A 10-year-old girl with brain cancer would like to see her father before she dies. Her father is in prison with one more year left on a drug charge and has been denied a request for a 30-day supervised release.
State Marijuana law in Supreme Court's hands. This will be an important case -- Alaska has long had a state Supreme Court decision (Ravin) that said small amounts of marijuana in your own home was legal under your privacy rights in the Alaskan constitution. But a new law passed two years ago attempted to change that and make all possession illegal, claiming that marijuana is more dangerous now.
Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama said during his visit to Washington DC earlier this week that Thailand's image had improved with an elected government and that it was now being recognised as "handsome without acne", a far cry from its image under former prime minister Surayud Chulanont.
He said US leaders had welcomed him and congratulated him on Thailand's return to the democratic process. During his visit, many leading personalities, including US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a former secretary of state were eager to "koh-phob" (meet him), he said.
Will the U.S. government consider Thailand's drug war handsome without acne?
According to a little noticed January report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), drug overdoses killed more than 33,000 people in 2005, the last year for which firm data are available. That makes drug overdose the second leading cause of accidental death, behind only motor vehicle accidents (43,667) and ahead of firearms deaths (30,694).
What's more disturbing is that the 2005 figures are only the latest in such a seemingly inexorable increase in overdose deaths that the eras of the 1970s heroin epidemic and the 1980s crack wave pale in comparison. According to the CDC, some 10,000 died of overdoses in 1990; by 1999, that number had hit 20,000; and in the six years between then and 2005, it increased by more than 60%.
Now let's consider a couple of other relevant bits of information.
Criminal laws and enforcement related to drug offenses have continued to increase, and there has been an explosion in prisoners doing time for drugs.
The government tells us that there has been a strong decline in use of illicit drugs
Curious.
If you took these facts and presented them to an intelligent friend who somehow had no knowledge of the drug war:
Fewer users
More arrested
More dying from overdoses
... then your friend would probably say: "Your drug war sucks!"
But, of course, we know that.
Everything about our drug war makes drugs more dangerous. We crack down on marijuana and cocaine and push people to other drugs that are more dangerous. We deny harm reduction techniques and people die. We make people afraid to get help and they die. We deny them critical information and they die. We use coerced treatment or incarceration to make people quit and when they're released their bodies have an altered tolerance and they die.
Jacob Sullum has a must-read article over at Reason in which he discusses "High Society: How Substance Abuse Ravages America and What to Do About It," by Joseph A. Califano Jr, and "The Cult of Pharmacology: How America Became the World's Most Troubled Drug Culture," by Richard DeGrandpre.
Califano and his organization CASA has been discussed here numerous times (without much good to say). Jacob also rips him apart...
Although it is not always easy to decipher Califano's meaning in this overwrought, carelessly written, weakly documented, self-contradictory, and deeply misleading anti-drug screed [...] That claim, like many Califano makes, is unverifiable, and it does not seem very plausible. [...] Already I have put more thought into the alleged connection between faithlessness and drug use than Califano did. And so it is with the rest of the book. A proper debunking would require more than the 186 pages of text [...] Although CASA brags about its affiliation with Columbia University, the school has less cause to be proud of that relationship, given the center's sloppy research and hyperbolic rhetoric.
You get the idea.
Here's one of the key pieces:
What Califano fails to understand is that every drug, regardless of its current legal status, is potentially an angel or a demon. DeGrandpre builds upon the insights of the alternative medicine guru Andrew Weil, who first made his name with books about drugs and altered states of consciousness. "Any drug can be used successfully, no matter how bad its reputation, and any drug can be abused, no matter how accepted it is," Weil wrote in his 1983 book From Chocolate to Morphine (co-authored by Winifred Rosen). "There are no good or bad drugs; there are only good and bad relationships with drugs."
It's a good article throughout, but I also got sidetracked at one point when Sullum called Califano a "leading exemplar" of "moralistic pseudoscience."
Moralistic pseudoscience -- what a beautiful phrase. And very apropos. I'm a bit of a word-lover, so I enjoy these things. And it got me thinking about a new word we discussed here at Drug WarRant some time ago when talking about Califano. The word was "shocktoid."
And sure enough, it is now an accepted word in the Urban Dictionary (although Brian Bennett should be getting credit for the word instead of me).
And it really does fit Califano. Shocktoids indeed.
By the way, we have another word accepted by the Urban Dictionary: Sadomoralist.
But back to Sullum's article. Let's end with this incredibly bizarre behavior (yet oddly normal for Califano).
Other Califano claims are absurd on their face. In his lexicon, if a single teenager reports seeing a fellow student buy, use, or possess alcohol or other drugs at his school, that is enough to render the school "drug-infested." In a 1999 report CASA said "teens who smoke marijuana are playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette," an activity in which there is a one-in-six chance of instant death on each turn. Three years later it likened underage drinking to "a deadly round of Russian roulette."
In High Society, Califano trots out the metaphor for another purpose. "Russian roulette is not a game anyone should play," he informs readers, just in case they were considering it as an alternative to checkers. "Legalizing drugs not only is playing Russian roulette with children; it is also slipping a couple of extra bullets into the chamber." Meaning that if drug prohibition were repealed, half of America's children would die?
Remember, there are no bad drugs. There are merely good and bad relationships with drugs. There are, however, idiots. And that's where Califano comes in.
Remember that mild marijuana decrim bill in New Hampshire that I mentioned yesterday? Well, apparently it's strong enough to cause Mayoral insanity.
Mayor Frank Guinta has asked state Rep. David Scannell to resign as spokesman for the Manchester school district after Scannell voted Tuesday to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Scannell insisted he will not resign, saying his vote is a form of political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. He also raised the possibility he would take legal action against the mayor or anyone who tries to strip away his job.
In a letter signed yesterday, Guinta said Scannell's vote on the bill, which passed the House but is unlikely to become law, "permanently and irrevocably harms" Scannell's ability to serve Manchester's schools. The mayor argued Scannell's resignation is necessary to "help restore the integrity" of district anti-drug policies.
"He's the face of the district," Guinta said yesterday. "He interacts with kids on a daily basis, and he is taking a position to decriminalize marijuana. That is counter to logic, in my view."
The notion of calling for the resignation of someone from a public position for their vote as a representative in the State House is extraordinarily absurd, particularly when coming from a public official invoking logic while demonstrating a complete lack of it.
But it's also a very telling moment as it relates to drug policy. Sure, Guinta's a moron. But how did he arrive at such a low point of humanity?
I'm convinced that there is a small core segment of the population that has so thoroughly drunk the kool-aid of prohibition that they firmly believe two propositions to be as true as the law of gravity:
Marijuana is very, very bad. Always.
An effective way, and the only way, to deal with marijuana is through strict prohibition
Despite being completely wrong, these two points are so ingrained that these people will not/cannot comprehend/listen to any rational arguments, so they assume that no rational opposing viewpoint exists. Thus, anyone who has an opposing viewpoint must want bad things to happen and should therefore certainly not be put in any connection with young people.
Prohibition propaganda overrides parts of the brain that actually allow rational thought. This makes our job much harder.
I'm not sure I'm as pessimistic as Dr. Tom O'Connell, but he makes some interesting points...
I found that I hadn't been prepared for just how truly mistaken and destructive the policy really is; not only was is it far worse than I'd imagined, the reasons that drug prohibition and similar punitive policies have always found favor with a significant fraction of humans probably has a lot to do with our physical evolution; but not necessarily as imagined. In other words, a profoundly mistaken policy has now been based on erroneous assumptions for nearly a century. [...]
fixing the mess we've created may actually be impossible in the time left to pull it off. On the other hand, Earth is the only planet we've got; so long as there's even a remote chance of saving it as our habitat, we'd be foolish not to make the effort.
Intensely proud and tightly knit, the unit is used largely to serve warrants on dangerous suspects and handle standoffs involving barricaded people.
Its record is impressive. In its 3,371 operations between 1972 and 2005, 83% ended without "untoward incident" and with the suspect in custody, the panel found. Of the 174 incidents involving hostages, several were killed by suspects, but only one died accidentally at the hands of SWAT officers.
So, that means that 573 operations ended with "untoward incident" and 3,197 (94%) of SWAT's operations were undertaken despite the fact that there were no hostages.
Rational young people will do exactly what kids are in fact doing: switch to different drugs. They'll use drugs that produce many of the same psychoactive effects that illegal drugs produce but which are sold by big pharma corporations and so are regulated in a much less draconian fashion.
Is that good or is it bad? Whatever one thinks about it, we should at least acknowledge that it is happening.
Van Impe's fellow cyclists have protested, delaying the start of races over the weekend and reading a statement saying, "We'll say yes a thousand times to a determined and responsible fight against doping, but today and even in an even stronger manner in the future, we say no a thousand times against the violation of our rights, the rights of every human being."
New Hampshire residents could possess one-quarter ounce or less of marijuana without facing jail under a bill headed to the state Senate.
The House voted 193-141 Tuesday to decriminalize the small amount of the drug, making possessing it a violation subject to a $200 fine. Under current law, possessing that amount could mean spending a year in jail and paying a $2,000 fine.
OK, that's something. Legalization is better, but $200 beats $2,000 plus jail. And here's the interesting part...
Supporters argued current law costs youths who experiment with the drug all chances at receiving financial aid to attend college. They said it wasn't fair to penalize them for life for a youthful mistake.
Windham Republican Jason Bedrick said he doesn't advocate using marijuana, but that wasn't the issue.
"The question is whether a teenager making a stupid decision should face a year in prison and loss of all funding for college," said Bedrick.
As Scott Morgan points out, the unconscionable harshness of the financial aid penalty promoted by Mark Souder may have actually led to this bill passing the NH House.
Congrats to friend Grits for Breakfast for reaching some blogging milestones. In the mandatory blogself-reflection that such milestones bring, he makes these observations:
With the exception of occasional investigative articles or self-styled "analyses," modern journalism too often reverts to a formula where "fairness" and "balance" - to use the famous buzz words - prevail over "honesty" or "truth." [...]
Reporters inevitably feel obligated to print "the other side," even when they know they're being misled. (A New York Times reporter famously said he was glad to quit covering Congress because he was tired of sitting around all day on marble slabs waiting for politicians to lie to him.) [...]
To me, it's unethical for a reporter to promote arguments or fact propositions to their readers if they don't personally believe they're true, even if they quote "the other side," for "balance." A lie ain't a side of the story, it's just a lie.
When reporters print a quote and don't tell readers they think it's misleading or obfuscatory, which happens ALL the time, IMO they do their readers a serious disservice. And journalists, don't tell me you "let the facts speak for themselves" - you're the writer, so you're speaking. Period. It's not just "the facts" but the facts you choose to present. Plus you're the one who researched the story - your readers presumably don't know as much as you do. [...]
Newspapers frequently attribute their circulation decline to the rise of new technology, but IMO their greatest failing hasn't been a reliance on dead trees, but their insistence on clinging to an outdated and counterproductive approach to newsgathering and storytelling. People read blogs not to get information, for the most part, but to help decipher what news stories mean, a niche that's only available because of the shortcomings of hundred-year old journalistic canons and customs.
So do not expect what you read here to be "fair" or "balanced" (though I try to be "honest" and "truthful," and admit mistakes when I make them).
It's a good point, and one we run up against quite often in drug policy reform. It is what allows the drug czar to continue time and time again to widely distribute propaganda. The press will, for the most part, not fact check the claims or report that the data doesn't support the conclusions, but rather, at best, add a quote from a drug policy reform organization leader to show a difference of opinion. This point alone makes quality blogs a better place to read about drug policy than most of the other media.
Now, to be sure, bloggers also often have a bit of advantage over other journalists in that they can specialize. I know more about drug policy that any journalist because that's pretty much all I write about. But that doesn't excuse the lack of integrity involved in standard media practice of knowingly putting forth misinformation.
So no, you won't get balance here, either. But you'll get a lot of truth. (And if I'm wrong, someone will correct me).
An Allen County grand jury today indicted a Lima police sergeant on two misdemeanors for shooting 26-year-old Tarika Wilson to death and injuring her 14-month-old son during a Jan. 4 drug raid at her home.
The charges are negligent homicide (for Tarika's death) and negligent assault (for her son's injury).
Wilson's family and Lima's NAACP office said the misdemeanor charges against Chavalia should have been more severe.
"When you take aim and shoot someone with your gun, I don't see how it's negligent," said Ivory Austin II, brother of Tarika Wilson
One interesting bit about Tarika's boyfriend, who was the target of the raid...
Terry, 31, was later indicted for three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, six counts of permitting drug abuse, and four counts of trafficking in marijuana for incidents occurring between September 2007 and Jan. 4, the day of the raid.
Permitting drug abuse? I hadn't heard of that before. Sounds positively... crimethink.
I was at the small group Q & A when Costa was asked that same question and avoided it.
Update: This really is a telling video. Kudos to Frederick Polak, who respectfully, yet firmly and persistently, tried to get an answer to a very basic question: "If prohibition is the only way to contain the drug problem, how do you explain that the prevalence of cannabis use is lower or similar in the Netherlands than in many neighboring countries?"
Some NGO representatives on the other end gave a standing ovation to Mr. Costa when he left the hall (you can see the same people applauding his anti-coffee shop statements in our video). The celebration was initiated by the lapdogs of the U.S. and Swedish governments of course, like the European Cities Against Drugs, an international organization funded by the Swedish government to promote its drug policy, praising "treatment" services in Russia notorious for chaining and humiliating drug users, or SUNDIAL, an "NGO" led by the former speechwriter of the American drug czar. Among them we found the representative of the Partnership for a Drug Free America as well, who advocates the idea that we can solve drug problems by forcing schoolchildren to piss to a flask, despite the growing evidence that school drug testing doesn't work at all.
Pretty amazing when you watch the video and hear these people applauding Costa's obvious avoidance tactic. I mean, if you understand even the basics of English, it's obvious that Costa was purposely not answering the question and refusing to allow it to be considered. And for that they applauded?
It's almost as though they were sitting there thinking "Uh, oh, that druggie guy got nailed us good on that one -- how will Costa respond? ... Oh, excellent technique! You simply dodged it! Bravo!"
