Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Open Thread An outstanding guest post from Rev. Alan Bean of Tulia Friends of Justice at Grits for Breakfast: Talking Snitches in Atlanta. Grits also has a disturbing story about the procedural and scientific sloppiness in urine testing that ends up determining the fate of parolees. About that super-skunk marijuana that the British journalists are smoking that apparently is more than 100% THC and immediately causes drooling idiocy (which might explain their articles if it were true)... Transform covers it in How the Independent on Sunday got it horribly wrong on Cannabis, and Scott Morgan has The Truth About Marijuana Use in the UK and Philip Smith wonders if madness awaits him around the corner. The Sibel Edmonds story isn't going away. A couple of years ago, I mentioned this connection between Turkish mafia, Dennis Hastert, drug smuggling, neocons, and the State Department. This story has significant potential implications on what we are doing in the drug war in Afghanistan. To get caught up, read What the heck is Sibel Edmonds' Case about? And why should I care? over at Daily Kos. Radley has the scoop on the new fatally-flawed, but well-intentioned Georgia No-Knock Bill. 8:34:01 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Report: Prohibition not effective Via Transform comes this article in the Australian Age: ... the recently released report on amphetamines and other synthetic drugs by the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission is a brave document. Most notably, in contrast to the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee, the committee unanimously supported harm minimisation and recommended that "harm-reduction strategies and programs receive more attention and resources". In its conclusions, the committee said "prohibition, while theoretically a logical and properly intentioned strategy, is not effective". It also argued that "the current national approach to illicit drugs - supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction - will achieve greater outcomes if a better balance between these approaches can be reached". In common parlance, this means there should be less emphasis on law enforcement and more on education and drug treatment. Unfortunately, it is a rare event when any government body decides to make drug policy recommendations that are based on evidence. The report was not received warmly by the Government. Familiar story. Think U.S. Shaffer report in 1972. Think Canadian Senate Report 2002. Shunned in their own countries. Transform sees hope, and offers a tease... ...coming soon is a major new document produced by Transform with the sole aim to aid rational debate on drug policy. [OE]Tools for Debate' will be a groundbreaking point-of-reference for anyone wishing to challenge non-rational policy positions, no matter how persuasive the rhetoric. 8:09:19 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []