|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, May 26, 2007 |
Ubiquitous government
This comment from kaptinemo is worth repeating:
The goal was never to do the impossible, namely, eliminate illicit drugs from urban populations. The goal very simply was to gradually acclimate citizens to increased inroads into their civil liberties, numbing them to the 'turn-o'-the-screw' approach to the inevitable tyranny. The effectiveness of this approach is proven by the very distorted view provided by Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr.'s statement. He just can't see that we are, for all intent and purposes, operating under martial law when there's daily trampling upon the 4th Amendment courtesy of the DrugWar. Because it hasn't bitten him on the arse yet, he thinks it can't and therefore won't.
For drug law reformers, who are in essence the 'canaries in the mineshaft' regarding civil liberties, we knew the country was in dire straits looooong before the Leftist blogosphere discovered the peril in having such niceties like habeas corpus suspended. We witnessed the long, slow slide into the pit, but no one wanted to hear about it from (dismissive sneer) 'druggies'. We saw what was coming, warned about it, and were laughed at as being drug-addled alarmists...and we are being ignored, still, despite what we had warned about previously manifesting into reality. Being a modern day Cassandra is no less painful now as it was way back when...
I think this is an extraordinarily powerful comment. We have long been aware that the drug war is much more than drugs -- it is a particularly useful tool of authoritarianism.
And the sad thing is that so much of the population eagerly invites it, looking for that fraudulently chimerical trade of liberty for security.
So this little bit of news is just par for the course...
Mexico is expanding its ability to tap telephone calls and e-mail using money from the U.S. government, a move that underlines how the country's conservative government is increasingly willing to cooperate with the United States on law enforcement.
The expansion comes as President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend the Mexican Constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge's approval in some cases. Calderon argues that the government needs the authority to combat drug gangs, which have killed hundreds of people this year.
Yes. For the drug war. We can't afford a Constitution when we have a war to fight. And the authoritarians in Mexico and the U.S. are happy to work together against their citizens to avoid any pesky remaining Constitutional issues.
It's unclear how broad a net the new surveillance system will cast: Mexicans speak regularly by phone, for example, with millions of relatives living in the U.S. Those conversations appear to be fair game for both governments.
Legal experts say that prosecutors with access to Mexican wiretaps could use the information in U.S. courts. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that 4th Amendment protections against illegal wiretaps do not apply outside the United States, particularly if the surveillance is conducted by another country, Georgetown University law professor David Cole said.
Did you catch that? The U.S. gives money to Mexico to spy on its citizens and U.S. citizens as well. If Calderon gets his way, that will be without any Mexican judicial oversight. The results of that spying could then be given to U.S. prosecutors to use without any U.S. Constitutional protection, because it was another country that conducted the surveillance.
The air in the mineshaft just got a little more foul.
10:08:39 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, May 25, 2007 |
|
Thursday, May 24, 2007 |
Going to New York next week
I'll be taking 79 people to Manhattan for a week of theatre and walking tours, May 29 through June 5.
I'm going to be extremely busy that week, but if anyone wants to get together for coffee some time to discuss drug policy, let me know.
7:55:09 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
And the stupid shall kill us all
I fear for the planet. When the leadership of so much of the world is unable to understand the simplest of concepts...
It is criminally irresponsible to assume that the only options to approaching certain problems are military success or surrender, particularly when the war isn't even a war at all, but rather a policy opposing inanimate objects and economic forces.
Witness Mexican President and idiot Felipe Calderon
Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed on Thursday not to abandon his military-led war against violent drug gangs, defying a call from a congressional committee for the withdrawal of troop patrols.
Banging his finger on a lectern during a speech in the northern state of Durango, Calderon said his government would not relent in its fight against drug traffickers.
"We cannot leave the children and the young people of Mexico in the claws of organized crime. Our position is clear: not one step backward in the task of defending Mexico," he said.
"Simply withdrawing, being cowardly and hiding are not the solution," Calderon said.
Because he is such a cowardly moron, without the cojones to handle a real solution, and because his chilito makes him insecure, he condemns his people to death.
Despicable.
... and he is far from alone.
6:44:50 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
If it quacks like a duck
Philadelphia's likely next mayor, Michael Nutter, and Baltimore City Council's Robert W. Curran, seem to be trying to outdo each other in the pro-authoritarian anti-reason tough-on-crime competition.
Under Curran's plan, the mayor could declare "public-safety-act zones," which would allow police to close liquor stores and bars, limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.
Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in those zones to search for weapons and drugs. [...]
Nutter's proposal also calls for curfews in crime-plagued neighborhoods.
Wow. So in what third-world country are the cities of Philadephia and Baltimore? Certainly not the United States. We don't allow our police to just stop and frisk people for no reason, do we... ?
Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr., a mayoral hopeful, said Curran's idea was an interesting concept but it raised questions about civil liberties. "We have to make sure we're not declaring martial law," he said.
What else would you call it? A block party?
9:58:20 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Where Poppies Bloom
Surprise, surprise.
Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan.
Rice farmers along the Euphrates, to the west of the city of Diwaniya, south of Baghdad, have stopped cultivating rice, for which the area is famous, and are instead planting poppies, Iraqi sources familiar with the area have told The Independent.
Well, here's another surprise. USA Today has published an editorial supporting the Senlis proposal: A Better Way To Deal With Afghanistan's Poppy Crop
The United States is pushing Afghanistan to spray poppy fields with a crop-killing herbicide, much as is done with coca in Colombia, and develop new sources of income for the poppy farmers.
This approach might sound reasonable, but it threatens to make a deteriorating situation even worse. Here's why. The American and NATO forces in Afghanistan rely on intelligence and support from Afghans. Yet the Afghans' resentment is rising as civilians increasingly get killed and hurt in operations against Taliban forces. Just the threat of spraying poppy fields is increasing that anger, because spraying could destroy the livelihoods of as many as 3 million farmers and drive them into the arms of the Taliban.
There might be a better way to bridge the clashing agendas of the wars on terror and drugs.
The Senlis Council, a group based in Europe and Afghanistan, proposes legalizing and managing the poppy crops, turning them into medicines such as morphine. It wants to adapt a program that largely eliminated heroin production in Turkey in the 1970s with the support of President Nixon and Congress.
Like the Bush administration in Afghanistan, Nixon at first insisted on spraying the poppy fields. But Turkish leaders refused because of a revolt from their farmers. The compromise included guaranteed markets for the morphine. Within a few years, Turkey was no longer the premier source for heroin.
The Senlis Council is proposing pilot projects under which the morphine factories would be set up in Afghan villages and monitored by village elders and outside groups. The factories could provide employment and income for the villages -- and plow some profits into alternative industries.
It's true, as critics point out, that legal opium fetches about one-third the price of opium sold on the illegal market, and the Senlis proposal envisions Afghan opium being sold relatively cheaply for medications in developing countries.
But the United States and the international community are already spending billions of dollars on development in Afghanistan. Some of that money could be used to help bridge the gap and wean the poppy farmers away from risky, illegal production.
Defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan will require pragmatism, creativity and the support of the Afghan people. Giving "poppies for peace" a chance might just pay dividends in the U.S. war on terror.
Not bad from USA Today. And note that while legal uses will bring in significantly less income than illegal uses, there are two factors to the farmers.
- In the illegal market, farmers get a very small portion of the value of the opium when it is shipped, which itself is an insignificant portion of the street value of the finished drug, so the value difference to farmers in selling to the legitimate market may not be that great (and will at least appeal to those who would like to be legal).
- Buying crops from farmers at even a low price so they can feed their families is better in winning hearts and minds than destroying their crops and leaving them to starve.
Of course, the Senlis proposal will not eliminate the black market -- only full legalization and regulation can do that.
[Thanks, Jeff]
9:43:06 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Canada - get ready for some misery
Canada: Harper To Unveil US-Style 'War On Drugs'
The Harper government's new anti-drug strategy is expected to take a tough approach to illicit drugs: cracking down on grow-ops and pushers, and retreating from "harm reduction" measures such as safe injection sites for addicts.
So just how much stock does Harper have in Canada's prison industry? Or is he employed by organized crime? Or does he have jello for brains?
The only way you can look at the U.S. drug war and say "I want some of that" is if you're corrupt or stupid.
9:15:48 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 |
Just like Mom used to bake
This is causing a bit of a stir: High Number of Moms Admit Pot Use
A number of mothers in the Phoenix area admit they use marijuana to wind down after a long day, television station KPHO reported.
Shay Pausa surveyed hundreds of mothers through her Web site, Chikii.com. She targeted women in affluent suburban areas. [...]
They're women like Jan, who's 30 and has one child.
"I like it just to relax, if I'm very stressed out and I just need some time, just to relax. It's good for that," Jan said. [...]
Of the hundreds of mothers Pausa surveyed, 52 percent said they smoke pot at least 10 times a year.
Twenty-seven percent said they smoke it one to seven times a week.
Some of the women even said they would someday tell their kids about their secret. That's what most concerns some anti-drug groups.
"So what kind of message is that sending to a child? If it's OK to smoke pot in the house, is it OK to steal? Bottom line, it's illegal," said Sarah Christiansen of NotMyKid.org.
Yep. Pot smoking and stealing. Where do these drug warriors learn how to make analogies? (Like the one where they say "Well if you think legalizing will reduce the criminal activity, why don't you legalize murder as well?")
And I've had just about enough of "sending messages to children." Everybody who wants to control what adults do always talks about messages to children. Guess what? The children are not interested in, or listening to, your "messages." (And they know you're just using them, because they know how to read between the lines very well.) Try talking to children, instead. Tell them the truth. Have the guts to raise a human being instead of trying to train a puppy.
9:31:55 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Odds and Ends (and open thread)
 Alex at Drug Law Blog has a very interesting post (inspired by a discussion in comments here at Drug WarRant): Civil Disobedience, the War on Drugs, and Fiorello LaGuardia.
Where's our Fiorello LaGuardia?
From Jerry Large of the Seattle Times (and picked up elsewhere): Rescuing drug war's prisoners
The crack we're addicted to is an over-reliance on police and prisons, which, among other things, perpetuates America's racial divide.
Jerry Large also has this piece:
Politicians are beginning to realize something's broken, too.
Voters need to support them. Let them know we no longer think looking beyond easy answers is being soft on crime.
The ramifications of militarizing the drug war in Mexico are starting to surface. The Chicago Tribune reported:
Officials say most of the complaints statewide involve soldiers entering homes without warrants and illegally detaining residents without probable cause. [...]
"We need to take a few steps back and ask ourselves if a society like Mexico wants its military occupying the plazas, the city halls," Sierra said. "In the long term, I don't think it is healthy for a democracy."
Looks like things may not be going so well for the feds in the Ed Rosenthal trial
When police departments depend on seizure money for their operations...
9:20:14 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
More from Gravel
A presidential candidate saying such things?
Note, the transcript of this interview is pretty rough, but the meaning is clear. Timothy Gatto had an interview with Mike Gravel and this is one part:
Gatto: I have seen what Cocaine, Heroin and Meth do to good people. What would you do to stop the abuse of these drugs if they are legalized?
Senator Gravel: First of all, I do have a program to legalize the regulation of hard drugs. I think we ought to stop the prohibition of Marijuana and let marijuana be sold in liquor stores. You get a much bigger high off of drinking a fifth of scotch, than you would off a couple of packs of marijuana. That's why it should be legalized. Now the regulation, the legalization of hard drugs is a whole other matter. What we have to do is stop criminalizing this whole drug problem, the addiction problem. This is a public health problem. It's not a criminal problem. What we need to do is to one; to identify these drug users so that they can get their drugs by prescription from a doctor, they are thereby registered to a registry, so that we can begin to monitor these people and try to proselytize them, and help them to get off of drugs. That's not what happens today, what happens today... you're criminalized, you're thrown in jail, half the people in jail have a drug problem, and we don't address that at all. It's a health issue and we don't look at it for what it is, it's a health issue, ,so my hope would be, this whole war on drugs is a hoax we spend 50 to 70 billion dollars a year on it, and it's no more effective than prohibition was against alcohol back in the 20's. All it does is criminalizing a major segment of our population and cause another major segment to break the law, lose respect for the law, because it is just bad law, and so I would really push on both sides of that and keep in mind, those that try to tell the American people that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. That's what I would try to do under this present situation is that you don't need all this fear of the terrorists, of people of color, gays this is overblown, totally overblown, in addition to fighting this problem of fear with the American public through leadership, I would call on the courage in us, not the fear in us to address our collective problems. Then, at the same time like Roosevelt, I would do away with the prohibition that we have in respect to marijuana, and bring the legalization of hard drugs, legalization of the regulation of hard drugs.
Gatto: I wrote an article on the war on drugs it's the same as the war on terror, it's a never-ending thing, it's a self-perpetuating thing. When are the American People going to realize that? Maybe when you're the president?
Gravel: Yes we engage these issues. You don't hear the front tier candidates talking about this on the drug war. You don't hear them talking about the military industrial complex. With their interviews, its politics as usual, they say a lot, but don't say anything.
8:59:04 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 21, 2007 |
Let me clear something up, part 2
One of the arguments I often hear against legalization is that legalization would result in vast numbers of people who would then suddenly develop dangerous drug abuse problems.
Here's the problem with that argument (in addition to the fact that they have absolutely no evidence to back it up):
It appears that there are three main possible types of people in terms of their relationship with recreational drugs:
- People who are likely to have no interest in using them.
- People who are likely to use them with discretion and responsibility.
- People who are likely to abuse them.
Yes, this is a generalization, and there are undoubtedly shades and intersections, but follow me for a minute...
OK, clearly groups 1 and 2 are not a problem to society, right? So all we have to worry about is group 3. Group 3 is likely to abuse drugs. Now, between legal drugs (such as alcohol) and the easy ability to get illegal drugs despite the drug war, what could possibly be preventing these people from abusing drugs now?
In other words, just who are these people who are both likely to abuse drugs and yet would wait until additional drugs are legalized to do so? Is this a large group? Do you know of anyone who would qualify? Is there any way that an overblown concern for the welfare of this imaginary and miniscule population can justify all the excesses of the drug war?
Now perhaps the drug warrior will say that legalizing drugs will cause people to abuse "harder" drugs. If that's the case then it's an argument for the immediate and unconditional legalization of marijuana, since marijuana is less of a concern than any other drug (and we should then encourage people to move to it from "harder" drugs like alcohol).
Or maybe the drug warrior believes that there are huge portions of the population who use alcohol responsibly, but will become raging marijuana addicts if it is legalized. Right.
To recap:
Can anyone identify the millions of people in the United States who are likely to become drug abusers if drugs are legalized and regulated, but are not already abusing illegal drugs or alcohol? How many of them would there have to be to justify the death of Alberto Sepulveda?
11:20:49 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Let me clear something up, part 1
The drug czar has a particularly heinous post in approvingly linking to an ignorant article in the Scotsman.
Yuppies' "Cocaine Soaked with Innocent Blood" [...]
Wood accused thousands of middle-class cocaine users of being "morally and politically irresponsible," and spoke of plans for a new anti-drug campaign.
The article in the Scotsman talks about trying to educate people about how their drug use fuels violence, etc., etc., and suggests a bold new strategy of encouraging socially aware young people to choose not to use drugs in order to save the world.
The problem with this strategy, of course, is that those young people actually have a brain in their heads. They instinctively know (because they are not complete morons) that the real problem is the drug war.
Now, let me say this clearly for the idiot drug warriors out there...
- Yes, if everyone stopped using all illicit drugs, then the violence associated with the drug trade would stop. However, this is not even a theoretical possibility. This is like saying that if everyone in the world gave up sex, there would be no STDs. True, but completely irrelevant, because it is not humanly achievable.
- The drug war and its associated violence, on the other hand, can be eliminated through legalization. This is not only theoretically possible, but we've even done it in the past (with alcohol).
- Seeing those who propagate the drug war and its violence claim the moral high ground is offensive.
So to recap:
Ending drug war violence by eliminating drug use: Not possible.
Ending drug war violence by eliminating the drug war: Possible.
10:51:47 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Maybe we should invade the U.S....
 Radley Balko catches this sadly hilarious insanity from neocon Michael Ledeen lamenting the terrible state of the justice system in Iran:
Terrifying pictures, to be sure. For me, the most revealing thing about them is that the police feel obliged to wear masks while conducting a drug bust in the capital. tells you something about the relationship between the people and the state.
The relationship between the people and the state. Oh Michael. Have you visited the United States? Have you met these people? For many of them, the very last thing they saw in their too-short lives were police wearing masks. Will you care about them? Will you call for military intervention to save them from tyranny?
Radley has more pictures for Michael to check out.
8:39:57 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Lou Dobbs and the Mexican Attorney General's office just can't understand why there is violence in the drug war.
Sigh.
From Lou Dobbs' show on Friday (unofficial transcript)...
Lou Dobbs: "You've gotta hand it to Philipe Calderon, the President of Mexico. He's trying, and trying very hard to deal with an out-of-control drug industry in his country. Illegal drugs. The war between the drug cartels and Mexican troops escalating the toll from what has been an especially violent week [...]
Casey Wian: "Just 20 miles south of the Arizona border, the deadliest battle so far in Mexico's war against the drug cartels that control much of the country. 22 people in the Sonoran town of Cananea are dead after federal troops stormed a ranch Wednesday. 15 drug cartel members, 5 policemen and 2 civilians." [...]
Ricardo Najera (Mexican Atty. General's Office): "We're working very hard to find out what's caused this violence. And we hope to have a quick response to the situation."
Casey Wian: "The Mexican Government's response has been to deploy 24,000 federal troops to battle drug traffickers nationwide. Still, violence has been escalating.
2+2= ...
Come on, you can do it... 2+2=...
Or as the dimwitted fireman once said to me:
I don't understand it. I threw a grenade at the burning building to put out the fire, but for some unknown reason the fire actually kept getting worse and spread to another house. I'm going to have to get some more grenades.
12:34:49 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 20, 2007 |
School drug testing gets thoughtful criticism
Drug testing in schools is one of the many aspects of the drug war that has a visceral appeal to those looking for quick prohibition-style solutions to the "drug problem." Quite frankly, they are generally able to see it in only one dimension and therefore dismiss, in amazement, any criticism of mandatory random suspicion-less testing as the ravings of people who somehow want children to abuse drugs. (This is often more simply framed using the fascist phrase that always makes my skin crawl: "If you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason to be concerned.")
And with the full weight of the federal government pushing mandatory random suspicion-less drug testing in schools as being nothing more intrusive than a health inoculation, it's almost surprising that anyone is willing to step up and discuss the real facts about student drug testing.
So it's heartening that, despite the losses, there are school districts all over the country who are standing up to the drug czar, that are listening to SSDP and DPA and NORML representatives at drug testing summits, and that there are newspapers willing to editorialize (even if not perfectly) against a massive testing regime.
In New Jersey:
THERE'S no doubt that drinking and drug use are significant problems in some -- if not many -- North Jersey high schools. But sweeping random drug tests are not just an overreaction, they are a frightening violation of students' privacy. [...]
We [...] support testing any students who display signs of drug or alcohol abuse and clearly need help.
But random testing, with no prior evidence of a problem, is an invasion of privacy. Schools should offer extensive education and counseling on substance abuse issues. They should not, in effect, be in the business of spying on students.
In Indiana:
It seems that punishing students and preventing them from taking advantage of school activities would exacerbate the problem by pushing students the wrong way. If they are shut out from school activities, it would follow that they would be more vulnerable to the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place.
We can understand schools wanting to take a proactive approach to drug prevention. We take issue with the punishment and the selectivity of the students. In the long run, this could harm students by ostracizing them from the student body.
We'd like to see the counseling as the main part of the policy, not as an amnesty afterthought. The punishment should come only after continued drug-testing failures. We don't want to see the policy do more harm than good, and unless school officials sharply curtail the punishment and concentrate on counseling, that is what will happen.
And the Los Angeles Times has an article in tomorrow's paper which gives full coverage to the Walters nonsense, but also counters it:
But health officials, by and large, oppose school-based drug testing. NAADAC, the Assn. for Addiction Professionals, has released a statement critical of such programs. And in March, the American Academy of Pediatrics cautioned against random school-based drug testing until more research is completed. The two groups are among those who say testing is not reliable enough, violates trust between adults and teens and is not set up to deal effectively with students who have positive results. [...]
"If you look on the surface, drug testing seems like a good idea; a simple thing to do," says Dr. Sharon Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "It's only when you sit down and look at it closely that it really starts to unravel a bit."
Chief among the pediatricians' complaints is the reliability of testing.
A study published in April in the journal Pediatrics found a substantial risk of error even when drug testing was performed as part of an established adolescent substance abuse program. In the study, Levy and her colleagues reviewed 710 random urine tests from 110 teens and compared the results with confirmatory lab tests. (Initial screening samples should be confirmed with a second, more rigorous, analysis -- something most school programs say they do.) They found 12% of the tests were subject to misinterpretation. For example, some of the urine samples were diluted (despite rigorous collection procedures designed to prevent kids from cheating) and could not be interpreted properly.
Further, of the samples, 21% were positive due to legitimate prescription drug use, Levy says. And several samples that were found in confirmatory testing to be positive for the painkiller OxyContin -- a popular drug of abuse among teens -- were identified as negative in the initial screen.
"Drug testing is premature policy," says Levy. "We need to understand the combination of risks and costs compared to the benefits. That hasn't been done at all."
Further, critics say, the drug testing panels used by schools are typically those used in the workplace -- screens for marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, opiates and PCP. The panels usually do not assess alcohol or other drugs kids may be likely to use, such as inhalants, OxyContin and Ecstasy. Standard urine tests only detect use that has occurred in the last 48 to 72 hours.
Negative screens may mislead parents, school personnel and the community from searching for a truer picture of adolescent drug and alcohol use, Kern says.
"Parents can say 'OK, the schools are doing testing, we'll know what is going on,' " she says. "But drug testing gives you very little information. It can give parents a false sense of security."
Even the belief that testing deters kids from using drugs or gives them a peer-worthy reason to say no has not been proven, Kern says. A 2003 study by the University of Michigan surveying 76,000 students found no difference in marijuana or other illicit drug use in schools with testing compared with those without programs. [...]
Others critics of the program say school drug testing can make teens feel guilty before being proven innocent. While many programs -- such as several in Orange County -- only test students if they and their parents consent, kids may feel that adults distrust them, Kern says.
"There may be unintended consequences to drug testing," says Dr. Howard Taras, a pediatrics professor at UC San Diego, who studies school health issues. "Kids may be deterred from joining a sport or extracurricular activity because they will be tested. Those are the kids that most need extracurricular activities. They may not get engaged in math or science but they may get engaged by a sport or dance class."
Side note: In the LA Times article, one of the old stand-bys gets dragged out once again.
Even if testing programs aren't perfect, recent research on the effect of drug use on adolescent brains warrants an aggressive approach to the problem, Walters says. Studies show that heavy drug use during adolescence may permanently damage parts of the brain related to learning and memory. People who avoid drinking and using drugs before age 21 are far less likely to abuse drugs or develop an addiction later.
What does that last sentence mean? It sounds important, but is it? Age 21? There is a certain small portion of the population who never tries alcohol or other drugs before age 21. These are people who, for the most part, have pretty much made the decision for personal reasons having nothing to do with drug testing or the drug war, and it's true -- they're unlikely to become addicts or abuse alcohol or other drugs (or even use them, for that matter). But that has absolutely no connection to, nor does it provide any support for, drug testing in schools (in fact, it provides no useful guidance at all).
Now it would be interesting and potentially useful information to learn whether those who use specific drugs in early adolescence (12-16, say) would be more likely to abuse (rather than recreationally use) specific drugs during late adolescence. That still would not support a suspicion-less testing regime, but it would perhaps point to the need for regulation.
But as usual, the drug czar brings up unreferenced data which means nothing, in order to support unsupportable policies.
[Thanks, Tom]
7:06:56 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Ron Paul delivers disturbing reality check
The recent explosion and fallout from Ron Paul's appearance in the Republican debate (see here, here, here, here for just a taste) has been instructive, and, I think, useful.
While some may argue that Paul's points were delivered inelegantly and that he lacked political astuteness, there's no doubt that he has provoked discussion within a political sphere that has actively worked to avoid discussion, thought, or knowledge. And that's a good thing.
The dust-up has given him visibility, and that's also a good thing. It's possible, just possible, that his presence in the race will help to underscore the fact that the authoritarian cabal that has been running the Republican party of late has very little connection to conservative principles of liberty and limited government, and has, in fact, completely repudiated them. There are a lot of conservatives out there who believe in these principles but have been in denial regarding the massive betrayal perpetrated by Republican leadership in cahoots with opportunistic special interests.
Hearing a Republican in the race say the things Paul is saying is unsettling. And that's a good thing.
10:25:31 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
