it anyway -- makes it tighter. Make your points strong and clear, but without fury. Don't go off on tangents. Stick to the point.
MAP has writers' resources, and if it doesn't work for you to write a letter to the editor on the Hinchey amendment, check out their current focus alert.
But write a letter. What have you got to lose? Just turn off the TV for 15 minutes and do it. You can email it to the paper. Start by copying my paragraph above and add your own words to it. You'll be done in no time, and you'll feel better about it.
And you'll be surprised by the people who will come up to you and say "I read your letter in the paper. It made a lot of sense."
6:29:26 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment vote due today
Today is likely the day for the next attempt. This is the fourth time that the HInchey amendment has been brought forward, and I have high hopes balanced with election year pessimism.
A couple of new things on our side include:
I'm expecting both of these to be mentioned on the floor today.
Here's some of the material about the Presbyterian church vote:
By consensus, the denomination passed a resolution "urging Federal legislation that allows for its use and that provides for the production and distribution of the plant for those purposes." [...]
The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association in support of medical marijuana.
"Medical marijuana is an issue of mercy," said Rev. Lynn Bledsoe, a Presbyterian minister from Alabama who works as a hospice chaplain. "As people of faith, we are called to stand up for humans who are suffering needlessly. It is unconscionable that seriously ill patients can be arrested for making an earnest attempt at healing by using medical marijuana with their doctors' approval."
"Legislators who give lip service to 'moral values' had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue," said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. "The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations' governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it."
[Thanks, DdC]
Note: You can follow the House proceedings in general today here or watch on C-Span.
9:14:58 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
UN report and unintentional byproducts
There have been hundreds of media "reports" out there in the past day that have been mindlessly parroting the UNODC hype because it's easy, but not all of them are buying it.
Check out the Vancouver Sun
UN drug report unintentionally argues against prohibition
The 2006 World Drug Report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime will, no doubt, convince many people that we haven't been diligent enough in prosecuting the war on drugs, that we have to step up our efforts to eradicate illicit drugs, particularly marijuana.
But the report actually confirms that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure, that it has failed to decrease marijuana use and it has placed users in greater danger. [...]
But we can blame the rise in marijuana potency directly on the war on drugs. As the 2002 Senate report, which was ignored by both the current Conservative government and the former Liberal one, explained, growers produce the strongest pot possible because it's easier to trade. As more draconian laws were passed and enforcement was stepped up, it became more profitable to transport smaller quantities of potent drugs than large amounts of mild ones.
The report even admits that "cannabis breeders in North America and Europe have been working to create more potent cannabis," but it seems unaware that this is a direct result of the criminalization of the drug.
Since marijuana use and potency have both increased during the all-out war on drugs, it's abundantly clear that the war has been a failure. Indeed, the only way to control the purity of the product -- and thereby protect the health of the user -- is through the regulation of the growth and sale of marijuana. But don't expect to hear that from the UN agency any time soon, because it has been repeatedly bullied by the United States into promoting a prohibitionist ideology toward all recreational drugs.
Regardless of what the agency says, its evidence its clear: The war on marijuana has failed to decrease drug use, and has increased the dangers faced by users.
9:05:38 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Two Podcasts
 The ONDCP's latest "podcast" is actually just the audio of their fact-deficient press conference with the UN and the DEA on the occasion of the UNODC's latest report, and the claims that marijuana has magically become some kind of Super-Drug. It's one hour and six minutes long, and I don't have time (or stomach) to listen to it now, but if you're a masochist and want to report back anything interesting... have at it.
On a much brighter note, NORML's daily audio stash (mp3) features a good interview with Maurice Hinchey, co-sponsor of the Amendment that is likely to be acted on today in the House to prevent federal funds from being used to harass medical marijuana users in states where it's legal. Hinchey gives a nice overview of the situation, although it's not really much new if you've been following this issue closely. The most interesting part is when Hinchey is asked why the Republicans seem to be so unsupportive of the amendment. (First you have to get past NORML's extremely annoying and long podcast introduction, where they repeatedly tell you what you're listening to.)
8:56:38 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Quotable
In the debate over marijuana legalization in Nevada comes an interesting piece: The Poetry of Drug Politics by Lohantan Valley News publisher Rick Swart:
At the same time there is something just a little bit hypocritical about standing around the VIP tent drinking cantaloupe margaritas and espousing the ills of "gateway" drugs. Mind-altering drugs are like lawyers -- your own is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it's the other guy's that's all screwed up.
8:34:25 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 |
Another newspaper sees failed policy
Today's McAllen (TX) Monitor: Losing the Drug War -- Decriminalization would be more effective than drug eradication
There is an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see," which comes to mind when we see news reports about expanding the international drug war. [...]
Actually, the main problem isn't that the aerial eradication program isn't successful. It's that the drug war itself is failing. Born of the flawed idea that if drug users have trouble obtaining drugs, they'll stop using, the drug war has been going on for decades with little success. [...] The police are doing what they're supposed to, but they're fighting a losing battle because the drug war ignores economics and common sense. [...]
If officials are serious about lowering the rates of crime and drug use, they should curtail their efforts to keep consumers from getting what they want.
Decriminalization of drugs would remove the risk suppliers now face, which would lower prices. That would, in turn, lead to a decrease in robberies and burglaries because users would not need as much money to buy their drugs. That's not to say such crimes would disappear; they've always been with us because not all crimes are a result of drug use.
The easy availability of illegal drugs in the United States is proof the drug war isn't working, despite the billions we spend on it every year. That's a pretty high price tag for a policy that's not working.
9:17:10 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Drug Czar's Office Called 'A Waste'
I'd call it more than a waste. An eyesore and a hazard maybe. Or a toxic chemical spill that keeps spreading.
But still it's nice to see Citizens Against Government Waste come out with such a strong statement in their new report: Wasted in the War on Drugs: Office of National Drug Control Policy's Wasted Efforts (pdf).
Here are some highlights:
As the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), established in
1988 by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, approaches its eighteenth year of existence, it
continues to demonstrate its inability to either achieve its core objectives or
function efficiently. [...]
Despite consistent failures in reaching its own goals, the ONDCP continues
to fund its four primary programs: High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA), the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC), the Drug Free
Communities Program, and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The
most wasteful aspect of these programs continues to be the media campaign that
was created to reduce the use of marijuana in the United States. [...]
As the ONDCP continues to run this wasteful program, it is becoming
apparent that it is attacking the wrong target. Although numerous studies have
revealed that marijuana does not serve as a gateway drug, it continues to be the
primary focus of the federal government's war on drugs. [...]
The government also exhibits its obsession with containing marijuana use
by continuing to throw unnecessary funding and unavailable resources towards
tracking down and persecuting patients using medicinal marijuana in states that
have legalized the substance for medical use only. Not only does this undermine
federalism, it also proves that the government is incapable of exercising any kind
of fiscal restraint. [...]
Since it was created in 1998, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign has been a failure. [...]
While the ONDCP is being scammed by private ad agencies, it decided to
do a little scamming of its own. In 2003 the ONDCP came under fire shortly after
releasing a series of ads during the Super Bowl. Running on one of the most
important nights for ad campaigns, the ads inaccurately maintained that drug users
were directly aiding terrorism and linked unwanted teenage pregnancy to
marijuana smoking. Along with demonstrating a complete lack of ability to
reform the war on drugs, the media campaign took a turn for the worse by lying to
the viewers and destroying the possibility of credibility. [...]
As U.S. funding continues to pour into hurricane relief efforts, the war in
Iraq, and the Drug War, it is absolutely necessary that Congress exercise fiscal
restraint and appropriate resources to the highest priorities. Unfortunately, the
federal government has become so obsessed with decreasing marijuana use that it
is spending money unwisely. [...]
The federal government and the ONDCP have chosen to ignore evidence
suggesting that the methods being used in the war on drugs are not effective.
Despite numerous controversies and a failing ad campaign, the government
continues to pour millions of tax dollars into the program. [...]
The federal government has continued to waste federal resources in an
attempt to thwart the use of legalized medical marijuana. In order to halt this
improper use of resources, taxpayers must speak through the voice of Congress.
In floor debate on his amendment in 2005, Rep. Hinchey stated, "In the Supreme
Court's majority opinion last week, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the issue
can be addressed 'through the democratic process, in which the voices of voters
allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.'
With this amendment, we intend to use the powers granted us in the Constitution
and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court last week to do just that."
If passed, the Hinchey/Rohrabacher amendment would free up federal
dollars for more important priorities and help to restore a proper division of power
between the federal and state governments.
The report mostly takes exception to the government's obsession with marijuana and not with other drugs, so CAGW advocates changing the focus of resources rather than eliminating them entirely (which would be my preference). However, the the report is still very important.
It's also perfect timing. This report has been released with the Hinchey/Rohrabacher amendment due to be considered as early as this evening.
If you haven't contacted your representative yet, do so immediately. It would probably be better at this point to call their office. Tell the staff member that you want them to support the Hinchey/Rohrabacher (ROAR-ah-BAH-ker) amendment that prevents the federal government from wasting your tax dollars going after medical marijuana patients in states where it's legal.
[Thanks, Allan]
8:56:29 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 26, 2006 |
This is just too... hard to pass up
Rush Limbaugh was detained at Palm Beach International Airport for having drugs without a valid prescription.
The drug?
Viagra.
10:45:27 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Drugs are Not Child's Play
 The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has declared today "International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking." And they're doing it with the theme "Drugs are Not Child's Play," which ranks in terms of pure exploitive hype right alongside National Lampoon's Buy This [Magazine] or We'll Shoot This Dog -- just not as funny.
UNODC has selected "drugs are not child's play" as the theme of its 2006 international campaign, in an effort to increase public awareness about the destructive power of drugs and society's responsibility to care for the well-being of children. The latest estimates indicate that 200 million people, or 5 per cent of the global population age 15-64, have consumed illicit drugs at least once in the last 12 months. But what about kids? What about children (aged 4 to 10)?
Although they are seldom the object of national and international studies, children of all ages are affected by drug abuse and illicit trafficking. Street children, working and living in dire conditions, are vulnerable, as are boys and girls whose family members are buying or selling illicit substances. These kids are exposed not only to bad examples but also to violent behaviour associated to drug abuse. In some instances, children have lost their parents to this scourge and are now cared for by uncles, aunts or grandparents. At school, the situation may not be any better. Teenagers and peers may be pressuring kids to smoke cigarrettes and drink alcohol, at first, and then to try marihuana. Other types of drugs may follow.
UNODC's anti-drugs campaign urges adults to protect children.
And so we should. One of the first and most important steps would be to dismantle the UNODC. It is, after all, the policies promoted by the UNODC that makes trafficking profitable and increases the danger to children.
[Thanks, Herb]
10:10:49 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Robert Novak, Colombia's Johnny Roundup
Ever have one of those days when you just feel like you're dealing with jerks and idiots all day? Today's one of them. Starting out with Anthony Maria Costa and John Walters, and now... Robert Novak (or as John Stewart liked to call him: "Douchebag for Liberty")
Novak has a particularly ugly, false, and partisan column today in the Chicago Sun Times: Dems Balk At Support For Colombia's Drug War.
He starts with a profile of our 'heroic' drug war efforts in Colombia...
MARIQUITA, Colombia -- At the Colombian National Police base here last Wednesday morning, a small air fleet took off. Hours earlier, a Fairchild Metroliner intelligence plane scouted poppy fields in the jungles 40 miles northward. Now several well-armed Huey helicopters embarked. They were followed by three Turbo fixed-wing aircraft spraying the fields to eradicate plants producing narcotics destined for U.S. and European users. Taking off last to complete the day's operation was a Blackhawk helicopter, fulfilling "search and rescue" requirements.
Such hazardous operations -- subject to ground fire from narco-guerrillas -- take place in the Colombian Andes every day, amid disapproval from Western European government officials, Democrats in the U.S. Congress and critics inside Colombia. [emphasis added]
And what reason do these critics have for not providing the drug warriors with everything they desire?
"It is the campaign, all over the world, of the drug traffickers to claim there is environmental damage [resulting from aerial eradication]," Serrano told me. He credits the narco-terrorists influencing the European Union's refusal to participate in aerial eradication even though close to half of Europe's heroin supply comes from Colombia.
Right. It's just the traffickers who claim the poisonous chemicals pose a danger. Aided, of course, by those uninformed Democrats and Europeans who object to increasing the already huge dispersal of chemicals that have been heavily implicated in damage to the environment and human reproduction.
And, of course, if it wasn't for all these dupes of the drug traffickers and their silly environmental concerns, we'd be all done in Colombia.
After all, Novak hears from his drug warrior friends in Colombia that they could win this war, if only they could have 15 more planes for additional aerial eradication efforts.
But apparently the Democrats not only have this environmental hang-up, but they insist on seeing civil war in Colombia, while Novak is somehow able to discern that there is no political war in Colombia -- only good guys versus drug traffickers (he undoubtedly has some explanation for the fact that drug revenue has been used by every power structure in that country but neglected to share it with us).
So naturally, Novak's deluded little mind was outraged when Representative Jim McGovern proposed eliminating $30 million in the foreign aid bill from aerial fumigation in Colombia and transferring it to emergency humanitarian relief for refugees. Novak fumes:
In response to this evidence of Colombia's escape from degradation as a narco-terrorist state, Democrats in the House voted 161- 28 for McGovern's disastrous cut in U.S. aid. The House Republicans saved Colombia, but ardent young officers of the national police are anxious to win this war. They need more help from Washington, and they deserve it. [emphasis added]
The House Republicans saved Colombia? By continuing the status quo of spending millions of taxpayer dollars on poisoning crops with nothing to show for it?
Remind me not to call Robert Novak if I need medical attention.
Note: Novak has been a huge fan of aerial chemical eradication efforts in Colombia.
7:10:22 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
UN and US Drug Czars' New Message: Cocaine and Heroin as Safe as Marijuana!
Via Pushing Back:
"Among the key findings of the U.N. World Drug Report..."
Today, the characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
[Thanks, Daksya]
---
In other news, mother's milk determined to share many of the characteristics of other liquid-based beverages such as whisky and rum.
3:41:58 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
World drug czar claims victory
Anthony Maria Costa is sort of John Walters, but on a global scale. He's in charge of the UN Office on Drug and Crime, which pretty much has as its goal the imposition of United States' failed drug policy on the rest of the world. (It's the one part of the UN our government seems to like, since it acts like a U.S. lapdog and mindlessly promotes prohibition.)
According to this Bloomberg article:
Global Drug War Is Being Won, Illegal Use `Contained,' UN Says
June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The world is winning the war on drugs, according to a United Nations report that said opium production might soon be eradicated in Asia's notorious "Golden Triangle" and coca cultivation in the Andean region of South American has decreased 25 percent since 2000.
"Drug control is working and the world drug problem is being contained," Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime said in a statement accompanying the release today of the agency's 2006 World Drug Report.
Of course, that's just like the drug czar's regular pronouncements here, as Jeffrey Miron notes in the article:
"If you read these reports over time from the UN or the U.S. drug czar, you see a constant up and down, from claims of victory to statements that things are horrible," Miron said in an interview. "You tend to find that a problem that is solved one place shifts to another. There will always be some uses going up and some going down, and these reports don't address issues like the costs of drug use from diseases spread by needles or infringements on civil rights from the drug war."
And that's so true. Any time a number goes down temporarily, regardless of context, the prohibitionists claim victory specifically attributed to their efforts (usually with no causal evidence). If the number, instead, remains the same or goes up, that's merely a reason to put out a press release calling for increased vigor (and more funding).
Nice job security.
(Also note that Costa brags about coca cultivation being down in the Andean region, but doesn't mention the actual distribution of coca. That's partly because many experts believe that the traffickers have developed higher yields needing less cultivated area, and there's been no evidence of a reduction in supply.)
8:12:43 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
