Drug WarRant Friday, October 27, 2006 Colombia advertising the drug war! OK, this is just bizarre. Via the drug czar's "blog" comes this truly surreal item: Colombia will launch a hard-hitting advertising campaign in London next week aimed at raising awareness that cocaine use in Europe is killing hundreds of children and wiping out pristine rain-forests in South America. The "cocaine curse" campaign will be unveiled at a conference of European anti-drugs officials and police chiefs on Thursday. So our government, which has been so incredibly inept with its media campaign drug war advertising, continues to send millions of dollars to Colombia to pay for and promote an effort that has not only failed, but has actually fueled the crime and destruction. And now Colombia is advertising this "effort" in Europe? My head hurts. Given the fact that the drug czar appears pleased by this, how much you want to bet that the ONDCP was behind the advertising campaign in some way? And if so, I expect that the ads will be hilarious. 7:42:33 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] 10 Steps to End the Drug War from DrugSense An interesting message from Mark Greer at DrugSense: While the main purpose of DrugSense is to encourage accuracy and honesty in the media with respect to illegal drugs, our goal is ultimately to stop the costly and ineffective drug war. Through our extensive archive of more than 170,000 articles on all aspects of drug policy, we have identified 10 specific steps that would result in ending prohibition as we know it. 1. Grant agronomist Lyle Craker a license to grow medicinal-grade cannabis at the University of Massachusetts. Effect: End the federal government's monopoly on growing marijuana to meet the FDA's requirement for an independent, high quality cannabis supply for approved cannabis-based research and product development. 2. Pass the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment. Effect: End the costly DEA harassment of California dispensaries and allow states in which medical cannabis is legal to begin regulated access without federal interference. 3. Accept the Petition to Reschedule Cannabis. Effect: Remove cannabis from the restrictive Schedule I designation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and permit its prescription by physicians like pharmaceuticals. 4. Make Afghani opium available to pharmaceutical companies. Effect: Develop a licensing system so that opium grown in Afghanistan can be legally sold to make narcotic pain relievers, thereby alleviating a worldwide shortage of these medications. 5. Defund the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Effect: Save taxpayers hundreds of millions by eliminating this campaign, which has only resulted in making drug use more attractive to teens. 6. Increase funding for needle exchange and safe consumption sites. Effect: Prevent overdoses, reduce drug-related hospital admissions, and slow the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. 7. Eliminate Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Effect: Reduce the non-violent prison population, and end the racial disparity in sentencing that has resulted in one in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 being under correctional control. 8. Free non-violent drug prisoners and stop the Federal trials of Marc Emery and Ed Rosenthal. Effect: Save the taxpayers the wasted time and expense spent trying these non-violent individuals on unpopular charges. 9. Develop citizen oversight boards for SWAT squads. Effect: Save lives and property that are needlessly disrupted through the use of a violent techniques for non-violent situations, which are too often drug raids based on bad information. 10. Pass as many lowest-priority marijuana initiatives as possible. Effect: Help the government understand that citizens want to be protected from violent terrorists, not non-violent marijuana consumers. Public officials, including police, need to prioritize their scarce dollars and resources according to that which is most dangerous and most urgent to public health and safety. Of course, we at DrugSense know that many more steps need be taken to move away from drug policies based on fear, prejudice, and misinformation, and toward policies grounded in science, reason, and compassion. If you have an idea or step that could be added to this list, please post it here. Some people have, at times, questioned the apparent fractured structure of the drug policy reform community and wondered if it could be better accomplished if all the various organizations and efforts combined their resources into one. I think this list helps to show the value and importance of a multi-pronged approach in ending the drug war. No one effort can do it -- it takes chipping away at a host of different, yet related issues. 8:18:20 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Open Thread I'm a bit busy right now with photography (doing 75 actor head shot sessions and two theatre production photography shoots in three days), so talk amongst yourselves. Here are a couple of things to check out. Daksya notes what could possibly be the biggest advance related to opiates in the last 30-40 years. It involves a technique that can retain all the pain-relieving and euphoric properties of opioid-based drugs, while eliminating the negative tolerance and withdrawal effects. With Beheadings and Attacks, Drug Gangs Terrorize Mexico and Graft takes root along border. Two articles take a look at the problems related to our neighbor to the south (thanks to a couple of readers). The corruption and violence cannot be solved as long as the drug war is there to make criminal trafficking so profitable. Reader Lee suggests: "End the drug war, secure our borders" as a possible slogan. Radley has another drug raid gone... right? A case that doesn't involve a wrong address sometimes shows even more clearly how bad the policies are regarding SWAT-style raids. In this case, cops broke in with guns and a concussion grenade, caused $5,000 worth of damage and killed a golden lab named Shadow. And they found two joints. 8:08:59 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, October 25, 2006 Bloody Ribbon Week Via Radley Balko and Mark Kleiman, comes the most sickening observance of "Red Ribbon Week" imaginable. If classes had been held in a forest yesterday at Marshall Middle School in Fauquier County, it would have been difficult for teachers to take attendance. As the first bell rang, students bounded into hallways wearing twig- and branch-imprinted jackets or sporting fatigues stamped U.S. Army. Principal Christine Moschetti said the school asked the students to don the martial clothing to show support for "the fight against drugs." She wore a leafy, oversized camouflage T-shirt that she had bought at Wal-Mart for $5. Camouflage Day at Marshall was tied to a national anti-drug campaign called Red Ribbon Week that began Monday. The week commemorates a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent who was slain on duty in Mexico in 1985. Organizers with National Family Partnership, a Florida-based group, said thousands of schools nationwide are participating through such activities as encouraging students to sign drug-free pledges or sponsoring spirit weeks. Camouflage Day to fight drugs? This is what it immediately brought to my mind... On May 20, 1997, Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. [pictured right] 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. Is this what Principal Christine Moschetti wants to glorify? Or how about some of these? What kind of irresponsible "education" is this? 7:31:39 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] On voting strategies Phillip Smith has a good discussion piece up at StoptheDrugWar: Third-Party Candidacies vs. Voting for the Lesser Evil It's certainly a topic worth talking about -- there are a few races out there this time with third-party candidates that have strong drug policy reform views, so what do you do? My view? If you've got a third-party candidate that's doing the right thing, vote for them. The fear of the "Nader" effect is overblown, in my opinion, and it's good to keep the third party door open. If you're in one of those rare situations where you have someone in Congress who really supports drug policy reform (Hinchey, Frank, Paul) vote for them, regardless of party. Otherwise, when it comes to Congress, vote Democrat. This is not an endorsement of the Democratic party as much as it is an understanding that the current version of the Republican party is exceptionally dangerous to freedom in our country. There are two additional factors: a Democratic Congress is more likely to pass the Hinchey amendment (stopping the feds from harassing medical marijuana states); and a Democratic Congress means that Mark Souder loses his subcommittee chairmanship. When it comes to state and local races, vote for the person that is best on drug war and freedom issues regardless of party. Certainly, the Democrats, as a whole, have not acted responsibly in the drug war -- in some cases they've been atrocious, with their "me, too!" approach to the drug war bandwagon. And it's quite possible that in two years, or four years, I'll be advising you all to vote Republican. But now, there are too many reasons for advocating for split government, and for sending a strong message that government based on fear, lied, demonization, and restricting the freedom of Americans is unacceptable, whether it's the Drug Czar's activities or government wiretapping of U.S. citizens. While the following doesn't specifically mention the drug war, it's relevant and important, written by the excellent conservative blogger John Cole at Balloon Juice: We need to get rid of the authoritarians, we need to get rid of the big-spenders, the religionists and the gay-bashers, the liars, con-artists, crooks, and thieves, and we need to start over. I really look forward to the day where I have the high ground on tax related issues because my party is not spending us into bankruptcy. I look forward to the day when my party, when faced with difficult scientific questions, turns to the experts (rather than turning on them) instead of Sen. Inhofe and James Dobson and Randall Terry. I look forward to the day when my party once again has enough of a moral standing that we should even be allowed to discuss human rights and torture in foreign regimes. I look forward to the day when we can, with a straight face, argue that we are the party of small government -- after, of course, we get rid of the religionists who are trying to dictate who we can love, who we can sleep with, who gets to determine what we watch on tv, and who gets to determine our end of life decisions. I look forward to the day when it is once again the Democrats who look crazy. But for right now, it is the GOP that is out of touch, out of control, and drowning in its own hubris. It is time to throw them an anchor, and it looks like there are a lot of people lining up on the docks to do just that. I'm ready to help throw that anchor. 9:37:09 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, October 24, 2006 SSDP Conference Speakers Announced Link SSDP is excited to announce that speakers for this year's SSDP conference include Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), Terry Michael (former DNC Press Secretary), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (invited), Radley Balko (Reason Magazine), Pete Guither (Drug War Rant), Ethan Nadelmann, (Drug Policy Alliance), Rob Kampia (Marijuana Policy Project), Steph Sherer (Americans for Safe Access), and more! Register now at http://www.ssdp.org/conference. I'm looking forward to it! 9:36:48 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] They say it's my birthday... Yes, I turn [insert large number here] today. The best present I could get would be for all of you to vote in two weeks and get rid of some of the bums in Congress, or at least get them out of their committee chair positions. And to help get the initiatives passed in Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota... But if you're still looking for something, it's another excuse to contribute to the Drug WarRant laptop fund. I've already raised about $300. 8:29:50 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Monday, October 23, 2006 Wouldn't it be funny if those who DIDN'T smoke marijuana had the memory loss? Of course, it's still too early to know for sure how marijuana may be used to combat Alzheimer's, but the indications are that it shows much more promise than the current corporate drugs. Fred Gardner has a nice piece on this topic at CounterPunch, with a recap of the scientific reports on this from Paul Armentano. One of Gardner's comments (a suggestion to study the effects of cannabis on Alzheimer's rage in Oregon) reminded me of one of the most outrageous aspects of the federal government's war on medical marijuana -- their refusal to fund or allow research while claiming that there isn't enough research to support marijuana's medical claims. They now have 11 states that could be research laboratories for this very thing, yet they refuse to find out (because they already know the answer -- marijuana works). Just like the fact that they refuse to study the patients that they have supplied marijuana to for decades. 9:43:06 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] A sign of desperation -- banning images In Dumaguete City in the Philippines, it will soon be illegal to display a picture of a marijuana leaf. This is, of course, in order to "protect the morality of society." The notion is laughable, because all this will do is create an increased interest in finding ways around the law. I'm betting that by the time this ordinance is enacted, some enterprising individual will be selling stickers with a single green maple leaf (or some other multi-pointed leaf), and everyone will know what it represents. 9:22:42 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Sunday, October 22, 2006 On libertarianism thehim's Drug War Roundup is a must-read this week. He discusses the controversial Kos case for the libertarian Democrat in a way that defines what to me has been the major conflict within the blogosphere's definition of libertarianism. I agree wholeheartedly with thehim's statement: I believe that there's one absolute in libertarianism, that human beings have a right to free will and that society progresses most when no entity has the ability to impose a particular morality on others. Each person should be free to dictate their own choices in life, and those entrusted with law and order can only get involved if those choices interfere with someone else's freedom. I also believe that this principle of individual libertarianism trumps all the various corporate and tax libertarianisms (often promoted by those identified with the conservative wing of libertarianism). And it is that core principle of libertarianism that demands an end to the drug war, regardless of whether it is wielded by democrats, republicans, or... Libertarians. 10:01:34 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Looking back to a more... peaceful... war I went back to my undergraduate college this weekend for my 30th college reunion. It got me thinking about my days as a college student in the 70s and comparing it to the present, particularly in terms of the drug war. This comparison only specifically concerns a small sub-set of society -- college life. I had a good idea what was going on then, and I have a good idea what goes on now through my position as a university employee with close connections to students. When I was a student, the drug war had started, but the focus was more... limited. College students smoked pot, or didn't, as they wished, and everybody knew about it and nobody cared. I personally witnessed a situation where students were smoking pot in the common residence hall television room on the first floor when the campus police came by. They ducked their head in and asked if they could close the door -- the smoke was getting a little thick in the hallway. While it was certainly wrong for pot to be illegal (and we all knew that), there was a kind of treaty that existed. The campus and town police left the college students alone as long as they kept it indoors or out of general public view (you needed to be discrete at football games because of the public in attendance, but you could smoke obviously at the soccer games because really only college students attended). The only other rule was that the high school kids were off-limits. As soon as a college student sold to a high school student, the police came down hard. Some students tried other drugs. Most didn't. Pot and alcohol were the drugs of choice and they didn't lead to harder drugs. The group of students that drank the most (the Owls), were known for getting drunk and smashing things or people. The group of students that smoked pot the most (the Delts) were the most peaceful. (In fairness, another group - the Milts -- were major beer drinkers and almost as gentle as the Delts.) Now move ahead 30 years. College students smoke pot, or they don't, as they wish. Some try other drugs. Most don't. The difference is that now we've escalated the war. We're spending huge amounts of money on it, and occasionally, for no good reason, students get caught and their lives are ruined (financial aid revoked, kicked out of school or housing). Additionally, there's no difference between selling pot to college students or to high school students. Pot use appears roughly as prevalent today in college as it was 30 years ago. Pot use caused very little problem 30 years ago and it causes very little problem now. The drug war escalation, however, has made things worse in the little microcosm of college life, as it has in society as a whole. The greatest fear of the drug warriors is not that pot will become legal in Nevada or Colorado. Their greatest fear is that after it becomes legal it will be not much of a problem. Because when people discover that fact, the drug war gravy train will come to an end. 8:06:52 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Scott Burns smacked down in South Dakota There was a time when the Drug Czar and his minions could show up somewhere, spout their lies and misdirection, and the media would dutifully repeat it as established gospel. But it's getting harder for them. Check out this editorial by the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. ONDCP's Scott Burns had been in South Dakota doing his usual act and it got a somewhat chilly response: Burns' position - and the federal government's - isn't just hypocritical. It's contradictory. On the one hand, he says we can't scare young people away from drug use; we have to give them scientific facts. Then he ignores the facts. It's a mirror of the 70-year-old classic anti-drug propaganda movie "Reefer Madness." The beginning crawl calls marijuana "The Real Public Enemy Number ONE!!" In the movie, a school principal tells the PTA of "a young boy ... under the influence of drugs ... who killed his entire family with an axe. "... the next tragedy may be that of your daughter's ... or your son's ... or yours ... or yours ... (then, pointing to the camera) OR YOURS!" No, by all means, let's not try to scare people. Let's give them the scientific facts. There might be good reasons to vote against our medical marijuana measure on Nov. 7, but the science isn't one of them. Neither are the government scare tactics. By the way, be sure to check out the South Dakota for Medical Marijuana blog. [Hat tip: TheDrugWar.com] 5:49:24 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []