Drug WarRant Saturday, July 28, 2007 Open Thread Drug Sense Weekly -- get your round-up of the news. Drug Warriors are the real threat to Americans Our government has created a black market in which a common weed, cannabis, is worth more than its weight in gold. This artificially created, incredibly lucrative market is responsible for the violence and death associated with much of the drug dealing around the world. The problems associated with marijuana didn't exist prior to the 1930s, when our government made the plant illegal. To solve this problem of its own fabrication, our government created an army of paramilitary drug warriors, armed them with military weapons and equipment, and unleashed them on us. If drug czar Walters is looking for "armed, dangerous, violent criminal terrorists," he need look no further than the drug warriors that he and others of his ilk have created. It's time to address the real terrorist threat, and demand that our government end this war against its own people. This has already made the rounds pretty quickly. It's hard to get more outrageous. Tampa's Mark O'Hara was released from prison this week. He was serving a 25-year sentence for possession of 58 Vicodin tablets. Prosecutors acknowledge he wasn't selling the drug. They acknowledge that he had a prescription for it. [...] This is simply stunning. The man was sentenced to 25 years for possessing 58 pills for which he had a legal prescription. Prosecutors then argued--and the trial court agreed--that the jury was not allowed to consider the fact that O'Hara had a prescription because Florida statutes governing painkillers don't allow for a "prescription defense," [...] O'Hara is free after an appellate court rightly deemed the trial "absurd" and tossed out the verdict. Prosecutors are apparently still considering what to do next. This seems to indicate that the ASA data quality act lawsuit has run into a dead end. I need to read more, though to see if that's true. Ilya Somin at Volokh has an interesting post noting the gaping hole in Fred Thompson's endorsement of reducing the federal government's role in certain areas of law enforcement: However, there is a major elephant in this federalism room that Thompson doesn't mention. He is right to note the massive growth in the federal prison population over the last 20 years, but fails to point out that most of that growth is due to the War on Drugs. 2:36:44 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] What happens to your mind when you smoke some bad reporting Of course, we all know that the bizarre propaganda item I posted yesterday (Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%) is inflammatory nonsense. There wasn't an ounce of legitimate reporting in that story, and just about every media source that has picked it up has been infected by junk reporting as well (even though many of them, later on in the piece, indicate that there is no real evidence of any causation at all). "The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, a category of several disorders with schizophrenia being the most commonly known. There could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses," Zammit said." Daksya gave it to us straight in comments: To clarify: This isn't an original study. It's a review or more precisely, a meta-analysis of existing studies. Regarding psychosis, 7 longitudinal observational studies are pooled to generate the odds ratio of 1.41 i.e. the 40% increase in risk. The 7 studies did not all measure the same thing. Some looked for the presence of any psychotic symptom; others looked for presence of symptoms necessary to diagnose schizophrenia (and schizophreniform disorder in one study). So, one may infer about odds of experiencing psychotic symptoms but not the odds for schizophrenia or any other clinical diagnosis of a disorder. Continuing the usual mathematical ignorance displayed in journalism, the analysis does NOT suggest that smoking cannabis even once or 'infrequently' increases odds of schizophrenia by 40%. First, the study does not report on odds of schizophrenia. But relevantly, the 40% increase is for the whole group of those who ever used cannabis compared to those who never used cannabis viz. the former contains all users i.e. experimenters, occasional smokers, regulars and dependents. The risk specific to experimenters or infrequent users is not reported. To illustrate the mathematical point, take two groups of 1000 people, same in all relevant ways, except for cannabis use history. In Group A, we have 1000 people with a history of 0 joints i.e. non-users. Let the baseline rate of psychosis be 4% or 40 cases out of 1000. So, in Group B, consisting of 1000 people, all with some history of cannabis use, there will be 64 56 cases of psychosis out of 1000. But these 64 56 cases aren't spread out uniformly over all categories of cannabis users (just once, weekly, daily..etc). As the analysis authors state, there is a dose-response effect. So, in Group B, which includes all sorts of users, the heavy users will have a disproportionate higher share of the cases, and the other groups, consequently, disproportionately lower. So, the odds for the other users have to be sufficiently lower, so as to "balance" the 2.09 odds for heavy users, in order to obtain the average of 1.41 for the whole group. Just how much is that, depends on the internal prevalence of each category within Group B. Of course, that's too much actual science for most reporting, and it doesn't provide anything flashy and scary, so they go with nonsense. And naturally, there are idiots out there who want to believe it. Here's one that I found who was particularly amusing at Blogs 4 Brownback. This guy lays out the stuff from the Daily Mail as gospel with his added comments... One joint = brain damage. Don't stick that in your pipe and smoke it or you'll go crazy. It's been proven. [...] There is much more in the article that drug apologists should read, including a Rogue's Gallery of violent criminals who just got a little high, only to launch into horrific violent crimes. [...] We really need to get serious about the war on dangerous drugs. We need more prisons, more prosecutors and stronger sentences with teeth that bite. It's time to send a message to casual drug users and dope peddlers. If you use or sell drugs you will do time. Hard time. No exceptions. Caught, prosecuted, punished. And no leniency. Dope fiends need to be locked up, not coddled. Your brain is not a toy. So don't stick things in your nose or ears and try to play with it. Any questions? I trust that a President Sam Brownback would do the right thing and put us on a path to ultimately and with finality at long last win the drug war. It's the right thing to do. That was funny enough, but then his first commenter -- a Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett wrote: I believe that pot smoking is just another symptom of Liberalism. Once someone goes out of his or her way to accept the immoral and unholy as the norm, they just open the door to drug abuse and criminal activity. Anyone who is smoking that stuff might as well have a loaded gun in their mouth; it is just as dangerous. Jesus, come quick! America is killing itself. Reading the comments is a surreal experience in itself (including a moron who basically duplicated the brownie-eating-cop-calling-911 stunt), although finally one or two sane adults step in to inject some reality into the discussion. It's a minor site and probably not worth our attention, but what is interesting is that even there people finally started to question and correct the nonsense, and that's worth noting. People are getting better informed. We're helping to do that. And every day, it's getting hard to pawn off that stale reefer madness. Oh, sure, the tabloids eat it up, and the politicians love it, but the ordinary, intelligent, informed citizen knows better. They're smart enough to think "where are the bodies? where are the millions of slobbering psychotics? why do prohibitionists act crazier than potheads?" Update: Mark Kleiman responds to the hysteria nicely: If cannabis caused schizophrenia, we ought to see rates of schizophrenia correlated with rates of cannabis use, both across countries and over time. [...] So far, there is exactly zero cross-section or cohort evidence showing a link between cannabis and schizophrenia.[...] But the null hypothesis doesn't make headlines, so I doubt we'll hear much about cohort effects in the press. 2nd Update: Ben Goldacre in The Guardian straightens out the British tabloids. Now I don't like to carp, but it's interesting that the Daily Mail got even these basics wrong, under their headline "Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%". [...] But what's really important, of course, is what you do with this data. Firstly, you can mispresent it, and scare people. Obviously it feels great to be so self-righteous, but people will stop taking you seriously. After all, you're talking to a population of young people who have worked out that you routinely exaggerate the dangers of drugs, not least of all with the ridiculous "modern cannabis is 25 times stronger" fabrication so beloved by the media and politicians. And craziest of all is the fantasy that reclassifying cannabis will stop six million people smoking it, and so eradicate those 800 extra cases of psychosis. If anything, for all drugs, increased prohibition may create market conditions where more concentrated and dangerous forms are more commercially viable. We're talking about communities, and markets, with people in them, after all: not molecules and neuroreceptors. 10:26:52 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Friday, July 27, 2007 Four years Today Drug WarRant turns four years old. Four years ago today, I started this blog with the notion of maybe posting something once a week or so. 2,378 posts and 1.7 million page views later, I guess it's fair to say that this is an important part of me. It's unfortunate that Drug WarRant's blogiversary seems to coincide with the annual loss of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, and there's no doubt that there are times I get depressed by the entrenched virulence and power of the prohibitionists -- of course, what do you expect when they have the budget and information control of the entire United States Government behind them (not to mention the United Nations and various world governments). And yet, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. While we've had limited success in changing government, we've done a lot to educate the people. And, see, that's our advantage -- while they have to lie and propagandize to support prohibition, all we have to do is educate and tell the truth. Invariably, if you have the facts and the time, you can convince almost anyone (who isn't already corrupted by the profits of the drug war) of the value of drug policy reform. Our handicap has been the reluctance on the part of the public to talk openly about the truth of drug policy, but even that is changing. The fact that the prohibitionists are getting desperate is obvious -- they've been pushed into acknowledging us as a movement and they've been pushed into forcing their propaganda. Four years ago, there were plenty of drug policy reform websites, but Libby and I were about the only dedicated bloggers. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in drug policy blogging, both from dedicated bloggers and from bloggers who give a strong emphasis to drug policy within a larger context of criminal law, libertarianism, regional issues, etc. And in many ways, the grassroots movement within drug policy reform has matured and become more -- I hesitate to say -- respectable. Cheech and Chong, while still important icons, are no longer the only face of reform. Now it's lawyers, and cops, and judges, and doctors, and scientists, and economists, and writers, and teachers, and students... I am extremely grateful to all the support I have gotten from... the people who send me articles and tips, making me look like a better researcher than I am all those who participate in comments or on the messageboard, sometimes correcting me, always inspiring me the other bloggers and websites who provide me with links and with alternate views on the issues. those who have generously contributed to special projects such as the new laptop, or the printing for the museum protest (if you feel you must, you can always buy me a present, or make a small contribution -- but only if you can easily do so -- I don't need it to continue my work.) I'm going to probably start a discussion this weekend on where we go from here -- nothing profound, just some general thoughts I've been mulling. But today, let's celebrate. Thanks for a great four years. Have a brownie. 9:00:14 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Propaganda entry Oh, this one is a gem -- it comes from Fiona Macrae and Emily Andrews in the Daily Mail (UK). The headline: Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40% The Anslinger elements are astonishing. Note the certainty of health danger, the promotion of increased criminalization, and.... YES! We have maniac marijuana killers!!! A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns. The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness. Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports. The grim statistics - the latest to link teenage cannabis use with mental illness in later life - come only days after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the decision to downgrade cannabis to class C, the least serious category. The Prime Minister is said to have a 'personal instinct' that the change should be reversed, with more arrests and stiffer penalties for users. Cannabis has been implicated in a string of vicious killings, including the recent stabbing of fashion designer Lucy Braham. Take special note of the picture with the caption: Prolific cannabis user and killer: William Jaggs Wow. [Thanks, Greg] 12:35:05 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Thursday, July 26, 2007 Look how far we've come My very first post as a blogger, back on July 27, 2003, was about an amendment to get the federal government out of states' medical marijuana laws, sponsored by Maurice Hinchey. Back then, I marveled at such nonsense as this from John Mica: "We also heard here that the medical use of marijuana will relieve pain. Well, I can say also from chairing that subcommittee that that is not the case. In fact, anything that we do to encourage use, whether for this purpose or other purposes, will not relieve pain, it will cause pain. Certainly, I am sure if someone smoked enough marijuana or took enough crack or enough heroin or methamphetamines, they would not have any pain." and this gem from sado-moralist Mark Souder: "This is about when Congress passed a law under the Constitution that said in interstate commerce, which narcotics move across interstate commerce, which was not a liberal interpretation of that clause but a strict interpretation of that clause from a conservative perspective, all except the more anarcho-libertarians, as we used to call them, believe that in drug laws the Federal Government historically has had the right to enforce a Federal law." The amendment, of course, lost. And now I have covered the Hinchey amendment 5 times. During that time, we have written countless letters to Representatives, done extensive lobbying, and changed the leadership party in the House. Just look how far we've come in those 5 votes... [Here's the breakdown of this year's vote.] At this rate, the Hinchey amendment will pass sometime around mid-July in the year 2027, and I'll have a party in the retirement home. Congress. What a bunch of spineless, hopeless, un-American nitwits. Tomorrow, however, I'm planning on celebrating anyway. It'll be my 4 year blogiversary. And there's a lot we have accomplished in that time. 12:08:50 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Open Thread Hinchey amendment (to prevent federal harassment in states with medical marijuana laws) may be coming up for a vote today. Jacob Sullum reminds us why we should care. 8:12:22 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] The DEA encourages and suborns perjury Radley Balko has the latest from the Cleveland Plain Dealer: The decision by U.S. Attorney Greg White to release a woman from prison and drop charges against two men could be the tip of the iceberg in a federal perjury investigation. Dozens of convictions and pending cases in which DEA agent Lee Lucas investigated and Jerrell Bray was paid for information will come under scrutiny, several lawyers said Monday. Bray told police in May that he made up testimony and lied on the witness stand in several drug cases. Lying in criminal trials. From an agency in the Justice department. But wait, you say -- this is just an individual agent (Lee Lucas) working with an informant who lied. How can I infer blanket statements about the entire DEA? Because the attitude about doing whatever it takes to get a conviction (including lying) goes all the way to the top. I wrote about the current Deputy Administrator of the DEA (Michele Leonhart) almost four years ago when she was nominated. The story was about her, and also about super-snitch Andrew Chambers, who was also guilty of perjury in criminal trials, though he was never punished for it and instead received over $2 million from the DEA. Here are some excerpts: For years, some prosecutors and many defense attorneys had expressed concerns about Chambers' perjury. In 1993 in California, a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling agreed that Chambers lied on the stand. In 1995, the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis added its voice: "The record, however, clearly demonstrates that Chambers did in fact perjure himself . . ." The DEA protected Chambers repeatedly, and avoided notifying prosecutors and defense attorneys about Chambers' past. At one point, the Drug Enforcement Agency and Justice Department lawyers stonewalled for 17 months, fighting a public defender who was trying to examine the contents of DEA's background check on Chambers. Later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Wolf stated that it was clear that the drug agents never put any damaging reports into Chambers' file -- even though DEA regulations require it. Finally, the DEA conducted an internal review of Chambers' career, and although there was some talk of reprimanding DEA supervisors, the report was never made completely public, and the DEA refused to agree to stop using Chambers. [...] The most startling statement in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation of Andrew Chambers was from Michele Leonhart: "The only criticism (of Chambers) I've ever heard is what defense attorneys will characterize as perjury or a lie on the stand." She continued by saying that once prosecutors check him out, they'll agree with his admirers in DEA that he's "an outstanding testifier." That's the key. To an agent like Leonhart, getting the bust and getting the conviction is all that matters. The testimony is good if it leads to a successful conclusion (from her perspective). Why nitpick about the truth? After all, this is war, right? Anything goes in war. Lie, cheat, steal, suspend the constitution, ... kill. The entire drug war apparatus in this country needs to be completely dismantled, and something resembling America put back in its place. 8:04:57 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, July 24, 2007 Just one more reason to get rid of Alberto Gonzales Not that we need any more... but in his testimony today, he was asked by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, who has introduced a bill to reduce the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity, what the DOJ thought of it. Gonzales replied: "Personally, as I sit here today, I'd say that where we're at today is certainly reasonable. We think crack is more dangerous. It's related to, I think, addiction more quickly. It's more related to more dangerous crimes. The effects of it, I think, are more dangerous. So from a law enforcement perspective, it makes sense to have the kind of sentences that exist today." Where we're at is reasonable? Makes sense? I'm sorry, but why isn't Gonzales spending the next 55 years in prison for what he's done to this country? He's much more dangerous than crack. [Via Tim Grieve] 10:52:34 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Drug war on crack Ian Welsh has a very good article at firedoglake: The Assault on Due Process and Civil Liberties, where he notes that the current attacks on our rights related to the war on terror and the increase in executive power didn't just spring to life out of thin air -- they were spawned from the drug war. The joke about the "War on Terror" is that it's the "War on Drugs... on crack". As with most good jokes, it hurts and it's funny, because it's true - the "War on Drugs" is where America lost a lot of its civil liberties and due process. [...] Of course, many things did start under Bush - torture, repeal of habeas corpus and so on. But it's worth remembering, at the end of the day, that what has happened in the last 6 years did not happen in a vacuum - it was an acceleration of a trend that already existed towards the land of liberty becoming a land where due process was only something that some people, the right sort of people, had access to. It is, of course, something we've been talking about for years. 12:17:23 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Monday, July 23, 2007 Mother and daughter Link A woman in her forties and her daughter in her twenties were smoking marijuana together in their parked car "in advance of a Nickelback concert at Centennial Park in Sarnia [Ontario], part of the Bayfest festival." What a nice moment. An adult mother and daughter spending some nice quality time together, enjoying a concert. It should be a Hallmark moment. Until... Police seized 14 marijuana cigarettes and arrested and charged the pair. There's something really sick in our society to allow these two to be arrested (or anyone else for that matter who simply wants to enjoy some good music in a time-honored way). The Chatham Daily News misses the point entirely in their editorial Family Values Going Up in Smoke Call us old-fashioned, but we find it deeply unsettling when parents take recreational drugs with their kids. No, I'm not calling you old-fashioned. I'm calling you stupid. This mother and daughter have more family values than most people, including the editorial writers at the Chatham Daily News. And what happens to family values when you promote a drug war that rips apart families, jails parents, fills family members and steals children away? Or is family values just for the father and son in beer commercials? And I just want to add another point to this. There's a reason the police go to concerts in search of drug busts. They know that people like to use marijuana when listening to music. But they don't talk about why. Marijuana isn't necessary to enjoying good music. Neither is good speakers. You can listen to music through crappy little speakers and have a wonderful experience. However... I know someone who is a genius with sound reproduction and speakers. He once invited me to his home and had me sit in "the chair." He had built all of his speakers himself and had the exact perfect spot in this large room for the very best sound. And I admit, I had never heard sound like that before. It was breathtaking. Marijuana affects many people listening to music in a similar way. Time shifts, and subtle effects of the music come through with a power as though a dormant tuning fork had been activated inside you. Why do you think the history of jazz is tied to marijuana? But of course, this is just another aspect of marijuana that the government would prefer not to articulate -- it doesn't fit their propaganda of marijuana alternately causing violent behavior or making you sit for hours on Pete's couch. "Don't use marijuana -- it'll make music sound like you're listening to the best speaker system on earth and it'll make Hostess Ding-Dongs taste like a 5-star French restaurant's Creme Brulée." Hard to sell a drug war that way. [Tanya at Blame the Drug War reacts to this story as well.] 8:23:04 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] The Drug WarRant Annual Harry J. Anslinger Propaganda Award Marie had a very interesting idea in comments -- an annual Anslinger award. I like it. I think we might be able to do something good with this, so let's work out some details. Timing. What's the best time of the year to give out the award -- end of the calendar year? Some other time? Graphics. We need a logo and/or award design. Any ideas? Categories. I think we'll do better by having several categories, rather than just one overall award. Here's some off the top of my head: Elected official (Souder, etc.) Bureaucrat (Walters, Tandy, etc.) Private operator (DuPont, Califano, Bensinger, etc.) Media outlet (network, newspaper, wire service, etc.) Reporter (a specific reporter or feature writer) Criteria: I'm thinking that we'd want a representative item or statement to show off the depths of their propaganda, but the decision could be made based on their body of work over the year. Or should it be solely based on a single propaganda item? Selection: All Drug WarRant readers would be able to nominate individuals/pieces throughout the year. Then open voting at the end? Just some initial thoughts. What are your ideas? Update: Feel free to give your suggestions and ideas either in comments or at the messageboard. 12:23:59 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Sunday, July 22, 2007 Hastert to leave? It was a good day when Dennis Hastert was no longer the Speaker of the House. Now, Think Progress reports... According to the Politico, columnist Robert Novak will report this weekend: Former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has indicated to a close former aide that it is likely he will not run for a 12th term from his northern Illinois district and may even resign from Congress before his present term concludes. I have no love for Hastert, and would be thrilled to see him leave power entirely. The question is why he would leave before his term is up (if the rumor is true). Could it have anything to do with his alleged connection with the Turkish drug mafia? 10:03:18 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Odds and Ends and Open Thread An interesting feature in the New York Tmes: The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement- Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul Chicago Tribune article about the drug war and racism: Drug war enforcement hits minorities hardest "There was a thought back in the 1980s that it was better to be tough on crime than to be said not to be tough on crime; that if you just lock these people away that somehow that's going to solve everything," Evans said. "Hasn't worked. And I believe now the pendulum is swinging away from lock 'em up and throw away the key back toward trying to find a rational way of solving this problem." Nonsensical drug war article from Reuters. This fails even rudimentary journalistic standards. I'm not even sure what it's about. But they did get a chance to highlight this quote: Drug traffickers, said Donovan, are "the epitome of evil." Here's another really stupid editorial from Danny Zahara of the Central Peace Signal (whatever that is) in Alberta A couple of good articles from Montana (thanks, Tom) Meth Project founder critical of 'crazy' drug policy Rehberg praised for medical pot Ninth cabinet minister admits smoking dope Should be a non-story, if it wasn't for the overall blatant hypocrisy of politicians wanting to lock everybody else up that does what they did. Good article at Grits for Breakfast: If you don't have probable cause just fabricate it, say drug enforcers and some TX prosecutors. It's scary the degree to which conventional thinking says anything law enforcement does is justified if it's part of the drug war. Councilman Michael Polensak (Cleveland) has a little too much time on his hands. He actually wrote a letter (on City of Cleveland official stationary) berating an alleged drug dealer who had been arrested, including these gems: Mr. Winston, you have to be "dumber than mud." [...] In closing, I told you just recently to stay out of my neighborhood, you crack dealing piece of trash. [...] Go to jail or the cemetery soon,... LA City Beat reminds people about the History of Federal Confusion and Persecution Over the 'Evil Weed' 3:28:42 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []