The D'Alliance

Join Us on Facebook

2010-06-09T10:46:00.002-04:00

This blog has inspired some great debates over the last six years. Now, the conversation has outgrown the blog format. There's a robust and growing community of reformers on Facebook -- please join us!

Become a fan of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Take the pledge to help legalize marijuana.

This blog will no longer be updated, but we look forward to talking with you on Facebook!

Harm Reduction in Action

2010-05-03T12:01:00.000-04:00

Many syringe access programs have expanded their reach and efficacy by instituting peer-delivered syringe exchange models. These programs train peer educators from at-risk populations to distribute syringes and inform others in their community about safe practices. Check out the Housing Works blog for more about the peer outreach program at CitiWide Harm Reduction in New York City.

Former Mexican President Calls for an End to Prohibition

2010-04-30T11:24:00.002-04:00

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox advocated for sensible, humane drug policy reform this week during an interview at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference.

President Fox argued that Mexico’s use of the military to enforce drug laws has led to a surge in human rights abuses and violations of due process. He believes legalizing drugs could end the violence in his country.

You can watch the full interview on the conference website. For a particularly strong statement from the former president on ending drug prohibition, watch from 14:50 to 16:20.

Don't Just Smoke a Joint on 4/20 -- Take Action Against Marijuana Prohibition

2010-04-14T10:50:00.002-04:00

by Bill Piper

Originally published on April 12, 2010, on AlterNet.

April 20th (4/20) has long been associated with marijuana, both marijuana use and marijuana activism. Thousands of Americans will gather on that day at rallies in Boston, Boulder, New York, Santa Cruz, Seattle and other cities. For people who prefer to relax with a joint instead of a beer or martini it's a time to celebrate. For those who don't use marijuana it's a time to stand up in support of their friends, family, and fellow citizens who face arrest for nothing more than what they put into their body. For the Drug Policy Alliance and the drug policy reform movement 4/20 represents something even bigger.

The movement to end marijuana prohibition is very broad, composed of people who love marijuana, people who hate marijuana, and people who don't have strong feelings about marijuana use one way or the other. We all agree on one thing though - marijuana prohibition is doing more harm than good. It's wasting taxpayer dollars and police resources, filling our jails and prisons with hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people, and increasing crime and violence in the same way alcohol Prohibition did. Police made more than 750,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2008 alone. Those arrested were separated from their loved ones, branded criminals, denied jobs, and in many cases prohibited from accessing student loans, public housing and other public assistance.

Fortunately, the tide is quickly turning against the war on marijuana. Legislators in California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Virginia are considering legislation to decriminalize or legalize marijuana. The Economist magazine noted that "marijuana could follow the path that alcohol took in the 1930s" out of prohibition into a regulated market. Celebrities are speaking out. The musician and activist Sting, for instance, recently urged people to oppose the entire war on drugs. In November Californians will vote on whether to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol; the measure is ahead in the polls. Local California papers like the Orange County Register and the Long Beach Press-Telegram have editorialized in favor of the initiative, seven months before the vote. Nationally, support for making marijuana legal is about 44 percent, with support increasing about two percent a year. A recent Gallup poll predicts a majority of Americans will favor marijuana legalization within just four years if current trends hold.

The war on marijuana won't end, however, if everyone who supports reform stays silent. Maybe you smoke marijuana and are tired of being considered a criminal. Maybe you work in law enforcement and are tired of ruining people's lives by arresting them. Maybe you're a teacher or public health advocate tired of politicians cutting money for education and health to pay for the construction of new jails and prisons Maybe you're a civil rights activist appalled by racial disparities in marijuana law enforcement. Or maybe you just don't want your tax dollars wasted on ineffective policies.

Regardless of your motivation, April 20th (4/20) is a good opportunity for you to make a pledge to end marijuana prohibition. The Drug Policy Alliance is asking people to use 4/20 as the time to commit to doing something in 2010 to end the war on people who use marijuana. There are many ways to help end marijuana prohibition. Donate to a drug policy reform organization. Support the 2010 California ballot measure. Tell your elected representatives to end marijuana prohibition. Talk to your friends and family about why people who use marijuana shouldn't be arrested. Twitter this oped. Change your Facebook status to announce your support for ending the war on marijuana. Stand up today with other Americans and get the word out there. This war will end; how soon depends, in part, on you.

Bill Piper is director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Sting: Let's End the War on Drugs

2010-04-05T14:50:00.002-04:00

by Sting
Composer, Singer, Actor, Activist

Originally published on March 31, 2010, on the Huffington Post

Whether it's music, activism or daily life, the one ideal to which I have always aspired is constant challenge -- taking risks, stepping out of my comfort zone, exploring new ideas.

I am writing because I believe the United States must do precisely that -- and so, therefore, must all of us -- in the case of what has been the most unsuccessful, unjust yet untouchable issue in politics: the War on Drugs.

The War on Drugs has failed -- but it's worse than that. It is actively harming our society. Violent crime is thriving in the shadows to which the drug trade has been consigned. People who genuinely need help can't get it. Neither can people who need medical marijuana to treat terrible diseases. We are spending billions, filling up our prisons with non-violent offenders and sacrificing our liberties.

For too long, the War on Drugs has been a sacrosanct undertaking that was virtually immune from criticism in the public realm. Politicians dared not disagree for fear of being stigmatized as "soft on crime." Any activist who spoke up was dismissed as a fringe element.

But recently, I discovered just how much that's changing--and that's how I came to speak out on behalf of an extraordinary organization called the Drug Policy Alliance.

I learned of DPA, as they're known, while reading what once might have been the unlikeliest of places for a thoughtful discussion of the Drug War -- the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.

It featured an op-ed that dared to say in print -- in a thoughtful, meticulous argument -- what everyone who has seriously looked at the issue has known for years: the War on Drugs is an absolute failure whose cost to society is increasingly unbearable and absolutely unjustifiable.

The author of that piece is a former Princeton professor turned activist named Ethan Nadelmann, who runs DPA. I was so impressed by his argument that I began reading up on the group.

Their work spoke directly to my heart as an activist for social justice -- because ending the War on Drugs is about exactly that.

For years, the Drug War has been used as a pretext to lock people in prison for exorbitant lengths of time -- people whose "crimes" never hurt another human being, people who already lived at the margins of society, whose voices were the faintest and whose power was the least.

Civil liberties have been trampled. Law enforcement has been militarized. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars -- dollars denied to urgent problems ranging from poverty to pollution -- have been spent. People who do need help with drugs have been treated as criminals instead. Meanwhile, resources to fight genuine crime -- violent crime -- have been significantly diminished.

And in exchange for all this, the War on Drugs has not stopped people from using drugs or kept drugs from crossing the borders or being sold on the streets.

To me, it all adds up to a clear message of exactly the sort I've always tried to heed in my life: It's time to step out of our comfort zone and try something new.

That's where DPA comes in. Their focus is on reducing the harm drugs cause rather than obsessively and pointlessly attempting to ban them.

I'm partnering with DPA because they champion treatment, advocate effective curricula for educating young people about drugs -- and from local courtrooms to the Supreme Court, they are utterly relentless defenders of the liberties that have been sacrificed to the Drug War.

Now, political conditions in Washington seem finally to be aligning in favor of profound change in drug policy. President Obama has openly said the Drug War is a failure. Legislation to decriminalize marijuana is pending on Capitol Hill.

But success is far from guaranteed. Indeed, the echoes of the old politics of intimidation and demagoguery that have long surrounded the War on Drugs can still be heard. We must all work to ensure this issue becomes a priority and is acted upon in a meaningful and sensible way.

That's why I hope you'll join me in becoming a member of the Drug Policy Alliance today. We need a movement that will put the team at DPA in a position to take maximum advantage of the political changes in Washington while continuing to fight for sanity in drug policy across the nation.

Everyone knows the War on Drugs has failed. It's time to step out of our comfort zones, acknowledge the truth -- and challenge our leaders ... and ourselves ... to change.

GOP and Dems Agree: Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity Unjust and Needs Reform

2010-03-23T15:29:00.005-04:00

The U.S. Senate has unanimously approved bi-partisan legislation reforming a failed two-decade old policy.

by Bill Piper and Jasmine Tyler

Originally published on March 18, 2010, on AlterNet.

On almost every issue Democrats and Republicans are viciously fighting each other. A surprising exception, however, is reducing the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity. The U.S. Senate unanimously approved bi-partisan legislation yesterday reforming this two-decade old policy. The original bill, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009 (S. 1789), was introduced by Sen. Durbin, D-IL, and was intended to completely eliminate the disparity. It was amended in committee, however, to just reduce the 100 to 1 disparity to 18 to 1 in order to get bipartisan and unanimous support. The amended bill passed the full Senate last night. While they bicker over healthcare, unemployment, education and other issues, Senators agree that U.S. drug laws are too harsh and need to be reformed.

Pharmacologically the same drug, crack and powder cocaine are treated very differently within the walls of the criminal justice system. Current policy generates a 100 to 1 penalty ratio for crack-related offenses. For instance, distribution of only 5 grams of crack cocaine (about a thimble full) yields a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine, however, to prompt the same sentence. Crack cocaine is also the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. Simple possession of any quantity of any other substance by a first time offender - including powder cocaine - is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year in prison.

When the crack/powder disparity was enacted into law in the 1980s, crack cocaine was believed to be more addictive and more dangerous than powder cocaine. Copious amounts of research, including a recent study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, have shown that the myths first associated with crack cocaine, and the basis for the harsher sentencing scheme, were erroneous or exaggerated. For over two decades, powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenders have been sentenced differently, even though scientific evidence, including a major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven that crack and powder cocaine have similar physiological and psychoactive effects on the human body.

Even though two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white, more than 80% of those convicted in federal court for crack cocaine offenses are African American. Moreover, two-thirds of those convicted have only a low-level involvement in the drug trade. Less than 2% of federal crack defendants are high-level suppliers of cocaine. Taxpayer money should be spent wisely, and concentrating federal law enforcement and criminal justice resources on arresting and incarcerating low-level, largely nonviolent offenders has done nothing to reduce the problems associated with substance misuse.

Equalizing sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine would eliminate the most glaring instance of racial disparities in the criminal justice system and focus federal law enforcement resources on higher-level traffickers. The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation last year that would completely eliminate the disparity. Advocates fought hard to pass Senate legislation eliminating the disparity, but Democrats and Republicans worked out a compromise to reduce the disparity to 18-1 instead. The revised bill passed the full Senate under an expedited process designed to move uncontroversial bills that have unanimous support (or at least no formal opposition).

This Senate bill is a move in the right direction - many, many families will benefit from the change - but it obviously doesn't go far enough. Members of Congress need to know that advocates of change consider this bill to be only a down payment on completely eliminating the disparity, and a stepping stone to reforming punitive drug policies more broadly. Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars and arresting millions of Americans, drugs remain cheap, potent, and readily available. Meanwhile the war on drugs is creating huge racial disparities, filling prisons with nonviolent offenders, and fueling prohibition-related violence on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border. It is time for massive change. Reducing the crack/powder disparity is the first step of many.

Bill Piper and Jasmine Tyler are Director and Deputy Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Denmark's First Heroin Assisted Treatment Clinics to Open this Week

2010-03-09T17:30:00.007-05:00

Denmark is the latest country to offer heroin assisted treatment (HAT). After reviewing trials in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain, the Danish parliament determined that HAT was an effective treatment method, and legislators approved the implementation of a Danish program without first mandating another trial. The program's first two clinics, both in Copenhagen, will open Thursday.

Michael Jourdan of Copenhagen's Centre of Alcohol and Drug Research provides more details below:

COPENHAGEN - After many years of debate Denmark is now joining the exclusive club of nations in which prescription of heroin to addicts is possible.

The motion to do so passed through parliament by an overwhelming majority 178-1 two years ago. Now, the preparatory phase of working out the guidelines, training treatment staff and addressing a myriad of devilish details is over. Thursday the 11th of March marks the official opening of the capital's first two heroin clinics. Later this year the cities of Aarhus, Odense - the birthplace of Hans Christian Andersen - and Esbjerg will follow.

The Danish model is not a trial with a closing date and a strict scientific protocol, because yet another trial has been deemed unnecessary. Having closely monitored the heroin trials of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain, the Danes have concluded that the evidence is in. Prescribed heroin is feasible, beneficial, safe, cost effective, and yielding better results with some addicts than other forms of substitution treatment.

The international treaties allow for scientific or medical use. By including heroin in the pharmacopoeia for the specific purpose of treatment of addiction the Danes have gone straight for the medical option. A small number of specialist medical doctors have been empowered to make legal requisitions from two appointed suppliers of pharmaceutical heroin (diacetylmorphine). Under the supervision of these specialists medical staff at the 5 treatment centres can adjust dose to fit the individual patients. A target group has been set to 3-400 addicts who have not benefited from methadone and continue injecting illegal drugs with detrimental health effect. Two daily injections are allowed, supplemented by take home doses of methadone. The medical treatment is integrated in a comprehensive treatment programme offering psycho-social support to all users. All prescriptions and outcomes are closely monitored by the Danish National Board of Health.

Even before opening, the clinics have attracted considerable attention. Nationally, support is massive, but critics have voiced concern that the guidelines are too restrictive and the setup of the clinics too burdensome for the users - that in effect the whole effort is set up to fail. However, in the Danish model, adhering to a strict scientific protocol is not an issue. Though one could say from the outset that the many tricky issues of prescribing heroin have been dealt with in a manner that could be described as erring on the side of caution, modification in the form of revision of guidelines and adjustment of practice is possible if and when experience shows need for change.

Perhaps the Danish way of setting up this treatment modality could be dubbed version 2.0. Time will tell whether other nations will set up programs inspired by the Danish approach.

- Michael Jourdan, Centre of Alcohol and Drug Research, Copenhagen

Spice Wars

2010-02-22T14:31:00.003-05:00

There's a new substance on drug prohibitionists' hit list. Spice, also known as K2, is an herbal incense blend sprayed with a synthetic compound that chemically mimics THC. Right now, a relatively small number of people have used Spice, but new attention from lawmakers and the media is sure to raise its profile - showing exactly why a reactionary approach to drugs and drug use is always counterproductive.

Legislators in Kansas and Missouri are considering banning Spice, and the media has seized onto the drug war hysteria. In the past week, news outlets across the country have reported on Spice, and many have regurgitated the alarmist rhetoric of those pushing a ban. Some sample headlines:

"Cops: Imitation pot as bad as the real thing"

"K2 - the new buzz on the street"

"Fake Weed (Spice, Genie, K2) Getting Kids High, But There's Nothing Cops Can Do"

In most respects, it's a familiar story. The government bans one drug (marijuana), so people seek a legal alternative (Spice). Drug war proponents then employ scare tactics claiming the alternative drug is the next big threat, and the media plays into the hype. Lawmakers hoping to appear "tough on crime" seek to ban the new drug. And the cycle continues.

But I'm curious to see how effective the fear-mongering around Spice will be now that support for ending marijuana prohibition is so widespread. Will the public really be so up in arms about a marijuana-like substance when the most recent polling shows nearly half the country in favor of legalizing marijuana outright and a substantial majority in favor of allowing medical marijuana access?

It seems like the tide is turning, and, hopefully, more people than ever will recognize the hypocrisy of drug war scare tactics.

Can Heroin-Assisted Treatment Happen Here?

2010-01-21T17:21:00.003-05:00

Those of us in the drug policy reform movement have learned time and again that the most effective solution to a drug-related social problem is often counterintuitive.

One clear example of this trend is heroin-assisted treatment (HAT), an approach to helping otherwise treatment-resistant heroin addicts using well-monitored doses of the drug itself. HAT programs provide a safe place to inject for those users most at risk of contracting a disease or suffering an overdose.

I got to learn more about this harm reduction strategy last night at a DPA-sponsored panel on HAT at George Washington University in Washington, DC. The event featured an international panel of health professionals, researchers, and advocates familiar with the topic.

Donald MacPherson, former Drug Policy Coordinator for the City of Vancouver, spoke about the heroin-assisted treatment program he oversaw in his city. Dr. David Marsh shared his experiences as one of the lead researchers in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) trial of prescription heroin in Canada. Peter Reuter, a University of Maryland professor and leading scholar on heroin maintenance, discussed treatment programs in Switzerland and the Netherlands. And DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann spoke about the prospect of implementing a heroin-assisted treatment program or trial in the United States.

DC's Ward 6 councilmember, Tommy Wells, also spoke, and it was heartening to see a DC politician there in support of HAT, as DPA's DC Metro program has been investigating whether creating a HAT pilot program in the District is feasible. Washington, DC has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the country, and many contracted the disease through injection drug use.

I came away from the panel with an understanding that the most important step we can take to make heroin-assisted treatment a reality in the United States is to change perceptions about the people these programs would help.

Why have other countries been able to institute heroin-assisted treatment programs or trials while the prospect of doing so here in the U.S. still seems so far off? Because in the United States drug users are too often characterized as criminals and unworthy of help. The stigma associated with heroin use in the United States is the main reason HAT is not widely accepted in the U.S. as a viable treatment option.

The key to gaining acceptance for this kind of treatment is combating this stigma and convincing people that saving a life, under any circumstances, is more important than projecting a "tough on crime" image. As David Marsh put it, speaking of his two young grandchildren, "I would never want to say to them that I had the chance to stop people from dying, but I didn't do it because I was afraid it would send them the wrong message."

Read more on heroin-assisted treatment.

Ethan Nadelmann is a Change.org Changemaker

2010-01-13T16:32:00.001-05:00

DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann was chosen by Change.org members as one of the site's Changemakers.

Ethan's selection means that through a series of featured posts, he will have the opportunity to engage the Change.org community in a dialogue about ending the drug war and pursuing smarter drug policies based on science, compassion and human rights.

Check out Ethan's first post, "The War on Drugs is a War on People."

Update: NYC Harm Reduction Pamphlet Will Stay in Circulation

2010-01-07T13:45:00.002-05:00

Housing Works' Diana Scholl tells us that "Take Charge, Take Care," the safer injection pamphlet being distributed by the New York City Health Department will stay in circulation. Read her post on Housing Works' website.

Following an agreement between Health Department and City Council officials, the Health Department will continue to distribute the pamphlet, but it will no longer be available on the internet.

Drug War Proponents Attack NYC Harm Reduction Pamphlet

2010-01-06T12:26:00.004-05:00

A smart, compassionate move by the New York City Health Department to promote safer practices among heroin users has come under fire from drug war proponents. A harm reduction pamphlet called "Take Charge, Take Care" has been called a "how-to guide" for heroin use [NYT], but I can't help suspecting that these criticisms are fueled more by a callous disregard for the health and safety of heroin users than by any real concern that kids in New York City will pick up a pamphlet and decide to start injecting heroin.

The Health Department is acknowledging that no matter what drug control policies are in place, some people will still use heroin, and those who use should be informed so they can do so as safely as possible. The pamphlet advises heroin users to inject with others present so they are not alone if an overdose or some other complication occurs. "Take Charge, Take Care" also promotes safer injection techniques to help users better avoid disease and infection.

The New York Post ran a negative piece on the Health Department publication earlier this week, but readers shot back with three strong, thoughtful letters-to-the-editor in support of the harm reduction pamphlet. Read them here.

You can also check out DPA Communications Specialist Anthony Papa's defense of "Take Charge, Take Care" on Counterpunch.

Marijuana Reform Momentum Grows

2009-12-12T17:03:00.007-05:00

A new poll by Angus Reid confirms that the support for marijuana tax and regulation is indeed growing. The poll, sampling 1004 American voters, found that 53% of those responded believe that marijuana should be legalized. This is a nearly 10 point increase from a poll conducted by Gallup (look at the title of the poll) a couple of months ago found that 44% favored marijuana legalization. Among other questions conducted by Angus Reid, the poll also found that 68% of respondents believe that the war on drugs is a failure -- but 8% of Republicans and, interestingly, 11% of Democrats believe it to be a success.

The issue with these polls is that they are not properly nuanced. Neither poll (Angus nor Gallup) offered marijuana legalization specifics; they just simply asked the question if marijuana should be legalized. It may be the case that if a more detailed question was asked -- such as asking if treating marijuana with the same regulations as alcohol and cigarettes with age and place restrictions introduced -- may garner even more support of lifting marijuana prohibition. It would also be interesting to ask whether the respondents had smoked marijuana themselves, knew anyone who smoked marijuana, or ever been arrested for marijuana possession. So if anyone wants to know these answers and more, please send me $15 grand to hire a pollster -- it is tax deductible and the end of the year is approaching fast.

The poll also measured responses to the legalization of other drugs; the results are not too surprising:

Victories for Drug Policy Reform

2009-12-09T17:42:00.002-05:00

Reformers are set to record some major victories in the fight to dismantle the failed war on drugs. Here's a rundown:

Congress is expected to pass an omnibus spending bill that includes

a provision eliminating the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs, a policy that has undermined disease prevention efforts for decades and resulted in tens of thousands of people contracting HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C.
language ending restrictions preventing Washington, DC from implementing the medical marijuana imitative voters approved way back in 1998.

The Drug Policy Alliance has been working for years to achieve these reforms, and the fact that these changes are imminent shows that Congress is finally starting to change it's thinking on drug policy issues.

Progress is also happening on the state level. New Jersey is on the verge of ending mandatory minimum sentencing for some nonviolent drug offenses and becoming the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana.

New Jersey's progress comes after Rhode Island's elimination of mandatory minimums, Maine's approval of a medical marijuana distribution system, and New York's repeal of the draconian Rockefeller drug laws.

Want more reasons to celebrate? Read "10 Signs the Failed Drug War Is Finally Ending" by DPA's Tony Newman.

Reflections on Reform Conference 2009

2009-11-24T10:06:00.002-05:00

This month in Albuquerque, NM I attended my first International Drug Policy Reform Conference (I'm in my sixth month as a member of the Drug Policy Alliance staff). I expected going in that the conference would give me a more comprehensive sense of where the drug policy reform movement is headed, but I wasn't quite prepared for the degree to which the conference would reshape the way I conceptualize my own activism and how my position in the drug policy reform movement connects me to other social and political movements.

Attending the conference helped me gain a new perspective on something I've been thinking about for years now- how do all the causes within the so-called "progressive movement" overlap? How can we better facilitate coalition building within a movement comprised of individuals with a myriad of different passions, motivations, and ideologies. And how can we change attitudes within the movement to alter the power hierarchies that so often marginalize people based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, and various other factors?

My time at the Reform Conference didn't provide me with neatly packaged answers to these questions. While I was impressed with the diversity of the conference participants, there were times when the inequities within the reform movement became very clear. As in every progressive movement, there is discrimination and marginalization within the drug policy movement. Even at the conference, for example, an honest, wide-ranging discussion of gender was relegated to a couple panels and remained largely absent from the major plenary sessions. So much of the decision-making power in the reform community still lies with a largely white male elite.

Yet, even dismayed by the obvious inequities with in the reform community, I was exceedingly hopeful during my three days at the conference because I realized that, with this gathering, our movement already has in place a forum in which nearly every stakeholder group in the drug policy reform movement is represented. With former and current drug users, cops, family members of overdose victims, research scientists, formerly incarcerated individuals, harm reductionists, students, and so many others gathered in the same building, we have the perfect venue to acknowledge and address serious problems within the movement and to build the unlikely bridges we absolutely need to build to take our efforts to the next level.

The personal stories of the speakers I heard and the people I met gave me a more tangible sense of how the movement to end the drug war intersects with various other progressive causes. Some of these intersections I already understood pretty clearly. It's easy to see how ending the drug war would be a primary goal of the prison reform movement and an essential step toward achieving racial justice. But until the conference, I hadn't full conceptualized how the drug policy reform movement intersects with the reproductive rights movement when women who use drugs face criminal charges or other penalties for choosing to carry their pregnancies to term. I hadn't been able to adequately explain how it intersects with the gay rights movement through a common conviction to end the government's policing of our bodies.

I believe that to change enough minds to succeed in ending the drug war, we need to build coalitions, and not just the obvious ones. We need to build bridges with unlikely allies. If we show the failures of the drug war through enough lenses, we're bound to win over at least some of the people we've been unable to reach until now.

With the Reform Conference, we have a great platform to discuss how our varied personal experiences led us seek the common goal of dismantling the drug war. From there, we can learn from each other how to make our movement stronger by adding more voices to the conversation and moving to the center of the discussion voices that have until now been marginalized.

More from the conference: Watch videos, view presentations and our twitter feed, read the conference program and more.

UK Drug Advisor Sacked for Classifying Drugs Based on Science

2009-11-05T13:27:00.003-05:00

Politics triumphed over science in the UK last week when the head of the country's drug advisory council, David Nutt, was forced to resign after releasing a report in which he and his colleagues classify drugs based on their potential to cause harm rather than the legal classification assigned to them by the British government. The report groups alcohol among the most dangerous drugs and marijuana among the least.

Nutt has said that several members of the council will join him in forming an independent drug advisory group if the government doesn't reverse its position by next week.

The situation in the UK mirrors that of France in 1998, when French health official Bernard Roques released a similar report questioning that nation's existing drug classification system. That report also named alcohol as one of the more harmful substances and placed marijuana on the lower end of the spectrum. The French government made moves to reclassify drugs based on the report's findings, but, following backlash from the alcohol industry, a watered down version of the report became the basis for France's new drug policy.

Nutt's firing is disheartening because it comes at a time when other European countries (see previous posts on Germany and Portugal) are forging ahead with drug policies based on science and a genuine interest in reducing harm.

It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds and, particularly, whether it receives attention in the U.S., because the Office of National Drug Control Policy is currently working on its own three-year drug policy strategy to be released early next year. Will the U.S., like the UK, continue to ignore scientific fact and reinforce the same, failed drug war policies? Or will the new drug czar take a new approach based on science and human rights?

Want to speak out against David Nutt's firing? Join the Facebook group calling for his reinstatement.

More of the Same. Seriously?

2009-11-01T21:29:00.003-05:00

Joint Cause Commercial from Wil Wells on Vimeo.

Along the same vein of stupidity and general unwillingness to have an honest dialogue with ~~anyone who doesn't agree with them~~ youth about drug use, here is a gem of a video from Californians for Drug Free Youth (CADFY).

This "commercial" was released in opposition to California's marijuana tax and regulate bill, which had its first hearing on Wednesday. Note: CADFY's url is www.jointcause.com -- I doubt they even know why I laughed for 5 minutes when I learned that.

Of course, if you are a drug warrior, and base an argumentation on the word "seriously?", you generally make drug policy reformers who engage in science-based policy look even more legit. So to thank them, you can write on CADFY's facebook page.

That's right, drug prohibitionists are now using modern technology to disseminate antiquated ideas.

Always Clean Out Your Bong

2009-10-25T22:09:00.009-04:00

To counterbalance a more enlightened federal policy toward patients and suppliers of medical marijuana, Minnesota's highest court ruled (don't think I've linked to Fox News before) that those who possess bong water can be prosecuted for possessing a narcotic mixture.

A Minnesota woman can be charged for a controlled substance, a first-degree drug crime (25 grams or more of a controlled substance), by possessing 37 grams -- about 2.5 tablespoons -- of bong water that tested positive for methamphetamine.

The decision effectively reverses two lower court rulings that found that charging Sara Peck with 37 grams of methamphetamine-laced water as a first-degree narcotic possession is pretty much crap. The high court (pun very much intended -- although I know plenty of people that make better decisions while high) found that since the drug water counts as a "mixture" under state law, meaning "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity", Peck can be charged with the higher offense that carries a possible sentence of 7 years 2 months, while a possession of drug paraphernalia carries a $300 fine and a petty misdemeanor conviction that would not be on her record. A narcotics officer testified that drug users sometimes drink or inject the bong water (I really don't know if this is the case for people who use meth, but it doesn't seem realistic).

This decision ushers in the possibility of extracting plea deals by trumping up drug charges. It also, more disturbingly, expands the possibilities of what warrants a drug indictment. Would my blood, since it may contain controlled substances, be subject to supoena? Or my urine? If I set foot on Minnesotan soil, will police be waiting at the baggage gate to arrest my bladder?

This is a clearly terribly worded penal provision, that acts as a exploitative tool by unhinged prosecutors that seek to pile on charges to get convictions. It also may realize the possibility that those who violate parole or probation with a dirty urine could then be charged with possessing a narcotic "mixture".

This is a teaching moment for hygiene: 1) always make sure your bong is clean and 2) pee frequently!

I think we all are SOL regarding the blood issue.

The War Against Dispensaries

2009-10-22T13:03:00.004-04:00

We're all cheering the new federal medical marijuana guidelines that direct prosecutors not to arrest law-abiding patients in medical marijuana states. But of course, it remains to be seen what prosecutors will do with those guidelines.

I just read a piece in which criminal defense lawyer Allison Margolin shines a light on the Los Angeles District Attorney's campaign to shut down dispensaries in her city. The whole piece is worth a read -- Margolin makes a convincing case that prosecuting medical marijuana operators is economically foolish and legally problematic -- but one paragraph in particular jumped out at me. Regardless of whether we think California's dispensaries need more regulation, we would all do well to consider the following:

The media has focused on the fact that dispensaries in LA have mushroomed over the past year, and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries, is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement or the LA District Attorney's office as legitimate.

Newsweek Profiles Ethan Nadelmann

2009-10-16T22:20:00.001-04:00

Newsweek just came out with a profile of DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann. It's a pretty great read. Posted here is the video profile on Ethan.

Major Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Provision Goes Into Effect

2009-10-10T20:58:00.003-04:00

On Wednesday, major provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms signed into law in April went into effect: restoring sentencing decisions in most (but unfortunately not all) drug cases, and allowing nearly 1,500 people serving time in prison for B drug felonies under the old Rocky law to petition for resentencing.

It is the first time in 36 years that New York State drug laws place the power of sentencing decisions in the hands of judges, who can now take into account the totality of the circumstances when someone is convicted of a drug offense to fashion the appropriate sentence -- whether it be treatment or other alternatives to incarceration programs, probation, or parole -- and make a prison sentence the last resort.

You can read more about the new provisions that go into effect from DPA's gabriel sayegh here, and get more info (fact sheet) on the reforms here.

This reform of mandatory minimum drug sentencing provisions indicates a real shift that focuses drug abuse and dependence as a health issue, rather than addressing it solely as a criminal justice matter. Although there is far to go, New York can show the nation that while it was the first state in the country to adopt such misguided and racist laws, they can now become a national leader by using effective community-based alternatives to incarceration to address drugs as a public health and safety matter, not a prison one.

Stiletto Stoners and the Drug War

2009-10-02T10:42:00.010-04:00

Much has been made about the new Marie Claire article "Stiletto Stoners" that profiles several successful white women who smoke pot. I am on the fence about this article. On the one hand, it does tap into a readership and highlight a class of people that should be included in the conversation about responsible cannabis use and the need to normalize a behavior that is already...well, normal.

But on the other hand, in the larger context of the war on drugs, it is a narcissistic piece that highlights the lives of people that are not affected by the consequences of prohibition in the least. It is almost as if Marie Claire is saying SOME people can smoke pot responsibly, principally these well to do white women who appear to be the readership of the magazine, but OTHERS should probably get their lives together before they indulge in something far less harmful that alcohol.

Keep in mind that those that lead lives of privilege smoke possibly unaware that over 850,000 are arrested annually for marijuana, and 90% of those arrests are for possession only. And while every adult should be free to smoke, eat, vaporize, etc marijuana unencumbered or frightened by possible arrest, it still remains that marijuana arrests, like all drugs arrests, are racially screwed. Take New York City for insistence, where 40,000 people are arrested per year for small amounts of marijuana, and 87% of those arrested are people of color.

That being said, it is important to explore every facet of the marijuana conversation, and this is a worthwhile component. Hopefully more people are inspired to start coming out of the marijuana using closet -- and maybe even show his or her face.

And also, the story inspired a pretty great video on Today.

Len Bias law conviction in Wisconsin

2009-09-25T17:07:00.004-04:00

Nineteen-year-old Casey Gogos of Green Bay, WI was convicted yesterday on homicide charges in the death of a 17-year-old who died after overdosing on heroin allegedly supplied by Gogos. He faces up to 52 years in prison.

Wisconsin is one of several states with a Len Bias law, named after the Maryland basketball player who in 1986 famously died of a heart attack after taking cocaine. These laws allow for homicide charges to be brought against individuals who supply drugs that later contribute to the death of another person. (Bias's death also set into motion a host of other drug war measures, including mandatory minimums, crack/powder sentencing disparities and school-zone laws.)

Even though I know these laws exist, and I shouldn't be surprised considering all the political grandstanding that goes into crafting our nation's drug laws, it still shocks me every time I hear about someone being held solely responsible for a death resulting from someone else's uncoerced actions.

Especially mind-blowing is that even people doing drugs with someone who dies of an overdose can be prosecuted. These are often the only people who can call for help, and yet the law provides them with a disincentive to call 911.

Why is the reaction to drug deaths always to find more ways to put people in prison, rather than educating people about how to actually prevent drug deaths?

Marijuana Monday

2009-09-14T19:39:00.003-04:00

Even though ~~I am~~ some people are suffering from a case of the Mondays, there is some great media coverage today about the marijuana legalization debate. Four articles about marijuana legalization from large media publications were published today. Just wanted to let you guys know that these are out there.

AM New York (for those of you who take the subway) has a great front page! article about the dramatic marijuana arrest epidemic that has crowned NYC the marijuana arrest capital of the world. DPA's director or media relations, Tony Newman, is quoted within the article.

Fortune Magazine has a comprehensive story about the medical marijuana dispensaries in California. They ask the question: Is the end of marijuana prohibition among us? DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, is quoted in the article.

New York Magazine's Mark Jacobson has an excellent piece also about marijuana arrests in New York City, splicing in anecdotes and other pieces of marijuana-related culture in the Big Apple.

The Washington Post provides a nice anecdotal story about the younger generation's views on marijuana legalization. It as also invokes Maryland's little known medical marijuana defense known as medical necessity (2nd post down).

At Least Barney Fife Wasn't Dangerous

2009-09-11T16:03:00.003-04:00

Today's swat-style home invasion is brought to you by the DEA in conjunction with the New York Police Department. (author's note: when I google image searched for "NYPD cartoons", I was reminded of this -- some people are just full of hate.) The New York Daily News reports a botched raid by the DEA, backed up by the NYPD, on a reputed gang boss.

The reasoning behind the raid -- Ruiz's apartment acted as a stash house -- seems highly suspicious. The adage drug sellers try to adhere to (at least in the movies) is "you don't shit where you eat". It makes sense that this would apply to a boss in a violent drug gang. Why would he have his own apartment be a stash house? Methinks it's simply shoddy police work. This is reaffirmed for two reasons: 1) while the DEA was raiding the house, the DEA was actually arresting Ruiz elsewhere in NYC and, more importantly 2) they raided the wrong house!

The warrant listed the wrong apartment, and the article seems to indicate that while Ruiz used to live in the building, he had not lived there for a few years. Instead, the DEA scared the living crap out of a mother and daughter, ages 48 and 19 years old respectively. Not only did the two continually insist while these paramilitary were trashing their apartment that they had the wrong apartment, the NYPD even scrolled through the daughter's pictures on the computer and laughed at the two women on the beach.

The police and DEA eventually left, muttering what I would imagine was the most insincere apology ever spoken in New York. Then again, what would you expect?

What Would Prosecutors Do?

2009-09-05T18:58:00.002-04:00

Below is a Huffington Post piece that Tony Newman, DPA's Media Relations director, wrote about the NYC Manhattan District Attorney's race. At the debate, two of the candidates made some rather revealing statements about past drug use. Tony has a great commentary about the hypocrisy of it all.

Candidates Drug Use Not A Deal Breaker, But Hypocrisy On Issue Should Be!

At Tuesday's debate in the race for Manhattan District Attorney, two of the three candidates admitted to cocaine use. When the candidates were asked if they used any illegal drugs besides marijuana, both Cy Vance and Richard Aborn admitted to trying cocaine in the past.

We seem to have come a long way from when Douglas Ginsberg was bumped from consideration for a Supreme Court position because he had tried marijuana in the 70's. Now it is almost impossible to find a presidential candidate who has not tried marijuana. It has become so commonplace for elected officials to admit marijuana use that the question has progressed to whether candidates have tried an illegal drug besides marijuana.

President Obama broke ground as a candidate when he wrote openly about not only using marijuana, but trying cocaine when he was in high-school. I can't remember a presidential candidate admitting to using a "hard drug". Obama's drug use clearly had no negative impact with voters. I believe his honesty helped him by humanizing him with both young voters and baby boomers. Voters appreciated some straight talk compared to President George Bush refusing to answer questions about his "youthful indiscretions" and Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton. Ironically, the candidate who suffered the most damage from Obama's past drug use was Hillary Clinton, when Bill Shaheen, Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, had to step down after going after Obama for his past drug use.

Another high-level elected official who admitted to cocaine use and received a public shrug in response was Governor David Paterson, who admitted to cocaine use days after he became governor following Eliot Spitzer's resignation over having patronized a prostitute. Governor Paterson has recently taken heat for a range of reasons, but his cocaine use is notably not one of them.

Now we have two candidates running for District Attorney of Manhattan, one the of the most powerful law enforcement jobs in the country, admitting to cocaine use. I predict it will not be a major issue and it shouldn't be. The reason past cocaine use by Obama and Paterson and Vance and Aborn use has not been a huge problem for them is that they don't have hugely hypocritical political views on substance abuse. All four of these elected officials/candidates have advocated for alternatives to prison for low-level drug offenders. President Obama has stated he wants drugs to be treated more as a public health than a criminal justice issue. Governor Paterson worked for years to reform New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. Vance and Aborn both opposed the Rockefeller Drug Laws and Aborn is calling for a debate on decriminalizing marijuana.

The problem for voters is when there is hypocrisy. The reason the Spitzer prostitute scandal was so damaging is because he was actively prosecuting prostitution at the same time he was enjoying the services of prostitutes.

Hypocrisy is what bothers me. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is currently running for reelection. When asked years ago if he had smoked marijuana he said yes, and even added that he enjoyed it. Yet under Mayor Bloomberg, New York has the shameful distinction of being marijuana arrest capital of the world. Last year 40,000 New Yorkers were arrested and jailed on low-level pot possession charges. More people have been arrested on marijuana possession charges under Mayor Bloomberg than any elected official in history!

It is encouraging that past drug use by candidates and elected officials are being discussed more openly and voters are less judgmental. What we need now is for voters to punish elected officials who are willing to ruin other people's lives with arrest and incarceration for doing similar things in their lives.

Maryland's Medical Marijuana Law Lacks Substance

2009-09-04T13:45:00.003-04:00

I was pleased to hear some refreshing news come out of Montgomery County, Maryland last week - judges in two medical marijuana cases handed down light sentences to patients convicted on possession charges.

William York walked out of the courthouse with a $100 fine, and Winnie Gesumwa had her fine waived, due to Maryland's medical marijuana law, which caps the sentence for marijuana possession at a $100 fine if defendants can prove they use the drug for medical purposes.
While assuring, theses rulings have also drawn attention to the tremendous shortcomings of the Maryland law, particularly its ambiguity and lack of essential protections for patients and caregivers.

The Darrell Putman Compassionate Use Act does not require the state to maintain a registry of medical marijuana patients, a resource that would help keep people using the drug for medical purposes out of the criminal justice system. The law contains no safe access provision, so patients still have to buy marijuana off the street rather than from dispensaries. And if patients are prosecuted for possession, they have no recourse to seek refunds for legal fees.

Essentially, the law is useless to most of its intended beneficiaries.

Currently, the sentences meted out to Maryland's medical marijuana patients convicted on pot charges depend entirely on the legal representation available to them and the individual judges assigned to their cases. Those who've received fines have generally benefited from lawyers familiar with medical marijuana law and capable of mounting a trenchant argument that marijuana is a medical necessity for their clients. They've also been lucky enough to have their cases heard by judges willing to show leniency toward medical marijuana patients. Not all judges are, and lawyers knowledgeable about the Compassionate Use Act are hard to come by.

Without a law that clearly outlines protections for patients and caregivers, these inconsistencies in sentencing will continue, but the Maryland legislature has been maddeningly hesitant to improve the current law. Last year, legislators failed even to pass a bill that would have created a taskforce to assemble a set of best practices for medical marijuana law that could guide reforms in Maryland.

There's a good chance another taskforce bill will be introduced this fall, and I hope lawmakers will reconsider. It's a small step toward much needed reforms, but a step forward nonetheless. Maryland owes its medical marijuana patients a law with some substance.

Argentine Court: Prison Time for Marijuana Possession Unconstitutional

2009-08-25T16:48:00.005-04:00

Argentina's Supreme Court ruled today that imprisoning people for possessing small amounts of marijuana is unconstitutional. The seven judges rule unanimously, stating:

"Each individual adult is responsible for making decisions freely about their desired lifestyle without state interference. Private conduct is allowed unless it constitutes a real danger or causes damage to property or the rights of others."

The ruling follows Mexico's decision to decriminalize drug possession for personal use less than a week earlier.

After the ruling, Argentina's Cabinet Chief Anibal Fernandez celebrated the end of "the repressive politics invented by the Nixon administration."

I'm looking forward to seeing how Argentina's drug laws change in the wake of this ruling. It's heartening to see another country denouncing the imposition of U.S. drug war policies on the rest of the world.

Mexico Decriminalizes Possession of Small Amounts of Drugs

2009-08-21T12:26:00.011-04:00

On Thursday, Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. But don't start celebrating that common sense and the freedom to put things into your body absent harm to others was the rationale for drug decrim within our southern neighbor's borders. Nope. It's simply that since the U.S. demand for drugs from Mexico has fueled unprecedented cartel violence there, arresting and prosecuting people for small amounts of drugs is just simply a stretch of U.S. complicity of human rights abuses finite resources.

After all, there have been over 11,000 drug-related deaths since 2006 -- 7,500 since the beginning of 2008 -- sparked by several cartels not only fighting the country's police forces, but also fighting amongst themselves to gain more control of the drug trade.

Now, it's apparent that this act by the Mexican government which, by the way, was also passed by the Mexican Legislature in 2006 only to be buried under pressure by the U.S., won't stem the violence by the cartels because the criminalization that drives black market profit (mostly from U.S. demand) will remain.

But it is telling that the Mexican government recognizes that criminalizing small amounts of drugs for personal use is an ineffective policy that takes vital resources away from dealing with the cartels -- although combating cartel violence will continue to be ineffective because ONDCP won't even consider marijuana tax and regulation, even though marijuana continues to be the cartels' #1 moneymaker. Portugal has decriminalized drugs for almost ten years, and by many measurements this policy has produced decreased drug use and increased treatment admissions.

Innovative drug policies implemented by our neighbors to the north, including supervised injection facilities and heroin maintenance programs, are now bolstered by decrim from the south. The mighty U.S. drug policy machine is now surrounded by some alternative approaches (how some of these approaches are implemented remains to be seen) from two countries that suffer their greatest casualties, and attempts to change their prohibition-based course are largely undermined because of, U.S. drug policy.

The next move is ours.

Study Backs Heroin Maintenance Treatment

2009-08-20T15:52:00.004-04:00

If the government is looking for a way to cut spending, reduce crime, and save lives, a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has the answer. Unfortunately, it's probably not the kind of answer most politicians will even consider.

The Canadian study shows that prescription heroin is an effective treatment for addiction when all other treatments, including methadone maintenance, fail.

Participants in the study, all heavy users who had not responded to other treatment methods, were divided in two groups with one group receiving methadone and the other receiving diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin, over a three-year period. The patients who received heroin were more likely to stay in treatment, and they cut back on illicit drug use at a higher rate than the methadone recipients.

The study shows that in addition to effectively curbing drug use in a population previously written off as a lost cause, prescription heroin treatment prevents crime because users are less likely to look for drugs off the street. And locking fewer people up for drug-related offenses saves a lot of money.

Opponents of heroin maintenance programs now have to come face to face with concrete proof that prescribing heroin does not, as they claim, encourage drug use. But doctor-prescribed heroin doesn't sell well, which is why no matter how many studies come out, we need to work toward an ideological shift on drugs and drug use if we want to bring heroin maintenance programs to the U.S.

A Warped Vision for Afghanistan

2009-08-07T16:06:00.006-04:00

There's a good article in last Sunday's New York Times about how eradication of the opium crop in Afghanistan is displacing poor farmers and their families and sending them deeper into poverty. Meanwhile, opium production is thriving in areas with a heavy Taliban presence.

"...the crackdown in the country's far north is unlikely to stop the flow of opium and money to the Taliban in the south. In Zabul - the home province of Taliban spiritual chief Mullah Omar - poppy production grew by 45 percent last year.

Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold, grew so much opium last year that if it was a separate country, it would rank as the world's top opium producer, according to Gretchen Peters, author of "Seeds of Terror," on how the Taliban is bankrolling itself through drug smuggling...

Poppy fields in Taliban areas are so dangerous that eradication teams comb them for bombs before trying to destroy them. Last year 78 government agents were killed trying to destroy fields in the south. By contrast, the worst they faced in [the northern province of] Badakshan was crying farmers."

On a related note, I was just reading this horribly uncritical article from CBS about Colombian Special Operations Forces joining U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The article quotes a "top U.S. official" as saying, "The more Afghanistan can look like Colombia, the better."

How's Colombia looking these days?

Drug war violence and chemical spraying of coca fields have led to Colombia's enormous internally displaced population, the second largest in the world behind only Sudan. Chemical spraying, in addition to decimating the fields of poor farmers and forcing them away from their homes, is also poisoning civilians and contaminating food in rural areas.

The world U.S. officials are envisioning through the lens of the drug war is truly terrifying.

Cannabis iPhone App

2009-08-03T15:56:00.001-04:00

The good folks at Ajnag (that's ganja spelled backwards), an online forum catering to the marijuana-reform community, have produced an iPhone App that helps patients track down cannabis buyer's cooperatives near them.

If you live in a state that has legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes (like California and 13 others), this app will be incredibly useful to you. If you are not as lucky, the app also gives you tips on how to advocate for medical marijuana reform laws in your state.

Open Letter to Congress on Ending the Drug War

2009-07-30T14:16:00.001-04:00

I came across this commentary recently and thought I'd pass it on. In his open letter to Congress, Carmen Yarrusso gives a compelling four-part argument against drug war policies and explains why a comprehensive overhaul of this country's drug laws is absolutely imperative. Click here to read the letter and pass it on to your members of Congress.

Can Portugal Show the U.S. the Way?

2009-07-23T14:45:00.003-04:00

What's the best way to discredit the argument that drug decriminalization will lead to increased drug use and drug tourism? Produce an example that proves the opposite.

In 2001, Portugal abolished criminal penalties for drug possession and instead began offering treatment to people found with heroin, cocaine, and other addictive substances. The decision to decriminalize drug possession came out of findings from a commission convened by the Portuguese government to analyze the country's drug problem, one of the worst in Europe at the time.

The commission came to two important conclusions, which, as it turns out, are two universal truths about drug prohibition: 1) rather than deterring potential drug users, the threat of prison time makes users less likely to seek treatment, and 2) locking someone up is much costlier that offering them treatment.

The Cato Institute in April issued a report assessing the impact of the Portuguese drug law reforms. The report found that following the reforms, the rates of new HIV cases and drug-related deaths in Portugal dropped dramatically, and more than twice as many people sought treatment for drug addiction as did prior to decriminalization. The rate of drug use has remained the same, or perhaps even decreased.

You can watch Glenn Greenwald, the author of the Cato report, explain his findings in more detail in this video from Reason.tv:

What's remarkable to me about the Portuguese model is that the reforms occurred in a nation that is socially conservative on most issues. Holland's liberal drug laws are less surprising considering the progressive leanings of its citizens, but Portugal is not a country known for pushing the envelope. What allowed the reforms to move forward was a willingness by the Portuguese government to look closely at credible, fact-based research and to trust the science behind it.

The drug policy reform movement in the United States has the advantage of having successful European models to back up its stance that people should not be sent to jail for what they choose to put in their bodies. Portugal's success in curbing its drug problem through decriminalization is the strongest evidence yet that when drug use becomes a problem, the solution is providing treatment, not locking people up.

Tom Duane Gives One Hell of a Speech

2009-07-17T22:46:00.002-04:00

I thought speeches like this only happened in movies. On Friday morning, a little after 3am (yes, they were still in session), New York State Senator Tom Duane, Chairperson of the Senate Health Committee, gave a passionate speech (to say the least) imploring his fellow Senators to vote on S2664, legislation that would "[p]rovide that certain persons living with HIV or AIDS shall not be required to pay more than 30% of the household income towards shelter costs [if they receive public assistance]".

Allied DPA organizations, New York City AIDS Housing Network (NYCAHN) and Vocal -- NY Users Union, had been working on passing this bill this legislative session. The legislation seemed like it stood little chance of passing, as it would cost the state money (although a longer-term cost benefit analysis determined that it would actually save the state money), and as a state in a deeply precarious fiscal position, NYS legislators didn't want to spend the money -- zeven though people living with HIV/AIDS are the only group that has to pay more than 30% of their monthly income on rent if receiving public assistance.

And with the cards stacked against him, Senator Duane made his moving 22 minute speech in the early hours of the morning (see video below). While working with NYCAHN and Vocal, I have met people living with HIV/AIDS that have gone through absolute hell to pay for normal household items because so much of their income goes to rent. This is a compassionate and practical piece of legislation that should be a no-brainer, but we still live in a society that is deeply entrenched in HIV/AIDS prejudices (among a great many other things).

For context: Tom Duane was the first openly gay member and person living with HIV when he was elected to the NY Senate in 1998.

Oh, and what about the vote? you ask. The Senate voted 52-1 in favor.* The power of poignant and honest words has not been lost on the legislative body despite their severe dysfunction.

*I don't want to be a party pooper, but the NYS Assembly did not vote on the bill before their recess. But this vote does send a strong message to the Assembly and Governor when they reconvene.

Missing the Point

2009-07-16T16:55:00.009-04:00

The DEA announced yesterday that it is considering classifying propofol (more widely known by the brand name Diprivan) as a controlled substance, a move that would place heavier regulations on how the drug is distributed and prescribed. DEA officials made the announcement after finding the drug in Michael Jackson's home.

One of the most prevalent themes of the drug war is the demonization and overregulation of individual drugs in avoidance of a critical examination of any of the deep-seated societal and structural problems that cause or enable drug misuse. In the case of Michael Jackson and propofol, the DEA is also ignoring the fact that Jackson's death very well could have been prevented.

Jackson's friend and health advisor Deepak Chopra recently stated publicly that, if Jackson overdosed on propofol, someone present at the time could have saved his life had they been equipped with naloxone, a low-cost drug that can reverse an opioid overdose within minutes.

By reacting to the presence of propofol in Jackson's home, rather than the absence of naloxone, the DEA is once again missing the problem and jumping to place more regulations on a drug rather than addressing all the factors that caused a tragic and, most likely, preventable death.

Working at DPA, I've had the opportunity to hear feedback from people who follow our work. During our recent overdose prevention campaign, quite a few people expressed concerns that DPA's focus on the overdose epidemic would encourage lawmakers to react by placing more regulations on the prescription painkillers that many people need to maintain productive lives. It's not an unwarranted fear considering the DEA's response to Jackson's death and recent calls to restrict acetaminophen access.

The best way to address this concern is to show legislators, law enforcement, and the public that there are alternatives to restricting access to medications.

DPA has been working with Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-MD) to promote her Drug Overdose Reduction Act, which would enact sensible solutions to reduce the number of overdose deaths by thousands each year. The law includes provisions for naloxone distribution and 911 Good Samaritan laws that ensure that people who witness an overdose and call an ambulance will not be vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

We have overdose prevention methods available to us right now, and they work. Educating people about those methods and providing an alternative to the overregulation of individual substances is crucial to ensuring that pain patients can access the medicine they need.

The Beginning of the End for the Syringe Exchange Funding Ban?

2009-07-10T17:02:00.002-04:00

This week the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies stripped from a spending bill language barring federal funding for syringe exchange programs. The ban has been renewed every year during the congressional budget process since it was first instated over a decade ago.

The funding freeze on syringe exchange is one of the pillars of the modern drug war, and ending it is essential step in dismantling the war on drugs and restructuring drug policy through the lens of public health.

If Congress votes to lift the funding ban on syringe access it would end a more than decade-long betrayal of the American people, whose government promised it was doing everything possible to quell the spread of HIV while, year after year, it was renewing a ban on programs that could have prevented thousands from contracting the virus.

On the practical level, ending the funding ban would provide states with the resources to expand their syringe exchange programs and serve more people, more effectively. Nearly a third of HIV/AIDS cases are related to injection drug use, and currently, states can use none of the federal money allotted to them for HIV prevention to enhance syringe exchange programs.

The syringe exchange funding ban is an ugly law. It has survived because of a callous disregard for the lives of injection drug users on the part of many lawmakers, who have defended the ban without acknowledging the wealth of scientific evidence that syringe access programs lead neither to an increase in drug use nor to the recruitment of new users.

There are still some hurdles to clear before the funding ban is repealed - the appropriations bill could come up in the full House Appropriations Committee next week, and the Senate still hasn’t finalized it’s version of the legislation - but the move by the House subcommittee to take out the prohibitive language shows a promising attitude shift in Congress.

Currently, the federal government is one of the major obstacles to effective HIV prevention in the U.S. It's about time Congress stepped out of the way and allowed states to proceed with programs that protect their citizens. I'm hopeful that ending the funding ban will create momentum in Congress for a more comprehensive reexamination of failed drug war policies.

The Definition of Evil

2009-07-10T12:44:00.006-04:00

I often feel like I can sense the feelings of the people I care about regardless of words or even space. Whether the distance is a close embrace, or across the globe we are all connected in a way that transcends both time and space and I feel that all of humanity has the capacity to do this if they will embrace compassion and empathetically reach out to their brothers and sisters from the light to save them from their own personal demons and doubt. I will make no secret of my religious beliefs as a Christian Buddhist and will in fact boldly proclaim that it is this attitude that has led me to the fight for drug law reform.

I put myself into this fight for social justice for a myriad of reasons; the most basic of which was that I wanted to fight evil in the world. I had this notion that I could change the world put an end to the stigmatization of people who become addicted to one thing or another. I would like to say that I chose to get involved with drug law because it was the best field, but in fact the universe chose the field for me. I won't go into the gritty details of how I got involved but essentially a very good opportunity to get involved presented itself and so I took it, for although I did not know the issue thoroughly, I thought that it would be a very interesting and fun field to get involved in. I had no idea I would experience so much in such a short time.

I began working for lawyers who did a lot of drug law and the job was everything I expected and more. I saw the prosecution of a 73 year old medical marijuana patient. I saw the children of medical marijuana patients seized by Child Protective Services and used as bartering chips in both the child custody case and criminal trial. I saw witnesses harassed by police. I saw clients receiving death threats and broken limbs from sources that they "just didn't want to talk about." If the issue of medical marijuana is a battleground, California is the Western Front, and all the stops are being pulled out. I was in the trenches.

All of this injustice, wrong an evil that I witnessed and fought against pulled me back to some very deep philosophy discussions that I engaged in during my college days where my friends and I tried to explore the issues of good and evil. As we tried to discuss good and evil, and nail down definitions and meaning, one issue disturbed me the most. Many people who I knew and cared for believed that neither good nor evil existed. To them good and evil were simply relative abstract ideas with no basis in objective reality. I found this to be a very trenchant moral frailty.

I saw this very same moral frailty in the opposition of all of our cases. They say, "Show me a ruler that measures good and evil and I will show you an arbitrary scale." Laws determine right and wrong, regardless of compassion or reason. It is a form or moral relativism that equates to moral nihilism; this frame of mind is rampant throughout much of the world. In opposition to this phenomenon my friends and I developed a definition of evil. Despite what the naysayers had to say about our definition that day, I still rely on it to guide my moral compass in the fight for drug law reform because it is very relevant.

My friends and I determined that an act of evil is when a person or group of people act without empathy or compassion towards another person. The drug war is evil because it compels people to act without compassion or empathy towards hundreds of thousands of addicts and families each year. This is what I am fighting to change.

HIV/AIDS Activists Arrested in Capitol Building

2009-07-09T16:02:00.005-04:00

Some excitement came to the Rotunda at the Capitol building in the form of protest chants and arrest. On Thursday, a number of people from organizations comprising the Sound the Alarm coalition (they have great pictures of the action on their website) chained themselves together in the Capitol building rotunda in protest of the federal government's inaction of combating HIV/AIDS as well as lack of help to those who have HIV/AIDS. Twenty-six HIV/AIDS activists were arrested for trying to urge Congress to save lives, rather than continue to sit on their thumbs (common decency prevents me from describing what they were actually doing).

The video is awesome! I bet people were freaked out, which is a good thing -- sometimes shock and awe are necessary to move life-saving, scientifically based policy forward. In this case, the demonstrators were asking for three things:

1) Lift the federal funding ban on syringe exchange
2) Fund the HOWPA AIDS housing program at $360 million
3) Fund the U.S's fair share to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria at $2.7 billion and increase funding for the US global AIDS plan "PEPFAR" by $1 billion per year

Update: House Democrats just reversed President Obama's inaction when he failed to remove the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs. The House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies removed language from an appropriations bill that was the main mechanism for banning the funding. This is very good news, but there is still a ways to go (isn't there always?)

New Jersey Moving Forward with Syringe Access

2009-07-07T09:57:00.002-04:00

New Jersey pride runs deep, even for former residents. As a New Jersey expat living in DC, I still feel a little surge of satisfaction every time my home state does something right - even if it's a long time coming.

New Jersey is finally prioritizing its residents' heath and safety and moving forward with a syringe access program that will help prevent the spread of HIV and provide beneficiaries of the program with referrals to treatment and other social services that can mean the difference between life and death for many drug users.

With Jersey City, a community with one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the country, becoming the fifth NJ city to offer access to clean syringes, the state is now one step closer to fully implementing a six-city syringe access pilot program.

The five needle exchange facilities serve over 3,000 people and have sprung up just in the year and a half since the implementation process for the pilot program began. However, for years New Jersey legislators resisted any kind of syringe exchange program, even as most other states instituted their own programs.

This recent success comes after a long battle in the state legislature that dates back to 1992, when the first syringe access bill was introduced in New Jersey. DPA became involved in the effort to pass needle exchange legislation there in 2002, and in 2006, the state legislature passed a bill authorizing the pilot program now in progress. Since then, DPA has provided guidance and technical support to the resulting facilities to ensure that they are serving people as effectively as possible.

Once a sixth city is chosen to host a facility and the pilot program is completed, the next step is to amend the 2006 law to allow needle exchange programs statewide.

I hope New Jersey's progress serves as a wake up call to Congress that the federal government is out of touch on syringe exchange. With a majority of states offering some kind of needle exchange program, it's clear that these programs are making a positive impact in local communities around the country. But Congress has yet to lift a ban on federal funding for syringe access. It's time for Congress to end the funding freeze on a proven disease prevention method.

The Definition of Insanity Is...

2009-06-28T01:02:00.003-04:00

Looks like the folks at Above the Influence are still sharing their ineffective message with the world. I just thought that you'd like to know that even though we have a new Drug Czar, we still have the same stupid and counterproductive commercials.

I'm not going to bother naming off successful people who have smoked pot. Because why bother? But if you want to, please go ahead.

These commercials don't anger me, because there isn't any shred of legitimacy or truth to them. Getting angry about the content somewhat validates them. What you should really get angry about is wasted vital resources -- your tax dollars continue to pay for this crap when it has been shown that these commercials don't work.

What we really should be concerned about is the skyrocketing accidental drug overdose deaths each year. Or that a 10 cent syringe can prevent HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis C, yet the federal government will not fund access to syringes.

Instead, ONDCP chose to (continue to) call the 100 million Americans who have smoked pot losers who have ruined their lives.

I wonder how many HIV/AIDS transmissions or overdose deaths could have been prevented with the money that was wasted on this commercial?

Nice priority of resources, ONDCP.

Supreme Court rules 13-year-old's rights were violated by strip search

2009-06-26T14:45:00.005-04:00

It's truly unbelievable that there was ever a question that this case might be decided any other way. Some background:

Back in 2003, teachers at then 13-year-old Savana Redding's school heard from another student that Savana had given her a couple of ibuprofen pills. Knowing that hearsay from a middle school girl is pretty much gospel, the vice principal ordered Savana to strip down to her undergarments, then pull her bra and underwear away from her body to prove she wasn't hiding any pills.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices saw the light yesterday and, acknowledging that Savana's constitutional rights were most certainly violated, decided to make sure what happened to her wouldn't happen to another student.

Most of them.

Way to go Clarence Thomas on being the only justice to dissent and insist that humiliating and degrading a child is okay! Here's his creepy opinion:

"Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments, nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announced the safest places to secrete contraband in school."

For most people, given the opportunity, ruling in Savana's favor would be a no-brainer. The fact that there are still powerful people in the justice system who need convincing that kids shouldn't be violated at school is more than a little scary.

Read what DPA has to say about the Fourth Amendment and illegal search and seizure.

A Global Call to Action

2009-06-25T15:52:00.005-04:00

The United Nations released its 2009 World Drug Report this week, and it seems the UN is getting on board with the drug policy reform movement's call for treatment over incarceration. The report praises Portugal's drug decriminalization approach, a system that just a few years ago UN leaders dismissed as too radical.

In the wake of the report and this new opening for discussing decriminalization, DPA is joining with a coalition of over 40 international groups and drug policy experts in calling on world governments to take a new approach to drug policy founded on sound science and concern for human rights, civil liberties, and economic and racial justice.

The groups' call to action urges global leaders to move away from the failed international drug policing tactics that continue to harm communities all over the world. The signers ask governments to:

Focus on reducing the harms related to drug trade and use, such as making needle and syringe exchange programs widely available.
Decriminalize the possession of drugs for personal use.
Ensure that evidence-based treatments for pain and addiction are widely available, including methadone and buprenorphine.
Treat supporting farmers in moving away from coca or poppy cultivation as a development issue.
Comply fully with human rights obligations in any drug control measure, ensuring proportionality of penalties, abolishing the death penalty, and avoiding non-evidence-based forms of treatment.

The UN is finally acknowledging the damage that harsh, discriminatory drug laws have inflicted on the world community, and this call to action outlines the right way to fix the problem. I'm hoping world leaders hear this call to action and take the correct steps to right the wrongs of global drug prohibition. And if the world takes action, will the U.S. listen too?

Don't Pay for a Mistake

2009-06-24T10:15:00.003-04:00

The Obama administration has decided to stop funding one of the nation's many failed drug policies. President Obama's new budget proposal contains no funding for the ineffective Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program. SDFSC provides federal grants for school districts to implement drug prevention programs that often rely heavily on zero-tolerance policies and student drug testing.

Both Obama and VP Biden supported funding for SDFSC while in the Senate, but apparently the fiscal crisis has led the administration to rethink spending money on a program that simply doesn't work.

I'm cautiously optimistic that this could be the beginning of a shift toward better drug policy, and it's about time. Current school drug prevention programs are overwhelmingly ineffective. Through it's Safety First Project, DPA has argued that student drug testing programs in particular are harming students, families, and school communities, while failing entirely to decrease the rate of drug use among teens.

The degree to which poorly designed school drug programs have transformed the climate in schools all over the country is depressing. They've strained the relationships between students and teachers, who are asked to misinform their students and to grant no second chances. They've turned schools into police states where students are prevented from graduating because of positive (or false-positive) drug tests, where kids are kicked out of extracurricular activities and subsequently made more susceptible to increased drug use and drug-related violence, and where authority figures disregard students' right to privacy (sometimes egregiously so). They've created an environment where educators are not champions of student achievement, but obstacles to it.

Educators have long floundered under government misguidance when talking to kids about drugs, and students have been fed a lot of lies. (Personally, I remember a tall tale propagated by my school's health teacher about a former student who went out back behind the school to smoke a joint...AND DIED!) Let's hope the administration's decision to eliminate funding for failed school drug programs is the precursor to a comprehensive overhaul of youth drug prevention policy. It's time to give kids honest information about drugs and focus on keeping them safe and in school.

D.E.A. Sort of Sides with New Drug Czar

2009-06-24T08:47:00.003-04:00

The D.E.A. has long been the target of my occasional rants against raiding medical marijuana dispensaries. I usually call it an act of cowardice, because if they were truly concerned about the evils of drugs, they'd concentrate on drug cartels killing hundreds if not thousands in Mexico, and international trafficking rings, and go after source countries like Afghanistan. Not that I think that would work, but at least it would mean their message was consistent with their actions.

But that was before I realized they were a bunch of civilians, and that we're not really fighting a "war" per se against drugs. Hell, just ask the new Drug Czar.

The proof finally came in their own words, in an article from McClatchy about D.E.A. agents feeling like they're being punished for being required to do their job:

"Another agent, David Beavers, told McClatchy that he was ordered in July 2007 to prepare to go to Afghanistan in two weeks while he was on bereavement leave after his mother-in-law died. To avoid going, the Orlando, Fla., pilot decided to retire early.

Both men have flown for the DEA in Latin American countries wracked by drug violence, but they say service in a combat zone should be treated as voluntary because they're not military personnel."

See, we had it all wrong. The D.E.A. are not a quasi-military unit. Quasi-military units would look like soldiers, and when required, would act like soldiers. Instead, we have the D.E.A., who clearly don't want to act like soldiers, and hell, look nothing like them. From their own website:

**NOTE** Information, including photos, generated by the Drug Enforcement Administration is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published, or otherwise used without the Drug Enforcement Administration's permission. However, citation of the Drug Enforcement Administration as the source of the information or photos is appreciated, as appropriate.

I don't see a single soldier there, or anyone who could possibly be confused as such. I understand now why they don't want to be in a combat zone - it's not like they're equipped with military gear.

So, I definitely gave the D.E.A. the credit they asked for on their website photo archive -- think nothing of it, and no problem guys. Just remember, the next time a bunch of people come marching into your buildings in camouflage and machine guns - hey, they're probably just civilians wanting a cup of coffee.

Common Sense Legislation Introduced in Congress

2009-06-21T21:53:00.006-04:00

Several extraordinary pieces of logical and compassionate drug policy reform legislation have been introduced on the federal level!

Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced, along with co-sponsors Tammy Balwin, Ron Paul, Dana Rohrbacher, and Maurice Hinchey, "H.R. 2943: the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009. "

This legislation would effectively decriminalize marijuana, up to 100 grams, for personal use. This legislation would apply only on the federal level, so that those pesky federal agencies, such as the DEA, cannot arrest people who possess marijuana within the weight limit. While this is great legislation, keep in mind the DEA has already disregarded another edict by Attorney General Eric Holder to stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries.

Another piece of legislation introduced last week was by Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland who, along with several co-sponsors, submitted "H.R. 2855: the Drug Overdose Reduction Act of 2009". Among other things, the legislation would require the Center for Disease Control to monitor fatal and nonfatal drug overdoses and, very importantly, allocated $27 million dollars to overdose prevention programs throughout the country -- a necessity to life-saving programs that remain woefully underfunded. It is important to note that this funding can go towards purchasing naloxone, an opiate reversal drug, which has never received federal funding before (only state funding).

Coinciding with the overdose prevention legislation, the Drug Policy Alliance released a ground-breaking report, "Preventing Overdose, Saving Lives". This report details evidence-based strategies, that already exist, which can reduce overdose risk, protect Good Samaritans and medical professionals, streamline government response systems, and save lives.

This is all good news, signaling that legislators are exercising their beliefs that the war on drugs has failed, and new policies and strategies must be employed utilizing a public health and safety approach.

This is encouraging, but we still have many miles of road ahead.

Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms Under Attack From Prosecutors

2009-06-09T22:57:00.008-04:00

In an effort to further undermine the meaningful Rockefeller Drug Law reform passed by the New York State Legislature and signed by Governor Paterson in April, District Attorneys from across NY State have began to "chicken little" the reforms. That is, the reforms are "going kill people".

First, the prosecutors attacked judicial discretion. Now, they are attacking a conditional sealing of records provision after the defendant successfully completes a treatment program. Prosecutors have been sealing records for years, but you only hear them screaming about death and mayhem after they lose , and the judge gains, the power to seal records. The thing is, the sealing isn't automatic, and the judge can deny a record sealing if he or she thinks it is against the public's safety.

I suppose that if I was a prosecutor, and for nearly 36 years I had the ultimate power of sentencing someone in a drug case, without any check by a judge (the scale the lady justice holds is clearly just for show), then I would be a bit annoyed that I lost some of my power, too.

If you read between the soiled lines of the prosecutor talking points, you will come to find that they are calling judges incompetent. The fear-mongering imbued into these prosecutors and Senate Republican's statements is saying "if judges are allowed to decide sentencing, all hell will break loose". Meaning, judges do not have the ability to take into consideration anything, and will tailor sentences that are so inappropriate as to actually have the effect of killing people. If I were a judge, I would be pissed as all hell that my years of litigation practice, and then judicial experience, doesn't hold any water to some assistant district attorney (prosecutor supervisors rarely try drug cases), straight out of law school, who have no grasp of the reality of the justice system, or of real life for that matter.

A public defender once told me that he didn't join up to defend the indigent out of some idea altruism pulling at his heartstrings. Nope. He joined up to act as a check against the power of the government. Without lawyers, the prosecutors are an unchecked extension of the governments imposition on its people.

Mandatory minimum sentences act in the same manner. Before the reforms, the prosecutors set the charge and decided the sentence based on that level charge. They also had the power to suggest or veto treatment or other alternative sentencing options. Now, the prosecutor still sets the charge, and can offer substantial input into sentencing decisions. Only now, and as it should be, the judge, as the impartial arbiter of the powers of the government and the defendant, decides on the sentence (whether prison, probation, or an alternative program).

How does that mean all hell is going to break out in New York? If we give people who need help the help they need, and if they show determination of bettering themselves, why shouldn't they get a second chance? Sealing their records would allow them to gain meaningful employment, and aid in getting rid of the elephant in the room that is systematically denying people jobs if they have a criminal record (even if the conviction was decades ago).

Prosecutors apparently like seeing "criminals" fail.

You can read two great op-eds from DPA's Tony Papa and The Fortune Society's Glenn Martin about conditional sealing. They are spot on.

Heroin Maintenance Works. Can the U.S. Recognize a Good Idea When It Sees One?

2009-06-08T14:54:00.009-04:00

I just finished up my first week as the newest staff member in DPA's DC office, and these days, I spend a lot of time explaining to friends and family what kinds of issues I'll be working on at my new job. Without fail, the issue that draws the most skepticism is heroin maintenance. A lot of people can see the argument for marijuana decriminalization and for ending sentencing disparity, but most are at least a little taken aback when I start taking about distributing free heroin.

I can understand where they're coming from - it's a concept that completely goes against the prevailing narrative in the United States about drugs and drug use. So many of us have been taught since childhood to see people who use drugs as criminals, and heroin users are perhaps the most harshly stigmatized. I've also witnessed, at least on a rhetorical level, a real lack of compassion for people who become addicted. There's an unfair assumption that when people fail to gain control over their addictions, they fail because they just aren't trying hard enough.

We've all heard stories - mostly on television - of people who have managed to completely kick their addictions and go on to lead healthy, admirable lives on the straight and narrow. But these stories most often misinform audiences about the availability of effective addiction treatment and gloss over the difficulty of the recovery process. Most of the people I've seen profiled in these tales of redemption are celebrities - people with access to the best medical care, mental healthcare, and rehab facilities, and the money to surround themselves with all sorts of material distractions.

And even among the wealthy, there are plenty who just can't quit or whose road to recovery is marred by multiple relapses. The average person, who lacks the resources to obtain top-notch addiction treatment, faces far more difficult odds.

Many of us in this country are suffering from a case of tunnel vision. We have been trained to see "getting clean" as the only solution to drug addiction when, in fact, heroin maintenance programs implemented abroad have shown that, with the assistance of healthcare workers, people can bring their drug use under control without achieving total abstinence. I suspect that with the proper oversight and implementation, these programs will prove to be far more effective in helping drug users lead stable, productive lives than any large-scale treatment program currently available in the United States.

Although the U.S. still relies on its disastrous prison system to regulate the drug problem, several other countries have embraced more pragmatic, compassionate approaches to dealing with drug misuse. Two more countries recently joined the list of nations that have adopted heroin prescription programs.

New legislation passed in Germany will allow doctors to prescribe synthetic heroin to people with long-term addictions. The law will benefit heroin users who have been unable to quit using other methods of treatment.

The Canadian health department will fund heroin prescription trials beginning later this year in Vancouver and Montreal. Treatment facilities will offer prescriptions for synthetic heroin to about 200 drug users.

Positive results change minds, and heroin prescription programs have consistently led to reductions in crime, overdose deaths, and new HIV cases.

Without a major shift in U.S. public's perception of heroin and heroin users, lawmakers here at home aren't likely to follow the example of their counterparts in Germany and Canada. But as more countries implement successful heroin maintenance programs, I hope that we will begin to see a paradigm shift in U.S. drug policy.

Feds New Drug Policy: Blah, Blah, Blah.

2009-06-08T09:28:00.002-04:00

Or, as they title it, "National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy."

I believe the quotable can be attributed to The Who, "Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Nowhere is this more true than drug policy.

Let's look at the chapters of this document:
Chapter 1: Intelligence and Information Sharing
Chapter 2: At the Ports of Entry
Chapter 3: Between the Ports of Entry
Chapter 4: Air and Marine
Chapter 5: Investigations and Prosecutions
Chapter 6: Money
Chapter 7: Weapons
Chapter 8: Technology
Chapter 9: Cooperation with Mexico

I could write a similar document. "National Strategy for Handling Apple Falling."
Chapter 1: Assessment of connection to tree branch
Chapter 2: Intelligence reports of surface beneath apple tree
Chapter 3: Clean up policies for smashed apples
Chapter 4: Predicting next apple to fall
Chapter 5: Investigations and Prosecutions
Chapter 6: Money
Chapter 7: Tools
Chapter 8: Technology
Chapter 9: Cooperation with Apple Farmers

Yet still ignore the underlying principle: gravity. Unless you're planning on stopping gravity, the damn apple is going to fall. Similarly, if you ban substances that people want to have, you're going to have an illicit substance market. Duh.

How many more of these ridiculous documents can the government waste taxpayer money on before people agree to stop funding idiocy?

MC Illogic's Single Applies to ONDCP's Marijuana Study

2009-05-29T13:50:00.006-04:00

Illogic, an ill-known MC from Columbus, Ohio, has a single that is applicable to what LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) pointed me to on Facebook: a Huffingtonpost article by Ryan Grim pointing out that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)'s "high potency" marijuana THC averages were obtained by averaging in hashish samples.

Illogic's noteworthy single? It's called, "Stop Lyin'."

Hey ONDCP! Ever considered telling the truth for a change? You might actually get some credibility, instead of further proving that you're nothing but a propaganda machine for failed policies, and the modern-day equivalent of "Reefer Madness."

For all those that question the methodology, calling hashish "marijuana" is like calling opium sap a "poppy," coca paste "coca" or milk "a cow." They are NOT the same, even though you can get the former from the latter.

Thanks again to both LEAP and to Ryan Grim for linking and uncovering yet another "study" that's really just a pack of lies. Ricaurte, eat your heart out!

Associated Press Writer: 'Often' Gets Drug-Crazy Treatment

2009-05-27T12:08:00.004-04:00

From the media over at, The Associated Press, May 26, 2009 Tuesday

Vast US illegal drug market fuels Mexican cartels
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

"Homeless heroin addicts in big cities, 'meth heads' in Midwest trailer parks, pop culture and sports stars, teens smoking marijuana with their Baby Boomer parents in Vermont in all, 46 percent of Americans 12 and older have indulged in the often destructive national pastime of illicit drug use."

Often? 46 percent of Americans 12 and older (roughly 240 million, according to Wolfram Alpha, an online statistics database search engine like google), is 110,400,000 people. What qualifies as often? Last time I checked, we didn't have tens of millions of people using drugs and having their lives destroyed - even DAWN places emergency room visits at just over half a million a year - and that includes alcohol and prescription drugs as well.

If one half of one percent is often, I'd hate to see what this author's opinion about citizens going to prison is, since it's over twice the percentage as the emergency room visits. Yet citizens are NOT said to 'often' go to prison.

Just another example of how drug prohibition makes even the media a bunch of lunatics that don't understand the language they're supposed to have some kind of mastery over. By the AP definition, Americans are often: bed-wetters, allergic to peanuts, epileptics, cancer patients, criminals, federal employees, autistic, Peace and Freedom Party members, Scientologists (no insult intended to any of these groups, but to put the use of 'often' into perspective based on small percentages), etc.

Or, a very small segment of our society have these traits, and some of them are more serious than others, and some require more attention than others. Those with substance abuse issues fall into the same category. They're not 'often'. They're specific cases, and a relative MINORITY of cases amongst those who have tried illicit substances. Maybe that truthful assessment doesn't sell as well though. Shame on AP for allowing such trash off of the editing room floor and into their release.

New Drug Czar Has Limited Vocabulary.

2009-05-21T10:27:00.001-04:00

Quoting the new Drug Czar in an article from:

USA TODAY, May 21, 2009 Thursday
BYLINE: Donna Leinwand
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3A

"Legalization isn't in the president's vocabulary, and it certainly isn't in mine," he told 300 federal agents and law enforcement officials.
... "Rotating people in and out and through the system doesn't make a lot of sense."

***

Legalization isn't in your vocabulary, but rotating people in and out and through the system doesn't make a lot of sense. Taken together, that means your vocabulary doesn't make a lot of sense - it's limited to either heartlessness or insanity.

I'm constantly amazed at the fear factor of the word "legalization." It's like the boogie-man of reason. Laws were created to ban these substances, so realistically, we should use the word "restoration." As in, restoration of our rights to do what we will without our own bodies. As in, restoration of our liberties and restraint of a state that thinks it knows better than anyone else what's okay to put into your body.

I'm constantly amazed that a government that only gets service industry, like the post office or issuance of social security checks, right. When it comes to authority, from prisons, to parole, to wars like Vietnam and Iraq, it's so horribly wrong. Yet it wants to keep some substances in the authority area, where they appear to be incompetent, and not in the service area, where they appear to shine.

It's like deliberate incompetence. To string two lines together of perpendicular ideas, and to somehow think your reasoning is parallel? I just don't get it. Why doesn't the Drug Czar come talk to me? I've got a simple, but great vocabulary word just waiting for him, one that he's already admitted he does have (nor does the President, who can also come talk to me too):

Legalization. The restoration of rights to individual citizens, like privacy and liberty. The end of senseless laws that have not one marker of success since they've been enacted. The understanding that oftentimes the best option is to first do no harm - and the evidence of harm from drug prohibition (which is not regulation of a market, but rather black market deregulation of a market) is all around us, from incarceration rates to banned-substance purity, potency, and price point.

Keep in mind I'm a big fan of regulation: the 1906 Food and Drug Act was a regulatory scheme to ensure that our foods are properly labeled (obviously, it's in sore need of updating). It's also the only law Congress ever passed that had a significant and lasting impact on drug addiction rates (by DECREASING them).

Criminalizing certain substances, their manufacture, distribution and use, on the other hand, has not significantly impacted drug addiction rates. The abandonment of rehabilitation in prison is kind of regardless, because guards can't be treatment providers (conflict of interest - one is trying to make you comply, the other is trying to help you change. The difference is between a physical act and a lifestyle. The former means no real change has happened, thus behavior repeats).

What the drug czar is saying, however, is that he's opposed to changing the government's approach, just a week after he said we need to stop calling it a war. Now he's saying he can't use the term legalization. Sounds like even though he wants to call it something different, he's not ready to try something different - he still wants law enforcement involved, which means he's still for criminalization of certain substances.

The problem is that continuing with criminalization while opposing prison revolving doors is not an approach that has a lot of options. You can either be super-pro death penalty (i.e. believe in the death penalty for all drug infractions, thus preventing a revolving door, i.e. a miscreant mindset) or just plain insane.

Shall we ask him which he is? If you suspect the former, you ask, if the latter, I'll ask - I'd rather deal with the crazy guy.

Judge Actions.

2009-05-14T13:46:00.004-04:00

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, last week, called for a debate on legalization of marijuana. This is just a month after a bill was proposed to tax and regulate it in the California Assembly.

Don't think that tax and regulate requires much shifting in California: adjust who is authorized to issue cannabis cards and you're essentially done. In other words, merely expand the medical model to include everyone over 21, or any age with medical necessity.

However, these are just words from a governor and a proposed bill. More words were added to this matrix when Gil Kerlikowske, the new Drug Czar, announced recently that we need to end the term the "War on Drugs."

I still want to point out: the new budget has no funding for syringe exchange - that acts like the ban is still there. The raids on medical marijuana dispensaries are still taking place (last week in Bakersfield, although the DEA claims they were only acting as 'advisors').

A debate is just words, and so is a bill that's not enacted. A declaration without action to back it is just words. Until the administration starts making actual changes to its policies as they are being carried out, we can either believe them or our lying eyes.

I'm a bigger believer in my lying eyes. Words come cheap, and ultimately have no value if they're not backed up with consistent and measurable action.

Or, put succinctly, I'm sticking to the prison vernacular:

"You can fix your mouth to say anything, you gotta SHOW me."

Let's see if we can make them show us this year folks.

How the World Would be Better Without the War on Drugs

2009-05-11T12:04:00.010-04:00

Before we talk about all the harms that the drug war has created I think that it is important to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact that the 'war on drugs' has accomplished nothing. In order to do this we need to take a look at the goals surrounding the war on drugs. Broadly stated these goals are first to alleviate the social ills associated with drug use, and second to disrupt the supply and/or demand surrounding illicit drugs. The drug war has failed in both of these efforts and in many instances has made things worse.

Let me start off by stating what I will not argue about here. I am not going argue about the effects that drug abuse can have on an individual, his family and friends. It's not that I don't care about those issues, but frankly these points can actually further the argument for legalization. So for the sake of simplicity, let's just pretend that the propaganda about drugs is all true. So now that we all tentatively agree that drugs cause problems, let's see what the war on drugs does to combat these ill effects.

Let's paint the typical scenario according to the PR campaigns of the war on drugs, DARE, and Above the Influence. Life is a perfect Garden of Eden, and then out of left field someone, lets just call him Mr. Bill, discovers drugs. So Mr. Bill starts doing drugs and some of his friends want some too, and so he gets some drugs for them. Because they all did drugs, now Mr. Bill and his friends are all lazy, poor, out of shape, out of work, and mentally ill. Now their lives are ruined unless they get help. If the war on drugs actually addressed the social ills of drugs, it would spend money helping people like Mr. Bill get off drugs. Instead, the help offered by the drug war according to both DARE, and Above the Influence campaigns is incarceration.

The argument that, "the war on drugs gets people back on track," is a croc of shit. Incarcerating Mr. Bill essentially amounts to kicking him while he's down. Society is actually harmed by this conviction in several ways, because prison, criminal records, and court fees are just the beginning. Imagine if Mr. Bill had a kid, or a wife, or elderly parents to support. There are countless ways that things could be worse, and indeed things are just about to get really ugly for Mr. Bill. The strategy through which the criminal justice system deals with drug dealers and drug addicts in no way positively impacts social ills, but what about the second goal of disrupting supply or demand.

If the War on Drugs was working in anyway whatsoever we would see at least one of three things happen. We would see a reduction in supply (or production), a decrease in demand (or consumption), or an increase in price(or decrease in purity). To be clear, I am not saying that all three of these must be observed for the war to be considered working, but just one (and it must be statistically significant). This is not a lot to ask in return for the billions we spend each year, stigmatizing, investigating, incarcerating, and even killing the people we hold responsible for this black market. Just one aspect of any of those effects and I'll say, okay the drug war might be doing something.

Much to the dismay of prohibitionists, the most recent report by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime states that drug production has been up across the board from 1990 to the present. The report cites that opium and cocaine prices are down more than half of what they were in 1990. In addition, while no data was provided on cannabis or meth prices (probably because it's embarrassing), the report does cite that purity is up for cannabis and drug use has gone up or stayed the same across the board. So to recap, drug prices have either gone down or stayed the same, the supply has increased (production is up) and demand(use) has gone up or stayed the same.

From this data we can conclude that thus far, the 'War on Drugs' has had no effect on either the supply or demand of these narcotics. In addition, we can see from how law enforcement addresses drug addiction and dealers that no social ills of drug use have been alleviated. This necessarily leads us to the conclusion that the drug war has totally and completely failed.

Next time I'll explore the social costs of the "War on Drugs". Space permitting, I plan on writing about how the war fosters distrust of the justice department and law enforcement, as well as the erosion of civil rights.

One Love

All of my data was taken from the 2008 UNODC World Drug Report which you can take a look at here,
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR.html

American Violet

2009-05-04T08:36:00.007-04:00

It's too rare that we can do something entertaining while at the same time doing some good. This is one of those times.

I went out with a girlfriend one evening last week to see American Violet. I'll be honest -- it was her idea.

I spend all day at work surrounded by efforts to end the drug war. The last thing I want to do when I go home is be reminded of racist drug task forces in Texas or anywhere else, wreaking havoc on American working families of color. I know it's bad. I didn't necessarily want to have spend two hours being told so again.

But here's the beautiful thing: this story is one of the good folks winning. And it's true.

Yes it's tough, yes people spent years locked up they shouldn't have, and yes, the federal government is still funding these task forces that go around shooting people (and shooting dogs! -- nearby in Berwyn Heights) and make money for local jurisdictions by locking innocent people up.

What I was reminded that night is that there are still strong women and good people who fight for what they believe in, who fight for their own lives, and we should celebrate them. And not just for their sake, to honor their hard work and sacrifice. But for our own sake, for our own hearts, to be reminded that there's a purpose to what we're trying to do, that we can win sometimes, that we will win in the end. (iSi se puede!)

Trailer, showtimes and tickets at www.americanviolet.com. The film opened last Friday at a number of cities around the country -- do your spirit a favor and go see it.

How the World Would Be Better Without the War on Drugs

2009-05-01T15:12:00.029-04:00

Proving someone wrong often does not change their opinion and in fact can often lead to them cementing their beliefs even further. I recently got into a discussion with my father about drug law reform and I genuinely care about changing his opinion. We both agreed that the "War on Drugs" was a failure and could never be won, but this is where we parted ways.

Oddly enough we both used analogies that compared society to a human body. "It's like shaving" he argued, "yea you get some cuts, and the hair comes back, but you still gotta shave."

I on the other hand argued that the war was like a severe allergic reaction. The system that normally protects the body from threats starts fighting substances that are pretty much harmless. This overreaction causes symptoms that are worse than the percieved threat and can even kill the whole body.

The crux of the debate came down to his fear that a world where drugs were legal would be a lot worse. He invited to explain how the world would be a better place if prohibition was ended. So I started with the economics, and then jumped to public health and then to legal aspects, and by the time I was finished I was completely lost in the countless possibilities.

I finally decided that the best way to organize the benefits was to 'hash it out' so to speak, with both proponents and skeptics of legalization. Thus I have decided to embark on a series entitled "How the World Would Be Better Without the War on Drugs". This series will consist of posts regarding the social, economic, political, spiritual, legal and public health benefits of legalization. I will make one post regarding each of the aforementioned topics. This is intended as a dialogue to engage and address fears surrounding drug law reform.

I welcome both commentary and criticism; though please try to steer clear of Godwin's law. If you or anyone you know has strong feelings about this issue please refer them to the site and ask them to make comments. I invite you at any time to suggest a topic, and I look forward to hearing from all of you and sincerely hope that this is not a one sided discussion.

Cannabis and Societal Hypocrisy

2009-04-30T11:08:00.003-04:00

I'm quite sure the Office of National Drug Control Policy has a larger headache than any of us can imagine.

In a year when their razor-sharp marketing campaign has come up with Pete's Couch, Burrito Tasters and Remote Control Operators (all gimmicks to suggest that cannabis makes people lazy), they've been completely destroyed by public spectacle.

1st: Michael Phelps. Arguably one of the best swimmers to date in the Olympics. Caught with the bong seen 'round the world.

Now? Santonio Holmes, Superbowl MVP, picked up yesterday by Pittsburgh Police for misdemeanor marijuana possession.

What does it mean when your best swimmer, and now your best football player in the Superbowl, both had a bowl of their own (okay, okay, I'm guilty of a really bad pun here)?

Clearly, cannabis is not quite as bad as the prohibitionists have made it out to be.

Either that, or we're going to have to swing the other way, and say that somehow, cannabis is actually TOO good for people - and thus needs to be banned in sports as a performance enhancer.

Just kidding on that last bit. Does seem odd that a burrito taster can become a Superbowl MVP, and that Pete's Couch led to Olympian Swimming Records. No wonder kids don't trust DARE and Zero Tolerance messaging - the evidence that they're lies is all around them.

Clarification: D'Alliance Blog Posting Is My Opinion

2009-04-27T13:03:00.003-04:00

Between a hostile call from Boulder, Colorado, and the commentary by K on this blog, it has become apparent that there is a certain lack of clarity around D'Alliance.

D'Alliance is a place for Drug Policy Alliance Network and Drug Policy Alliance Staff to express their opinions, and in more general scope create some level of interaction and discussion in the drug reform circle (via the commentary). DPAN positions are clearly enunciated in the About section of the Main Page (under Mission and Vision, Goals, and certainly contained in "Position Papers").

I am currently DPA staff. That means that even when I'm expressing my opinion, if I'm utilizing DPAN resources, I'm expected to use their professional standards. Their professional standards have been adopted not to contain my opinion, but rather to try and prevent wasteful fighting, needless argumentation, and generally to ensure that the discussion is centered around policy and reform/repeal. A majority of my responses were either hostile or argumentative, and certainly it didn't change much, if anything. That is one reason (though certainly not the only one) for my apology.

The posts, however, are not DPAN positions. They are my opinions and positions, as a person intensely interested in drug policy reform. I certainly welcome all readers to ask me if any particular matter I've written on has a DPAN response and/or position, and that's certainly something that's appropriate and productive. Assuming that what I'm writing on is a DPAN position because it appears in the blog is an action that will lead to poor conclusions; if I am posting a DPAN position, I'll certainly announce it as such, and if I'm commenting on a DPAN position, I'll likewise say it.

DPAN does not have any position on 4/20 celebrations that I'm aware of. I think it could be safe to assume that as a fundamental right, however, DPAN lobbies against the laws that have overextended the Interstate Commerce Clause (which was designed to handle State/State or US/Foreign Government Conflicts of Law) to the point where it is used to violate people's intrinsic 1st and 10th Amendment Rights.

1st Amendment Violation: Freedom of speech, which via Supreme Court opinion includes freedom of thought, is meaningless if the government can deny access to personal choice about what chemicals to modify your own thoughts with.

10th Amendment Violation: Supremacy clause. If the powers are not specifically enumerated, they are contained within the respective states, and to the citizens, respectively. Since almost all (if not all) states adopted some kind of legal language whereby they respect and obey the U.S. Constitution, they likewise agreed to respect the 1st Amendment.

Which is why Alcohol Prohibition had to be an actual Constitutional Amendment.

So while we, the citizenry of the United States don't have the freedoms yet, due to unconstitutional laws, to smoke cannabis wherever they like and consensually with whomever they like, I believe DPAN's message around 4/20 would be to fully support a return to those freedoms, so long as the enjoyment of those freedoms were absent harm to others.

Assuming that I'd blithely post up a DPAN message because I'm told to is neither very considerate, nor is it accurate.

Governor Signs Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Legislation

2009-04-27T10:51:00.006-04:00

On Friday, New York State Governor David Paterson signed into law historic reforms of the Rockefeller Drug Laws at a ceremony in Queens, New York.

The photo at left is DPA's Tony Papa -- who served twelve years under the Rockefeller Drug Laws before his sentence was commuted -- embracing David Paterson, who fought alongside him in 2003 during the first push for reforms. You can see a ton of great pictures of the event here.

There was palpable excitement, not to mention a bit of dehydration (due to a rather hot morning) in the crowd. Hundreds of reform advocates, people formerly incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, and their families gathered at the Elcore Youth and Adult Activities, Inc. -- a substance abuse treatment center where long-time Rocky reform champion Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubry used to work as a drug counselor.

While advocates applauded the changes to the Rocky law, they also pointed out that the reforms should have gone even further. For example, some mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses remain intact, and harsh penalties for low-level drug offenses continue on the books.

It is clear that there is still much work to do. However, these reforms represent the beginning of a paradigm shift in how New York State carries out drug policy. The Rockefeller Drug Laws are considered the grandfather of mandatory minimum drug sentences, and for years other states looked to New York as a "model state" in how it ~~ineffectively~~ treats drug users and sellers. The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions initiated by Rockefeller have been replicated in many other states. However, these states slowly began scaling back their laws after overwhelming, and pretty damning evidence surfaced (and continues to surface) that 1) they don't work and 2) they lead to egregious racial disparities and other severe collateral consequences.

With this Rocky reform, New York was one of the last states to substantially reform its mand. min. laws to allow judicial discretion in drug sentencing cases. I suppose it finally realized that the inception of Rocky opened up a pandora's box of ~~misguided~~ dangerous and (in my opinion) criminal licensing of vast powers to the state that prevent arbitration by a judge in drug sentencing matters.

Because, y'know, who really cares about the unwieldy powers of the state versus the defendant?

Supreme Court: Slow Down on Searches

2009-04-23T13:27:00.003-04:00

Could this country be making its way out of the wilderness on civil liberties issues? This week's Supreme Court ruling limiting vehicle searches gives me hope.

For years, cops have gotten away with searching cars when pulling people over for something as simple as a speeding stop. It's the whole reason we need tools like the ACLU bust card and the Flex Your Rights! video.

The new Supreme Court decision doesn't completely change that -- I'm sure people will still needlessly consent to warrantless searches. But what it does do is say it's not ok to search someone's car just because you've arrested them.

The case was brought by a guy named Rodney Gant, who was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He was handcuffed and nowhere near his car (and thus obviously not in danger of pulling out a hidden weapon or anything) when it was searched. They found cocaine in his jacket pocket and he ended up serving time for cocaine possession.

The court's response was essentially, "Wait a minute, these searches are supposed to keep officers safe or keep a suspect from destroying evidence pertaining to the arrest." Searches that don't fit this description are -- gasp -- a violation of our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

What's especially interesting here is that the Supreme Court majority which overturned Gant's conviction was made up of liberal (Ginsberg, Souter) AND conservative (Scalia, Thomas) justices. I can't see the decision having come down this way in the "civil liberties be damned, save us from ourselves and each other" fear-driven political climate of, say, five years ago.

I'm not going to get too excited yet, though. The court just heard another Fourth Amendment case on whether it's ok for school administrators to strip-search students to check for drugs -- Ben wrote a D'Alliance post about it a couple days ago. Our brains tend to short-circuit when someone says, "Think of the children!" So if the court upholds the Constitution on that one, I'll really be cheering.

Regarding the Blog Commentary for 4/20 and 4/21

2009-04-23T11:52:00.003-04:00

This post is an apology to D'Alliance readers who deserve professional standards from staff working for the Drug Policy Alliance.

While I stand by my blogs of both 4/20 and 4/21 as earnest, honest, and sincere (though controversial), I found myself getting caught up in a lot of unproductive (and often personal) argumentation/attacks in some of the commentary.

I take full responsibility for my failure to conform to the level of professionalism that is expected of me. While I may fail in the future (I am human), I will continue to try and continue to maintain a deep, sincere, and heartfelt commitment to drug policy in general, to meeting the Drug Policy Alliance's professional standards, and most importantly to you, our blog readers.

The blog readers are not wrong in expecting better of me. I am wrong in not trying hard enough to conform to that. For that I extend my deepest apologies.

-Malakkar Vohryzek

4/21 Aftermath: the Complexity of Numbers

2009-04-21T11:15:00.005-04:00

Wow, what a response I've received for calling out 4/20 celebration when so many cannabis enthusiasts are locked up! You'd think I wrote drug law myself to oppress the world. Or at least tried my best to oppress those partaking in cannabis. I'm happy to report that neither is true... but I would like to see more action taken towards the legalization/decriminalization of all drugs, cannabis amongst them.

I do believe that the cultural attachments to 4/20 make it a liability to reform. I don't think 4/20 celebration works to appropriate it towards the legalization movement. I think it counterproductive. I think if we stopped the celebration though, and put our collective noses to the grind, it could be a great day to actually work towards reform, with the understanding that once the war on cannabis is over, we'll have great cause to celebrate (and the remainder of the year work on all other aspects of the drug war, from needle exchanges, which SAVE LIVES, to Good Samaritan Laws, which SAVE LIVES, to diversion programs, which appear to be the necessary evil apparatus to get one step closer to collective liberation).

Evidently, my line about believing people should be able to do with their bodies whatever they want didn't get accepted as the gospel I intended it to be. I can't ask you to, since it would be a weird call to criminal activity, and thus could attach liability, but I will say for those celebrating in private: more power to you.

However, this post is about numbers, namely, the numbers that demonstrate my _lack_ of conflation around cannabis prohibition and prison/jail populations.

For the record:

State: 253,300 for drug offenses
Federal: 95,446 for drug offenses

The numbers here show about 350,000 in prison for specific drug offenses (not counting property crime), with 50,000 in state for marijuana alone, and 30,000 in the federal for marijuana alone. Bear in mind that multi-drug offenses are not classified as marijuana offenses, even though the primary point of contact is in many of these cases cannabis.

Jail populations: 25% in 2005 for drug offenses

Total revolving jail population for 2005: 780,000. That's 195,000 for drug offenses. And estimated at 90% for marijuana-related offenses.

"Although people may think that the Drug War targets drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' in 2007, 47.4 percent of the 1,841,182 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 872,720. Of those, 775,137 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone."

"For the people arrested, mostly young Blacks and Latinos, the 24 hours in
police custody and jail is a humiliating, degrading, alienating experience." [Marijuana Arrest Crusade]

The numbers are from the annual report from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics:

"In some states as many as 40 percent of prison admissions have been probation or parole violators. In Michigan, for instance, a recent study found that the growth in prison admissions from 1990 to 1997 was 41 percent for parole violators and 33 percent for probation violators.

In California, the proportion entering prison last year for parole violations was just under 70 percent"

So, while exact numbers are not knowable with the current statistic taking, at the bare minimum 80,000 in prison for marijuana alone. An unknown amount in prison for cannabis use as reason for parole/probation revocation (but if you take an average prison population, and with the exception of California's 70% over-representation of parole violators in prison, go with an average of 40%, then take the percentage attributed to failed/noncompliance on UA's), but a low-ball estimate is another 30,000. With California having a 70% recidivism rate, and 175,000 prisoner population, this figure could be safely about 10-15,000 higher, but I'm really lowballing here.

Over 870,000 arrests for marijuana alone - usually resulting in at least booking, if not a longer stay in jail, with a rolling average of 180,000 in for marijuana alone (multi-drug arrests classified with the "harder" drug no matter what the quantity), we're already over 300,000, and that's the lowball figure with rolling averages.

Not included: halfway houses, home confinement, forced rehab (which is custody, mind you, just medical instead of criminal, but is usually similarly oppressive, and in my book still 'locked up' especially since most are court-ordered, for addictions that don't exist). If anyone wants to guess at this number, I'm welcome to it. It looks like, at first blush, to be in the hundreds of thousands.

When I say over 500,000 co-cannabis enthusiasts are locked up during 420, I really do mean it, and I don't think it an exaggeration. When a lowball figure comes up with safely over 300,000 for marijuana alone (not counting multidrug cases, or other offenses whereby marijuana was involved) in prisons and jails, and an unknown but certainly in the hundreds of thousands enforced residential treatment, you best believe that the real number is at least twice that (especially if we count cannabis as point of contact for law enforcement).

Zero Tolerance for the 4th Amendment

2009-04-20T17:17:00.015-04:00

As a nation we implemented Zero Tolerance policies to ensure that our children are not sold or given drugs on school grounds. Any child that is found distributing or using drugs on school grounds needs to face strict and harsh penalties. They must be removed from their trusted friends, teachers and familiar social settings in order to face the harsh reality of the "War on Drugs." They must be denied access to any decent pubic education, top tier schools, student loans and hope of academic achievement in order for the war on drugs to be effectively won. Without these penalties young thugs will never learn to respect authority.

Zero Tolerance is not solely intended to stop the distribution of hard street drugs like heroin and crack, it is also applied to over the counter drugs like ibuprofen and Tylenol. Take for example the 2003 case of Savana Redding which is going before the Supreme Court this year. This 13 year old drug pusher was accused of giving ibuprofen and over-the-counter anti-inflammatory pills to her friends. While she did not have any incriminating evidence in her backpack or locker, a planner which she allegedly had 'loaned' to a 'friend' was recovered with the aforementioned contraband. Luckily this 'evidence' was enough to enact Zero Tolerance policies which allowed two school officials to strip search the girl, checking her bra and panties to ensure public safety and the right of students to receive an education in a drug free environment.

When Savana was found to be clean, her left wing raging liberal parents decided to sue the principal in court for of all things a violation of the 4th Amendment. I'll bet that this wouldn't be the case if the school officials had done their job proper and initiated a cavity search. I mean c'mon with liberal parents like that I'll bet ibuprofen wouldn't be the only thing they found, am I right?

What is clear to me is that Zero Tolerance is a strategy that we know is working, despite beatnik statistics which reveal their bias in their failure to demonstrate this fact. Today's children are out of control and must be closely watched in order to ensure public safety. But beyond this I know in my heart that Zero Tolerance attacks the source of our nation's problems.

Punishment for violating Zero Tolerance policies does not stop with the child, and this is because clearly the child's parents and by extension, family are to blame. Furthermore, none of the blame should be placed on the highly effective "Just Say No" or "DARE" education campaigns. This is why after a juvenile delinquent is identified, his or her family is burdened with the high cost of relocation or private schools after mandated expulsion. This financial stress coupled with lowered expectations of academic success will hopefully create enough discord within the family to teach them that America means business in the 'War on Drugs.'

Of course I could be wrong...

In Opposition of 4/20 Celebration

2009-04-20T10:29:00.003-04:00

Let me preface that I'm biased: I don't smoke cannabis. I did back in junior and senior high school, when there was little else to do with my life. My friends from my pre-prison, but post-high school days found it amusing that while I would drink beer, take LSD, psilocybin, MDMA, drink absinthe, and smoke opium, I wouldn't willingly smoke cannabis.

In fact, every 4/20, I had to resist the peer pressure of my friends demanding that I show some solidarity with them, and partake. 50% give in ratio. I always regretted it - cannabis was not friendly to my system.

That does not mean I'm opposed to the use of cannabis - I believe that what you do with your body is your business, not mine. I do, however, object to the culture that has spawned a yearly celebration of breaking the law.

It's not because I think the law is right. It's not because I think celebrating any chemical is not necessarily worthwhile. It's because while people are celebrating today, there are 500,000 of their co-smokers, co-dealers (since a customer is part of the deal, I don't try to discriminate against the people making up the supply chain, they exist solely as a function of demand), co-cannabis enthusiasts locked up in prisons and county jails across this country.

How does it look, this annual celebration? Juvenile. Like our opponents to sensible drug policy have more sense than us. They celebrate their victories in real terms with a frame that makes it look like they're actually accomplishing something (when in fact, prohibition has failed by all measures). Their markers lead to more funding, more acceptance in political circles, more acceptance as an appropriate way to handle drugs in our society.

The 4/20 celebrations, on the other hand, look imbecilic. Despite the miserable failure to radically alter the drug policy landscape, despite the hundreds of thousands of ruined lives from cannabis prohibition, these celebrations make those who appreciate or need cannabis look like people who are just happy to party.

Don't misread me: should policy change, and we as a country return to our senses and end prohibition, I'm in full support of having an annual celebration, and I don't want to be seen as someone who loves to ruin a party. However...

Until those 500,000 cannabis "offenders" walk out of the prisons and jails, 4/20 partying can go to hell. We need 4/20 protesting the senseless policy of cannabis prohibition-- demanding amnesty, clemency and/or pardon to all cannabis "offenders." Once we achieve something like that, then celebrate.

Parlay! Savvy?

2009-04-17T16:25:00.005-04:00

For the past month or more, I've been working on killing a bill that would criminalize khat in DC. It's been a challenging issue on several fronts. One of the most difficult obstacles has been that I think a lot of people just don't know what khat is or why they should care...

... that all changed earlier this week when the Washington Post published this sensationalist story about how the Somali pirates were going through khat withdrawal right before Navy SEAL snipers shot them.

Yeah.

When I read the article, I think I just stared at the screen for several seconds with my mouth agape. I couldn't imagine much worse publicity than linking khat with pirates. My immediate reaction was that we should just give up and pick another fight- that this was clearly a lost cause. But when I thought about it more, I started to get a little angry. I mean, what kind of responsible journalism was taking place that they were able to conclude that it was a lack of khat (a leaf with a coffee-like stimulant effect that is usually chewed) that was making them "edgy"- and not the five days without sleep on rough waters, or say, the very tense situation of a stand-off with U.S. military? After "3 rounds and 3 dead bodies," it certainly wouldn't have been possible to ask the pirates.

I think this story is just another example of how the media (and others) demonize drugs by linking them with xenophobic fears that they've helped instill in our society to begin with. And rather than being a reason to give up, it's the perfect example of why I should keep up the fight- and why we need to ensure that more prohibitionist policy does not get passed in DC or elsewhere.

Racist Drug War Hits the Big Screen: American Violet Opens Today!

2009-04-17T14:09:00.001-04:00

My friend and colleague, Tony Newman, has this to say about a new movie opening this weekend. I for one am always looking for a good movie to see (or add to my Netflix queue. Life is busy, people):

I have seen the movie American Violet and it is powerful! You will be outraged and inspired!

The film is based on the real life story of Regina Kelly, an African-American, single mother of four girls who was arrested in 2000 in a military-style drug raid. The raid resulted in the arrest of nearly 15 percent of the town's young black male population for felony cocaine distribution. Kelly was innocent.

Our good friend Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Reform Project represented her in a lawsuit against the county and the District Attorney (among other parties), for damages, which resulted in a settlement. More importantly, the case resulted in a change in Texas law, whereby now, cases cannot be prosecuted based solely on the claims of a single informant.

Hope you can check out this important film!

Tony

It's Not What You Think

2009-04-17T11:37:00.002-04:00

Or maybe it is, I don't know what you think about how cocaine is produced, or why some people in Colombia grow coca and turn the leaves into coca paste for further refinement and export. If you're like most of us U.S. Americans, you probably don't really think about it.

But as a drug war characterized by brutal military and police interventions continues to intensify in Mexico, Colombia and our own communities in the U.S., maybe we ought to think about and listen to the people directly affected by it. There's a new film that our friends at Witness for Peace just produced called Shoveling Water: War on Drugs, War on People that helps us do just that. It looks at the story of coca growing and the effects of U.S. policy -- fumigations specifically -- on communities in Colombia, and features folks from many walks of life in Colombia speaking for themselves about their experiences with U.S. policy. I highly, highly recommend watching it, and it's easy -- all 25 minutes are posted on Vimeo here.

Some of the farmers, as they're adding gasoline, baking soda, cement and other ingredients to the coca leaves to turn it into coca paste, asked whether President Obama would be seeing the film. When told it's possible, they were glad -- they wanted to show that "it's not how people think. It's not easy; you don't make a lot of money doing this."

Maybe I can't fully understand a reality so different from my own. Can't know what it feels like to be pushed off my land by mega-development projects or corporate plantations. To have my livelihood taken away, and not be able to feed my children enough food. To try to grow yuca and corn and plantains but to have these food crops fumigated -- killed -- by the government's planes dropping poison from the sky while the hardy coca bush bounces back within a matter of weeks.

But even if I won't ever totally get it, I can and should listen to people who are caught in a conflict that is being fueled by U.S. funding to further U.S. economic interests.

Listen when the mayor of one of Colombia's major cities tells us "half the population of our city is displaced" -- a region that our government has been fumigating for fifteen years. Where folks increasingly get awful rashes and respiratory ailments and women experience more reproductive complications than can be explained away.

Listen to a farmworker organizer telling us that "fumigations have been a plan of extermination of human and natural life, and have destabilized our lives."

Or a farmer asking plainly, "and now what do we do? Without our land, what do we do?"

Ten thousand farmers have reported their food crops fumigated. The UN agrees there is "credible evidence" that fumigations are harmful to human health.

Since fumigations began in full force across the country -- the year 2000 -- coca production has increased 23 percent. At the very least, it's time to change who we're listening to when our government decides where to put our resources.

Real Rockefeller Reform Finally a Reality

2009-04-10T16:44:00.004-04:00

The good news: this week, New York State Governor signed real Rockefeller Drug Law reform into law.

The bad news: it took almost 36 years for science, compassion, and reason to prevail with respect to NYS's draconian drug laws.

For all the purported bastion of liberalism in New York, the state had (past tense = yay!) the harshest drug sentencing provisions driven by mandatory minimum sentences in the country. The laws restricted judges from sentencing those convicted of drug offenses to drug treatment or other alternatives to incarceration even when it is clear they would benefit from them. It currently costs $45,000 to incarcerate someone for one year in NYS prisons, but it costs only $15,000 to divert someone into drug treatment. In fact, drug treatment is 15 more successful than prison at reducing drug related costs such as recidivism and petty crimes.

You can thank Governor Paterson for reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws here.

And you can read more about these historic reforms here. The battle in the New York State Senate was fierce, and the debate on the floor of the Senate to pass the reforms was filled with misinformation from opponents of the reform. One lawmaker even went as far as to say that "families will suffer, people will die, guaranteed." In reality, the drug laws killed entire communities of color. Proof? Click here to see the maps on New York cities of where people are serving time for drug offenses. You can also click here for the full report by the NYCLU about the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

For years, many organizations and individuals worked to reform these laws so that New York State could treat drug abuse and dependence as a public and safety issue, rather than a criminal justice one. And while these reforms could go further (and they will!), it is a dramatic step in the right direction. New York now has the momentum to become a model state by approaching drug dependence and abuse with science, reason, public health, and human rights.

Malakkar's Rant About the Media

2009-04-01T13:50:00.006-04:00

Just want to give a little perspective here, as I'm a former "drug dealer."

If we were such rampant bad guys, as we are portrayed in the media, if we were so widespread and commonplace in our complete moral depravity...

There's over 500,000 people in prison for drug offenses. That many morally-deficient people who are likely to rob, steal, and murder would mean you'd have a hell of a lot more homicides than you actually do.

Why am I saying this? Because right now, the hype is on. Drug Cartels along the border on a killing spree, kingpins operating in over 230 different cities, according to Cafferty of CNN. Yet 95% of drug dealers are like myself and Rudi Guiliani's friend Thomas Ravenol. And I hate to remind you of this, but we're your friends. We're your family. Most of us wound up dealing drugs because we were doing YOU a favor. That's right, a great majority of the 100 million of you that have tried drugs got it from one of us.

Yet somehow, we're all treated like monsters, when most of us were doing favors.

Why? Because the media is portraying us like this, and a great majority believe that your friend is somehow different than the stereotype portrayed, when the truth is, THEY'RE THE STATISTICAL AVERAGE. They're not sensational, that's why the media is ignoring us.

But when it comes to drumming up penalties, suddenly, the statistical average is instead treated like the demon-stereotype. Thanks mainstream media, I appreciated this, especially when it meant I got to do more time than most people do for a homicide. That was really, really productive. Rant over.

Dialing Under the Influence

2009-03-31T14:30:00.005-04:00

Eighteen year old Daniel Francis Reardon had too much to drink at a fraternity hazing at the University of Maryland. He passed out, and was lying on the floor when people started to worry. Some people wanted to call 911, some people wanted to just let him 'sleep it off' in another room. I'm sure the argument that sealed his fate went something like this, "he'll be fine, just let him sleep it off. Besides, if we call 911 the police will show up too, and you don't want to get in trouble do you?"

Daniel was just one more accidental overdose, an event which is becoming so common that it claims the lives over 22,000 Americans every year. Surprisingly, the majority of these deaths can be prevented with medical attention, but people are afraid to call for help because overdoses most commonly occur when people are engaging in illegal activity. In Daniel's case, it was underage drinking, but I'm sure you can imagine worse situations. As a result of this fear 911 is never called, called too late, or worse.

In the state of Maryland, there was some hope on the horizon. A 'Good Samaritan' law was being considered by the state of Maryland Legislature on March 19, 2009. This new law would have shielded people from arrest or drug prosecution if they were calling emergency services to help an overdose victim and not dealing drugs. The law was meant to encourage calls to the proper authorities regarding alcohol and other-drug related overdoses. Much to my disappointment this law was gutted and affords none of the protections that it initially held.

The spirit of the law had roots in a New Testament parable regarding a Jewish man who was robbed, beaten, and left to die by the road. While he lie there dying both a priest, and another Jewish man pass by without offering any help. Finally a Samaritan, a man whose nation hated the Jewish people, stopped to help and saved his life.

While the spirit of the lesson clearly applied to this law, the issue that this reform dealt with is much more serious. As the law currently stands, the justice system and law enforcement are obligated to punish many good Samaritans who call for help. Once 911 arrive on the scene, a Good Samaritan can be expected to answer questions from both the ambulance drivers and the police.

As a result the most 'at risk' community will hesitate to dial 911, or simply won't call at all. This 'at risk' group includes underage drinkers, drug users, parolees, convicts on probation, and people with outstanding warrants. Regardless of a person’s status in any of these groups, it should never be a crime to call 911 for someone in need.

It is a moral outrage that police should discourage anyone from dialing 911 in a life threatening emergency, especially if that call is made in order to save the life of another. The most disgusting part of the situation is the encouragement of moral turpitude for all parties involved. Onlookers, facing arrest or other punishments are encouraged to turn their back on overdose victims. Law enforcement is encouraged to arrest or investigate the Good Samaritan, if one calls them. The communities and 'at risk' groups which see this are further alienated from police and are discouraged from dialing 911. This cycle has to end.

The proposed law was a great solution to this cycle of alienation, but it failed because it seems that many members of the legislature care more about arresting Good Samaritans, than saving lives. Daniel Reardon and thousands of others died because some people in our community feel that drinking and narcotic laws are more important than dialing 911 in an emergency. The attitudes surrounding narcotics enforcement need to change and be replaced with more compassionate ideas which focus on harm reduction and building community trust.

You Want Proof Drug Prohibition is Crazy?

2009-03-30T18:12:00.009-04:00

Try this on for size:

Since 1980, there has been a 1200 percent increase of people in prison for drugs.
Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.

Direct from the offices of Senator Jim Webb.

His statement is about the facts: with 5 percent of the world's population, we've got 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Either we're the most evil people in the world five-fold over, or we've got some bad policies in place.

Which seems more reasonable? Believing that any people are five times more evil than any other sounds crazy to me (or just outlandishly racist/religionist/classist, which I would argue is crazy as well). The definition of crazy is referred to by some as doing the same thing twice, and expecting a different result. So if your answer to the evil/policy question was policy, why haven't they been significantly changed? Sounds crazy to me.

Drug Policy and Mexico: That's Not Change! That's More of the Same!

2009-03-25T15:13:00.007-04:00

Yesterday was another day of Humpty-Dumpty principles in the pursuit of drug prohibition.

Announced with great fanfare was once again the law enforcement/interdiction/criminal justice/military response to the problems with banned substances coming into the United States from Mexico, and U.S. Currency and weapons heading south from the United States into Mexico.

So what's the plan? According to Department of Homeland Secretary, Janet Napolitano, it's a new approach: we're increasing surveillance, interdepartment and international cooperation, and increasing the amount of law enforcement and/or military personnel to the border.

I'm not going to argue the ins and outs of this. I'm going straight for the jugular. The average high-security prison has 3 prisoners for every 1 guard. And drugs still wind up in high security prisons. If 100 million U.S. citizens have used or tried marijuana and other drugs, how many guards do you think you'll need at the border to stop drugs from coming into this country?

When your approach has consistently failed, to call something new when it's just throwing more money and people at the problem is a joke. If you are not changing your approach, it's actually known as the "humpty-dumpty" principle (because it just doesn't matter how many horses or men you use, you can't get it back together). And the humpty-dumpty principle is not change, it's more of the same for drug prohibition.

Drug Policies Working: Targeting People Across Borders

2009-03-25T15:00:00.006-04:00

Malakkar is right: prohibition hasn't kept drugs out of the US, and it's not about to start working.

But I'm not going to call it a failed approach -- I think it's functioning just as intended, targeting poor communities and communities of color here at home, and exporting those lessons to Colombia, Afghanistan and now Mexico.

"[President Obama] believes that the United States must continue to monitor the situation and guard against spillover into the United States," said today's White House Release on US-Mexico Border Security Policy. Spillover into the US? He's got that backwards. Mexico is plagued by violent armed struggle and drug trafficking. I'm sorry, but what country is the largest producer of arms? Oh right, the US. And the largest consumer of drugs? Yup, us again. And honestly, President Obama is worried about spillover from Mexico to the United States?

Maybe not so honestly. He wants to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with President Calderon in his campaign against the violent cartels (a president, who, incidentally, stole the election in Mexico much like Bush did in 2000). Such a campaign on cartels is neither sensible nor noble, and in Colombia, where women's associations, workers, indigenous peoples and campesinos face intense state repression, it's clear that the government can all too easily label its opposition "narco-terrorists" and launch campaigns against them. Colombian President Uribe's administration has called human rights workers terrorists on national radio, inviting paramilitary attacks on their lives. What with lots of US funding and training supporting both governments, it's not far fetched to expect the same behavior from President Calderon.

Today, Obama promised $700 million toward Mexican law enforcement. Law enforcement like the state and federal police that opened fire on the APPO in Oaxaca, a coalition of peoples' movements which formed in 2006 to support striking teachers? Huh.

He's ordering the DOJ, DHS and Treasury to strengthen personnel and efforts along the Mexico-US border. Who will no doubt lock up more people fleeing economic and political violence and trying to migrate to the US.

Thirdly, he promised to renew his commitment to reduce demand here at home. It appears to be a slightly better strategy than adding guns to a war and expecting there to be less violence. But a closer look at the specifics yields little hope. After a long litany of efforts aimed at interdiction stand these lonely three aimed at reducing demand:

Money already spent last year on this. (Gosh, thanks. That's relevant).
Integrating substance abuse services into national healthcare systems. (So, adding more tasks, but not demonstrably more staff, to a failing healthcare system's already overflowing plate? Brilliant).
Expanding the treatment capacity of drug courts. (Making people go to treatment under threat of incarceration? That's neither fair nor, I suspect, helpful to anyone).

No where does he acknowledge that maybe drug users don't all need treatment, or the economic reality of the drug trade. Prohibition means a lucrative black market, especially in hard times, whether that's our economy suffering a recession or the Mexican economy which has to deal with that on top of fifteen years of what is essentially corporate colonization under NAFTA (enforced with arms made and soldiers trained by the US).

Prohibition also means hundreds of thousands of people of color, women, poor folks and other nonviolent drug law offenders locked up or killed. I think this is by design, and serves to further a warmongering system that takes peoples' land, labor and resources by force for profit.

But while the drug policies of today may be working to divide and exploit the people, there is a long history of resistance, and the survival of millions because of it. I'm really grateful to be a part of it today. And really excited that there are so many opportunities for different approaches to making change. And really interested to know what you think!

Drug Sniffing Dogs and the Drugs They Sniff

2009-03-23T11:35:00.003-04:00

Inspiration from, The New York Times, March 22, 2009 Sunday, Late Edition - Final
"Drug-Sniffing Dogs Patrol More Schools"

There's only three quick points I wish to make about this:

1) Isn't using dogs without any reasonable suspicion kinda like getting around the 4th Amendment by Canine Proxy?

2) Don't military dictatorships and fascists use dogs on their own people?

3) If drugs are so damn bad, why do you need dogs in the first place? If (some) drugs are really that bad, how come no one seems able to detect who is, and who is not, doing them?

In the meantime, using dogs on our kids is pretty disturbing, and decimates any hope of developing a solid core of trust. Which is understandable - using dogs means you don't trust them in the first place.

I'm still curious about how they handle money, since a large portion of U.S. Currency at one time was contaminated with minute quantities of cocaine.

Treacherous Motives: D.A.'s & Rockefeller Law

2009-03-18T13:30:00.005-04:00

You can call me biased, or you can read the Buffalo News, specifically, a short piece on Rockefeller written by Bernice K. Leber:

"A bill recently passed in the Assembly would return discretion to judges and allow them to tailor penalties to the facts and circumstances of each offender. This is of paramount importance if we are to restore balance."

Who is this person, who isn't calling it a "Drug Dealer's Bill of Rights"? Why, it's the President of the New York State Bar Association.

Which makes you wonder: since it's the District Attorneys who are essentially fouling up real reform so that they can continue to dominate the criminal justice approach and process towards (some) drug (types) offenders, where is their loyalty? By taking and passing the bar, it's supposed to be to the fair and equitable administration of the law.

When the President of the Bar for New York says things are off-balanced, shouldn't these District Attorneys fall into line with him, and work towards re-balancing?

Not when their motives are treacherous to a fair and just society. D.A.'s (with some exceptions, most notably Soares) too often lose sight to the fact they're supposed to be a part of a process, not the ringleaders of it. Even further along this path are the truly treacherous, who have traded justice for power, and even now seek to continue their stranglehold on New York. They do this while leeching resources from the taxpayer to fund more misery in the State of New York, as well as their continued grabs for more and more power.

Shame on them all, and the President should consider disbarring them for lying about reform, and for manipulating the public in their maniacal pursuit of power.

Update: Rockefeller Reform

2009-03-17T11:50:00.005-04:00

DPA Network is working hard in the New York state legislature to roll back some of the most draconian mandatory minimum sentences in the country. The Rockefeller drug laws mandate extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Supposedly intended to target major dealers (kingpins), most of the people incarcerated under these laws are convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses, and many of them have no prior criminal records.

Here's an update on our efforts from gabriel sayegh, DPA Director, State Organizing and Policy Project:

Two weeks ago the Assembly passed A.6085, a moderate and sensible proposal which balances public health and safety. Sponsored by Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry and many others, A.6085 includes each of the four components of real reform and is a significant step towards ending the Rockefeller Drug Laws. A description of the bill components is below, and you can read the bill for yourself here. The Assembly could have gone even farther with their proposal -- this is not full repeal of the laws, for instance -- but A.6085 is an important step in the right direction and deserves support.

Now the matter must be addressed by the Senate. A companion bill, S.2855, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Eric Schneiderman. The Senate is considering the measure now, but needs to hear from supporters of real reform. Governor David Paterson has suggested he may support a watered-down compromise, and he, too, needs to hear from supporters of real reform.

Timeline:

It now appears likely that the issue will be folded into the budget negotiations that are scheduled to wrap up by April 1 -- less than two weeks. This means we have less than two weeks to win real reform of these failed, draconian laws, and finally set New York in a new direction, towards a public health and safety approach to drugs. Now is the time for action.

Real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws must include four key components: Restoration of judicial discretion in drug cases, including for second felony offenses; Sentencing reform, to make the system more fair, equitable and just; Expansion of community-based treatment and alternatives to incarceration; and Retroactive sentencing relief -- allowing individuals unjustly incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws to apply for resentencing, specifically those who received no relief under the 2004/05 reforms.

If you live in New York state, you can help change these laws by sending a message to the NY legislature here.

Today's Fresh Outrage: UN Meetings on Drugs

2009-03-17T10:26:00.006-04:00

Harm Reduction and drug policy reform activists have come out in force this week and last to protest the "business as usual" rhetoric at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs meetings in Vienna. You can see a compelling video of the protests posted by our friends at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, read daily updates from the ground at the UNCND blog hosted by IHRA and read news articles here, here and here.

Today's fresh outrage: Singapore standing by its policy of corporal punishment (including caning and the death penalty) for those convicted of drug charges, even while being condemned by the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Update: Obama administration issues statement that includes support for needle exchange, in a reversal of Bush administration policies.

"Drug Dealer Bill Of Rights."

2009-03-17T10:16:00.002-04:00

This is the 'scary' phrase invoked at every serious attempt at reform. It is beyond unoriginal. It is beyond pathetic. The only thing worse than how I can describe it, is how it still manages to work, even though it's a total lie.

Diane Feinstein, in her best imitation of a die-hard drug warrior, or a pretty decent clone of John Walters, invoked it against Proposition 5 in California (the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act). But that's not why it rings a bell with New Yorkers. It rings a bell because on March 14, 2009, the equally-intellectually-challenged Daily News invoked it in an editorial describing the Assembly's attempt to reform Rockefeller Drug Law.

I know what Diane Feinstein's angle is: she has so little in the way of actual competence in legislation that she depends on picking on methamphetamine abusers (considered pretty low in the societal hierarchy, just barely above child molesters, and often equated as such) and other drug addicts and their suppliers to promote herself and her poll numbers.

For whatever reason, it works. If you can't be great, evidently you don't even need to stand on the shoulders of great people, you can also just trample over the bodies of those that are acceptable to step on. I'm pretty sure that Diane Feinstein, and whomever is benefiting at Daily News, are both very comfortable with being little more than modern renditions of witch hunters, crusaders, inquisitors, or their enablers. It's disgusting, cowardly, and craven behavior, since they do know better. It's also an easy, effective, and comfortable way to promote themselves and enjoy more power and security.

We should not be so comfortable, however, in falling prey to the EXACT SAME CORNBALL PHRASE. At this point, the phrase should be like the color-coded threat assessment (did anyone notice when they stopped using this all the time on the 24-hour cable news networks? I don't watch TV, so I don't know when): a total joke, and ignored.

What we cannot ignore, is that treatment works. Sovereignty over oneself, absent harm to others, works and is supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Finally, we can't ignore that prohibition policies and tactics fail - and never have succeeded.

The Assembly isn't proposing a 'drug dealer bill of rights,' it's proposing a damn solution, something the people at Daily News evidently fear. Are they sponsored by the prison guards? Parole officers? Or the prosecutors? They're certainly not sponsored by New York taxpayers, who've been bilked now for 36 years of failed Rockefeller Drug Law!

Prohibitionists Have Bulls, Not Rats.

2009-03-17T09:55:00.008-04:00

Longtime heralded evidence of cocaine's wickedness are cited studies of rats choosing cocaine over food until they starve to death, as evidence of cocaine's addictiveness.

The unfortunate thing is that eventually, truth leaks out:

Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH. "Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward". PLoS ONE. 2007;2(8):1–10.

Cocaine-addicted rats, within two days, quit taking cocaine if they're offered sucrose or saccharin laced water as an option. With rats not already addicted to cocaine, they switch to the water with sweetener immediately.

This brings up something truly insidious: soda might be more addictive than cocaine. You can swing this two ways: we need to BAN ALL SWEETENERS, or we can maybe relax a little bit about cocaine.

No matter which way we swing though, we need to get these bulls out of drug policy, they're leaving a little too much of their feces in the prohibitionists' camp. Just wait, first week of April, they'll be a preliminary report about decriminalization in Spain. Anybody want to guess what happened? Remember, the prohibitionists say decriminalization will lead to skyrocketing use rates...

...but then again, they're still stuck with bulls and their...

Global Warming Hasn't Hit Rockefeller Drug Law

2009-03-11T10:18:00.002-04:00

Used to be that moving at a glacial pace meant slow. Global warming (or if you prefer, climate change) has our glaciers moving about and dropping off in the sea faster than college students in Cancun (when they're not being watched by anti-drug police commandos).

Someone needs to get this glacial change of pace notice to the New York Senate and Governor's Office. While the New York State Assembly finally got on board with meaningful change for drug law (moving the issue into the realm of public health, where we know we can make a difference, instead of criminal codes, where we've only known decades of failure), the Governor's office and the Senate have proposed substantially smaller changes. Changes so small, in fact, they only stop the most egregious of injustices, leaving the more regularly complete affronts to justice intact. While I can't cover the entirety of all the bills, I can cover two small sections where the differences are best understood: the need for a public health approach (as opposed to the language of criminal law, and "repeat offenders") and prosecutors.

For the first section, the Assembly bill provides for drug treatment and diversion to help people restore their lives from the dysfunction of a drug-addicted lifestyle. Under the Assembly bill, citizens of New York with drug problems (not "repeat offenders") get help back to successful, law-abiding and tax-paying life.

The proposed Senate and Governor's bill both fail to provide sufficient treatment, then unduly punish citizens. They're not even really considered people anymore, the lexicon has them labeled "repeat offenders." If you recognize people are in a bad circumstance, but won't help them get out of it, then why label and punish them? If you can't use funding to help make their lives better, then why are you going to use funding to make their lives worse? What kind of lopsided logic does this follow?

The same lopsided logic that powers the second section of Rockefeller Reform differences that I wish to discuss. The second section is where you see the actual truth behind the opposition to the Assembly bill: the prosecutors retain all power and almost all discretion in the proposed Senate and Governor's bill. The Assembly bill would force prosecutors to charge according to the crime, not create trumped-up charges for defendants to plea-bargain out of (with, of course, some kind of consideration given to the prosecutors for allowing the plea to happen). The Assembly bill would allow drug users a chance at a clean slate - something the prosecutors are loathe to give, since a dirty slate becomes another negotiating item that they can use to coerce defendants. The Assembly bill is about restoring the power of discretion to judges - a check against the prosecutors having formidable power even without Rockefeller drug laws. There hasn't been one realistic discussion of why all, or even most, discretion in drug cases should rest with prosecutors - our nation is supposed to be a system of checks and balances. Without checks and balances, disasters are almost guaranteed. Disaster in this case are overflowing prisons, epidemic HIV transmission rates, and drug addicts not receiving treatment; this is the Rockefeller legacy.

If the invisible hand of the market is what lead to our current DOW and Economic disaster, it's the invisible hand of the prosecutors that has lead the continuation of Rockefeller drug laws. Paterson himself stated, "I can't think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller drug laws." However, rather than risk offending the prosecutors and their maniacal hold on power, the Senate and Governor have proposed reforming Rockefeller in a way that applies minor change, but keeps the status quo. This is not 2005, and we don't have to settle for minor fixes because of a Republican-controlled Senate. The People of New York have spoken, and want change, not more of the same.

WWJD?

2009-03-10T20:21:00.003-04:00

Maybe it's common knowledge, although it wasn't to me having grown up without religion, but apparently the term "Good Samaritan" comes from the New Testament. I only know this now because, not wanting to embarrass myself, I thought I'd pop over to dictionary.com before blogging about the upcoming Good Samaritan bill hearing in Maryland's House of Delegates (say what you will, I think correct spelling is a virtue). As the story goes, as told through The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, a Jewish man was left on the side of the road to die after being beaten and robbed. The only person to come to his aid among several passersby was a gentleman from Samaria, often thought to be the enemies of the Jews. And so the parable of the Good Samaritan emerged, with Jesus forcing critics to admit that the robbed man's true neighbor was indeed the Samaritan.

So what's this got to do with drug policy, you might ask? As a charter member of the church of the golden rule, I don't often like to reference organized religion, but in this case I think the origin of the phrase speaks pretty clearly to the aim of the pressing legislation. On March 19, the Judiciary Committee will hear arguments for and against House Bill 1273-The Limited Immunity for Alcohol or Drug-related Overdose Incidents (Drug Overdose Good Samaritan Bill), which under certain circumstances, would protect the person who calls 911 in the event of an overdose from being prosecuted for possession of drugs. Too often, at a party or among friends, unnecessary alcohol and other drug overdoses occur because people are "left on the side of the road". Only, it's not out of disinterest or a lack of caring. It's because people are scared. According to Naomi Long, Director of DPA's D.C. Metro Project, "Research shows that the main reason people do not call is fear of being arrested." This proposed measure would be the first step in minimizing that fear and ensuring that people get medical attention when they need it.

We all could use a neighbor in our lives: someone to come to our aid and lend a hand when no one else will. It's not about drugs or jail or religion- although some could say it's about taking a page from the New Testament and being a Good Samaritan. Check back with DPA in the next week for ways that you can support this legislation and other policy reform in DC and Maryland.

The Case for (a Dialogue on) Heroin Assisted Treatment in Baltimore

2009-03-07T13:27:00.004-05:00

In early February, The Baltimore Sun ran a story about a new study on heroin maintenance as a drug treatment option that was conducted on behalf of the Abell Foundation (the full report can be found here). While the article underscores the publication's findings that clinical heroin programs could be an important part of reducing drug-related crime, it lends unnecessary support to the opinions of policymakers and others who respond to innovative ways to consider drug reform and how we approach substance use with fear and an inflated sense of morality.

The report, "Can Heroin Maintenance Help Baltimore? What Baltimore can learn from the experience of other countries", was carried out by Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, College Park. Noting the disproportionate impact of heroin addiction on the city of Baltimore despite recent moves to both employ tougher enforcement and provide greater treatment provisions, Reuter turned an eye towards trial programs being conducted in The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. Often the pioneer in drug policy reform as well as models of harm reduction, these European and Canadian examples reveal how heroin-assisted treatment has contributed to significant declines in crime carried out by those involved in the programs. Furthermore, contradicting allegations put forth by critics, the research shows that heroin maintenance is a transitional state and not, in fact, a terminal one; thus, a large percentage of individuals go on to pursue other treatment options including methadone maintenance and abstinence.

Although Reuter himself concedes that heroin-assisted treatment would be both expensive and unlikely to attract high rates of participation- at least at first- the current political and public climates make it virtually impossible that we'll see such a program implemented, even in an experimental setting. For one, heroin is a Schedule I drug, meaning that the federal government is responsible for approving its use and distributing it for research. NIDA has a notoriously cumbersome application procedure, the most common result being rejection. Beyond that, as interested parties remark in The Baltimore Sun article, any person to even propose an idea such as heroin maintenance would be immediately villified. This stems from misinformation, contorted values that see incarceration as the only response to heroin abuse, and a perspective of drug use that is not rooted in health, compassion, and human rights.

Baltimore city health commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein argues that heroin-assisted treatment is an unwise option given the cost and lack of proven results, however, he also asserts that other treatment programs remain grossly underfunded. And ultimately that speaks to the biggest problem of all: a lack of access to any kind of service. Without available treatment, drug-related crime and ensuing social consequences will remain a challenge for Baltimore and the rest of the country. Therefore, it's worthwhile to discuss not only ways to increase funding, but the full extent of treatment options in order to navigate a path towards a healthier population.

Peter Reuter states it well when he says, "The potential for gain, however, is substantial. Even in the aging heroin-addict population, there are many who are heavily involved in crime and return frequently to the criminal justice system. Their continued involvement in street markets imposes a large burden on the community in the form of civil disorder that helps keep investment and jobs out. If heroin maintenance could remove 10 percent of Baltimore's most troubled heroin addicts from the streets, the result could be substantial reductions in crime and various other problems that greatly trouble the city. That is enough to make a debate on the matter worthwhile."

Mothers in Prison

2009-03-06T17:19:00.002-05:00

With International Women's Day coming up this Sunday, I'm reminded of a story I heard last summer on NPR.

It's about a program in Ohio that allows women to have their babies with them in prision while they are serving their sentences. You can listen here.

From the NPR description:

Women are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. prison population. At the Ohio Reformatory, the warden estimates that 75 percent of the 2,300 inmates housed there are mothers.

Seventy-five percent! Since most women who are in prison are there for nonviolent offenses, I can't help but wonder, how does society benefit here? Is punishing these women really worth the damage caused to entire families when they are locked up?

One of the women interviewed for the story explains that she is serving time because she was caught with weed in her purse. Creating a program so she can share a cell with her baby seems to miss the obvious: It would be simpler, cheaper and less traumatic to have refrained from locking her up in the first place.

Talk about treating the symptom rather than the underlying disease.

But at least there is a program at all; such programs are the exception rather than the rule. My heart aches for all those women who are separated from their children completely when they are put behind bars.

Insanity Continues Unabated in Drug Policy

2009-03-02T10:21:00.003-05:00

Too many to get too far into depth, let's just glance over some recent things stirring (limiting my comments on each item to about a paragraph on each):

The L.A. Times, Saturday February 28, 2009 Home Edition Editorial Section featured commentary about a new approach other than the drug war for dealing with the harms of some drugs in our society. Once again, however, they made the error of citing as fact a theory that has been blasted by critics for decades: "And though marijuana doesn't cause anywhere near the number of deaths of tobacco and alcohol, it is a gateway drug to more dangerous substances, and its decriminalization could worsen the impact of drugs on our communities."

Really? Let's take a trip to Amsterdam, and compare drug usage rates, and the impact of drugs in their communities as a result of de facto marijuana decriminalization. Why is Gateway Theory and what I call Condoning Theory (a.k.a. the logic of thinking harm reduction encourages use, which is akin to thinking fire extinguishers encourage arson) accepted? Neither has ever survived scientific scrutiny, yet the main stream media continues to cite it like the gospel.

Moving on... The New York Times on March 1st featured an article on the Rockefeller Reform Bill in the New York State Assembly, due for a vote on Tuesday. Most telling about this bill is the opposition: "'The district attorney's input would be taken out of the equation,' said Bridget G. Brennan, the special narcotics prosecutor for New York City. 'When I look at cases, I want to have the discretion as gatekeeper, to make sure that somebody I put back out in the community is not going to pose a public safety threat. A district attorney has a much clearer picture of a community's concerns.'"

Here, the District Attorneys are basically saying if they don't have total discretion, as opposed to judges, then they don't have any input. This, despite the fact they hold the keys to charging individuals of crimes. They are always the gatekeepers - they choose to charge people with crimes. The District Attorneys in opposition to Rockefeller Reform border on honest, but still cloak their desires in the frame of "community concerns." The reality? They're feeling their powerbase threatened, and are responding with the usual tactics: strike fear into the public, and bemoan their diminished capacities (since right now, prosecutorial power in New York is nearly absolute over criminal cases).

In the Associated Press, Sunday, March 1st Washington Dateline, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted that the U.S. Military could assist Mexico in fighting its drug war. Perhaps we ought to file this report under "Has anyone paid attention to opium production in Afghanistan post-U.S. invasion?"

I'm not trying to denigrate the military. I am trying to say that counter-controlled substances operations are not what the military is for, even as our police forces militarize in the 'war on (some) drugs.' I would like for our troops to stay out of harm's way, especially when the harms are caused by reaction to our drug policies. These cartels wouldn't exist if it were not the insane profits generated by a black market in some substances.

Amidst the insanity? An interesting position espoused from Gavin Newsome. In Friday, February 27, 2009's San Francisco Chronicle, the mayor of San Francisco is quoted as not being in favor of marijuana taxation and regulation. There are two possible interpretations of this: 1) he has no idea about reform on drug policy, or 2) he doesn't care about cutting down on crime anymore. I mean, what other explanation can there be, when he said this just a year and a half ago? He said "end the war on drugs," but now, when given an opportunity to support one such measure in ending the war, he opposes! I feel the same way about Mr. Newsome in terms of Proposition 5: he remained silent on it. You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you don't like Prop 5, suggest an alternate solution. If you like Prop 5, but consider it political suicide, just say something to that effect. We can handle the truth, Mr. Newsome. Really, we can.

And on the offense front, "What Would Jesus Do?" - The Guardian reported in its Friday, February 27th, 2009 Edition that the Vatican is opposing harm reduction programs suggested for the United Nations Declaration of Intent. Namely, needle exchange. It was suggested by the Vatican that using 'drugs' is 'anti-life' and that supplying clean needles would support drug use liberalization. They are operating with the foundation that encouraging 'drug' use by any means is anti-life, as in, when Jesus turned water to wine, which contains alcohol, a drug, he was being anti-life.

Now I'm not religious. And I'm not blasting Catholicism here. I am saying that the statement from the Vatican is utterly ridiculous, and counter-productive to helping people with serious drug use issues. As I've stated before: you don't need to give out clean needles to encourage people to inject heroin. They'll do it on their own, with or without clean needles. If people don't believe me, they can check the sky-high HIV transmission rates among heroin users without access to clean needles. By contrast, there isn't a single scientific document cited by anyone that suggests distributing clean needles increases drug usage rates. I've never seen it. Only baseless assertions of the "Condoning Theory", once only the purview of the drug warriors, but now adopted by the main stream media and even the Vatican.

About faces in drug policy, gateway theory, condoning theory, amnesia on opium in Afghanistan, it's been a great week for insanity in drug policy, politics and the reporting on it. While there is humor to be found in all of this, there is also an urgent need for some kind of mass-treatment: we are a society that is completely insane when it comes to some drugs.

So what to do? Support the New York Assembly's Rockefeller Reform Bill, call Gavin Newsome and ask him to actually come up with a solution for a change, write to President Obama and let him know that committing troops to combat a problem that drug demand and drug policies in the U.S. are creating in the first place is foolhardy, let your bishop or priest know that they need to argue towards saving lives, even the least among us, rather than arguing against "what ifs" that aren't supported by any evidence.

Finally, get outraged! We know better in terms of drug policy, so why aren't we acting better?

Hungarians Challenge UN Claims About Dutch Drug Use

2009-02-27T10:16:00.007-05:00

Our friends over at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union wanted us to let you know about a project they have launched to pressure the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to substantiate his statements about Dutch drug use:

The site highlights Dr. Frederik Polak, a Dutch psychiatrist, who asked a simple question to Mr. Antonio Maria Costa, the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime: "why the level of cannabis use is lower in the Netherlands, where cannabis is legally available for adults, than in many other countries with more restrictive drug policies?"

He has not received a proper answer for more than a year now! Why? Because the answer to this question is that the current international drug control system does not work: the application of criminal law as a tool to reducing drug use is totall ineffective and causes more harmthan good.

On the site Dr. Polak calls you to ask the same question from Mr. Costa and demand integrity and responsibility from a high level UN official.

So, check out the snazzy site and take action.

Thanks go to Peter Sarosi for letting us know about this effort!!!

The Science of Addiction and Recovery: 2/19/09

2009-02-26T13:30:00.002-05:00

Braving the cold weather, members of the DC community came out in mass to hear Flo Hilliard of the University of Wisconsin-Madison speak about "The Science of Addiction and Recovery". Hilliard conducted the training as part of Faces & Voices of Recovery, a DC-based organization that seeks to unite individuals in long-term recovery from alcohol and other drug addiction in order to change public perception. The training was prepared with the assistance of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Hillard presented a convincing argument for the disease model of addiction from a neurobiology perspective. Two of the most important take-home points:

the science of addiction is important for recovery advocacy and the recovery community because it reduces the stigma and blame directed at a recovering person and can assist her/him in the recovery journey; and
the brain has the ability to adapt and heal, thus recovery is possible!

Naomi Long, Director of DPA's DC Metropolitan Area program, concluded the evening by introducing an idea for a future "Ban the Box" campaign to enthusiastic responses. The event was hosted by the DC Recovery Community Alliance, which operates through a grant funded by the Drug Policy Alliance. It was held in the conference room of the Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration. Over 150 people registered for the event.

What's Up in Upstate NY? ReconsiDer Knows

2009-02-21T15:25:00.006-05:00

In New York, sometimes the City (as in New York City) get's all the attention. But those of us who care about drug law reform in NY--especially getting rid of the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws-- ignore Upstate NY at our peril. Luckily, Nicky Eyle and the good folks at ReconsiDer are hard at work. They've recently launched an online outpost of reason in a sea of drug war insanity--the ReconsiDer blog. The blog covers drug policy around the world, in the US, and, of course, in NY. ReconsiDer works to

educate the public about drugs and drug policies, including the problems caused by using criminal sanctions to regulate the distribution of drugs and alternatives to the use of criminal sanctions as regulatory policy instruments that are being employed by other democratic nations around the globe. (from the ReconsiDer website)

That sounds good to me. Check 'em out.

We Are A Nation of Cowards

2009-02-18T22:51:00.006-05:00

Today, newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first public speech, called us a "nation of cowards" when it comes to talking about race. And he's right. I had some hope after the whole Reverend Wright debacle, culminating in Obama's eloquent speech on race in the United States, that maybe the topic of race would be broached, and the 50 gazillion pound elephant in the room could begin to move towards the exit. But that didn't happen. Hell, I thought it might even happen after Katrina, after Wolf Blitzer so eloquently spoke of those left behind as "so poor...and so black." Nope. Nothing.

As the nation's top law enforcement official, AG Holder has an upper hand and the podium (literally) to start this conversation on race. It is especially relevant because he oversees the criminal justice system -- and it is painfully obvious there is a lack of racial equity within that system. And being that I work in drug policy, I have a pretty good starting point for this conversation. Hint: it rhymes with shrug shore.

As drug policy advocates, the statistics highlighting the racial disparity created by the shrug shore confront us daily. There are plenty of statistics we use to illustrate the point, which you can find succinctly listed at Drug War Facts. But while that paints a picture with broad strokes, sometimes we fail to realize that real people make up these statistics.

It honestly would be irresponsible for AG Holder to kick the elephant (ie. calling us a "nation of cowards"), but not bring up the shrug shore. While the shrug shore is only one example of the institutional racism that underlines many of our foundations, it is a profound starting point (or at least one of many). Holder is, after all, the person responsible for prosecuting people convicted of shrug shore offenses. By not utilizing his position to address the issue of race, he is really the biggest coward of all.

Note: while it is true that the shrug shore affects whites and people of color alike, there is such a stark disparity of impact that there is an urgent need for the shore to be understood through the institutional racism that the shrug shore breathes, and ultimately reinforces. This, of course, is not the only lens (one of many) through which to view the shrug shore, but to me, it is certainly one of the more obvious ones.

Control of Framed Issues

2009-02-18T09:33:00.002-05:00

One of the principle problems in trying to effectuate change in the model of drug prohibition is that for the past thirty-nine years, since Nixon declared (some) drugs public enemy #1, drug prohibitionists have dominated the language and concepts behind our nonsensical approach to drug policy.

That the main stream media accepts these concepts without scrutiny, and in facts furthers them by publishing them without any requirement of proof, without any true questioning of it.

The latest piece of drivel I read from the drug prohibitionists was in Monday's (February 16, 2009) Seattle Times. It was a call to the Obama administration, concerning the possible selection of Gil Kerlikowske as Drug Czar, and how to handle drug policy. It was written by Kevin A. Sabet, a former senior adviser to drug czars in the Clinton and Bush administrations. The quotable:

"Embrace innovative ideas that have been shown to work. Drug policy is rarely a bone of contention among Democrats and Republicans. Everyone believes in prevention, law enforcement and treatment. And legalization remains (rightfully) the stuff of dreams (nightmares, really, when you take into account the heavy social costs that would result from a free, commercial market for illegal drugs)."

Let's break this down line by line, as the Seattle Times published this without telling this hack to get things straight.

"Embrace innovative ideas that have been shown to work." Decriminalization and regulation have been shown to work. Tobacco use prevention programs have been shown to work. By this first sentence, it would appear Mr. Sabet thinks we should move away from prohibition, which is now centuries old in concept, a century old in implementation, and a complete and utter failure.

"Drug policy is rarely a bone of contention among Democrats and Republicans." That much is mostly true, they're both equally bone-headed, and contend with each other to be the largest idiots on the planet in terms of drug policy. If our implementation is like calling a cop to treat somebody who has a flu, our policy development is like having a real estate lawyer plan the corrective surgery of your gaping chest wound - except even the real estate lawyer would most likely try to get expert opinion from a surgeon first (if nothing else, than just as a means of preventing counter suit).

"Everyone believes in prevention, law enforcement and treatment." Hold up a second, Mr. Sabet. You just jumped the frame - "everyone" does not believe in this. A bunch of isolated politicians in Washington D.C. and everyone on the public roll of our current policies believes in these three pillars. Really, though, they only believe in the middle ground. Prevention services are ridiculous, as the (rightly) maligned DARE program shows. Further, treatment isn't available to everyone - in fact, without law enforcement involvement, treatment is hard to come by, a counter-intuitive approach to treatment. Finally, the one you put in the middle - law enforcement, demonstrates how you're using language to bamboozle readers. An honest assessment of this sentence looks more like this:

'Everyone with a stake in the current policies, INCLUDING MYSELF, believe in INTERDICTION, INVESTIGATION, ARREST, PROSECUTION, INCARCERATION, oh, and if there's any money left over, treatment and prevention.'

The final sentence:

"And legalization remains (rightfully) the stuff of dreams (nightmares, really, when you take into account the heavy social costs that would result from a free, commercial market for illegal drugs)."

Mr. Sabet reveals the power of the frame here. He doesn't even need to justify any of these statements, he just makes them, without any evidence, without any backup, and the Seattle Times has no problem publishing it.

Legalization is the stuff of dreams? Tell that to the ex-Presidents of Latin America. While they didn't out and out say full scale legalization, they did recommend it for cannabis, and for the remainder to pursue a European Approach. The European Approach, for the most part, is decriminalization. Which leads to legalization. Which leads to regulated markets.

Which leads to the next part of Mr. Sabet's dishonesty: "nightmares, really, when you take into account the heavy social costs that would result from a free, commercial market for illegal drugs."

Whom is advocating a completely free, open commercial market for all substances? Where does this market exist for currently decriminalized substances, like hydrocodone, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, alcohol, etc.? As far as I can tell, all of them have some kind of regulation to them, and of them, only alcohol causes a large degree of social costs.

Yet Mr. Sabet isn't talking about regulating alcohol, or criminalizing it. Nor should he. The evidence has been in for decades: prohibition and free market are two ends of a spectrum. It is doubtful that either extreme end of the spectrum are appropriate for anything. Some measure of regulation keeps the consumer safe, keeps the companies that sell products safe, and everyone informed. How's that for a novel approach? Trusting people to use information, and respecting their rights to their personal liberty.

But Mr. Sabet doesn't have to address any of the above points I'm making, nor will the Seattle Times call him to task on it. Much like jumping on the bandwagon of "crack babies" in the 90's (a fabrication), the media exploits the lies of the drug war for its own gain, and become part of the "everyone" that Mr. Sabet talks about the beliefs of.

We have to seize control of the frames, if we're ever to change the battlefield to where reason, justice, and compassion rule the day, instead of the dogma of D.C. We must change the frame, not because people aren't on our side, but because before we can get the politicians to adopt more reasonable solutions, they have to start seeing drug use and abuse through the correct lens: public welfare and safety.

Want more proof? After writing the above, I paid a visit to the Seattle Times, and read the reader response. Guess how many of "everyone" supported Mr. Sabet's position? Zero. Every single comment left online called the 'drug war' for what it is: a fraud. Most had points similar to the ones I've made. Some suggested that Mr. Sabet start taking meds to control his delusions.

So while the media continues to use the distortions and outdated frames, the people are wising up. For this to translate to action requires that we give politicians the tools so that they can wisen up our drug policies to match the understanding that both experts and majority of the public have.

California's Cost of Losing Prop 5

2009-02-17T11:45:00.003-05:00

California is in a budget crisis. According to reports, 20,000 government employees are to be laid off. State tax refunds paid with IOU's. 42 billion in budget shortfalls. No word yet on how many prison guards will be laid off, or how many probation officers, but my guess is that there won't be any let go. Or any prisons shut down just yet.

You know what they say about addicts? That they have to hit rock bottom before they can get treatment. Evidently, what is allegedly true for drug addicts is actually true for drug war addicts. I'd call that projection by the drug warriors.

And California is most definitely addicted to the drug war - locking up tens of thousands of addicts, drug users, and nonviolent drug dealers a year, at a cost of billions of dollars. That's billions in prison expenditures that have not decreased drug use, billions in law enforcement and prosecution expenditures that have not decreased drug use, and billions in lost tax revenues between keeping California's #1 crop, cannabis, illegal, and taking able-bodied people, primarily minority males, from the workforce.

I hate to say the Drug Policy Alliance told you so, but as a staff member of DPA, we made plenty of information available about Prop 5. So, California: we told you so. Prop 5 wouldn't have prevented most of this - but even at face value, at least some of the 20,000 people to be laid off in the next couple of weeks would have kept their jobs instead, California could have kept its public works, and a good many people would be staring at their overpaid tax money returned to them, instead of an IOU from Arnold.

Untested Rape Kits and Drug Policy: A Mark of Barbarity

2009-02-13T10:24:00.003-05:00

An older report from the Human Rights Watch brought anew by a story in the Washington Post by Kathleen Parker entitled "Snap, Crackle, Pot" in which Mr. Howard Wooldridge of LEAP talks about untested rape kits.

A major contributing factor to untested rape kits? Labs being too busy testing for drugs, and cops too worried about enforcing drug laws.

Even if you believe drug use as immoral, unethical, or otherwise 'evil' behavior, I'm hard pressed to think of a single person that would, as an individual choice, say it's better to analyze someone's urine to detect the presence of prohibited substances than a rape kit to find out the identity of an attacker.

But by all means, prove me wrong in the commentary - then please keep your integrity by going around and telling rape victims that people getting high is worse than what's happened to them.

This is yet another example of how policy is completely divorced from the human experience, and I cringe every time I think about this travesty. I cringe, unless, of course, I'm not in the middle of being fuming mad.

Breaking Drug Policy News

2009-02-11T12:27:00.006-05:00

Another rumor that Obama has appointed a new drug czar, Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske. Early responses from the drug policy community indicate that Mr. Kerlikowske is a drug warrior, but no John Walters:

"We do know Gil Kerlikowske has seen a world without small-time marijuana arrests.
Seattle made marijuana the lowest police priority a few years ago and I believe Kerlikowske has largely abided by that referendum. Someone will have the stats soon. He's left medical marijuana patients alone for the most part and has apparently tolerated a couple very exclusive invite only mmj clubs in Seattle. The Seattle Hempfest is always a success and I hear 2nd hand that working with the police department for the event hasn't been a problem. He knows Norm Stamper and Stamper has had his ear.
That said, the Seattle Police Department isn't all sunshine and roses by any means. He's still a drug warrior, SWAT teams and all.
In any event this is a fascinating appointment and I can't wait to hear more."
[Drug War Rant]

750 media outlets distilled a recent report that men who reported currently using marijuana at least once per week, and who had started smoking pot prior to age 18, had an elevated risk compared to controls of contracting a type of testicular cancer known as nonseminoma. Nonseminomas account for fewer than one half of one percent of all cancers among American men. The headline? "Smoking marijuana causes testicular cancer." [NORML]

Obama is followi ng through on his promised support of needle exchange harm reduction policies. [PRI's The World]

Mexico's drug war general is dead after one week. [Dare Generation Diary]

More Michael Phelps silliness. [NORML]

Thousands of allies called and wrote the White House and the Attorney General about the four medical marijuana raids under President Obama's watch. It worked. Undaunted, the prohibitionists offer us a group called "Save Our Society From Drugs," and they urge you to write the White House and ask for more arrests! [MPP]

Really? With Seth Dawson

2009-02-11T09:52:00.003-05:00

I can't help but piggyback on this item, because of the hilarity of Evan's post with the embedded SNL skit. So I don't get a plagiarism suit, please bear in mind that the entire concept comes from Seth Myer's SNL skit.

As Washington State ponders decriminalization of marijuana possession (an action I always find somewhat bemusing - why not the distribution and/or cultivation of a small amount - wherever is this non-criminal cannabis to come from?), Seth Dawson leads the opposition to such a measure.

Why? According to the Associated Press State & Local Wire, released on February 11, 2009 Wednesday at 2:09 AM GMT, it's because... wait for it...

"[T]he bill drew fire from anti-drug forces who argue marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead users to more serious drug abuse ... Seth Dawson of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention ... said decriminalizing marijuana would send the wrong message to teenagers, and could lead to an increase in the number of marijuana users who get hooked on harder drugs."

Gateway Theory? Really, Seth Dawson? Because the last time I checked, 'Gateway Theory' was demonstrated as false (at least, according to the Journal of Psychiatry, Institute of Health, and the RAND studies). I mean, really, can't we come up with something based in reality instead?

I mean, really, because forgive me if I'm wrong, but alcohol is legal and isn't being cited as needing to be criminalized to prevent the wrong message to teenagers. You cited that cocaine abusers shared a trait of having past marijuana use. What about alcohol? In fact, the combination of cocaine and alcohol is so common, they've even done extensive studies on cocaethylene, a substance that exclusively forms when cocaine and alcohol are co-administered.

Really, and while we're at it, Seth, you want to talk about the latter half of your association's description? Namely, the violence prevention part? Because last time I checked, alcohol is much more associated with violence than cannabis is. I mean, really, how many jokes are there about someone hitting the bong and then beating their significant other, or their children? Swap the bong hit for either cheap beer or cheaper bourbon, and suddenly we've got the makings of a best selling comedy book entitled "1,000 Jokes You Don't Tell in Polite Company," --really.

So if you want to forward more junk theory, Seth Dawson, really, let's try this one on for size: without court-referred substance abuse cases for marijuana, the enforced treatment centers that fund your budget will shrink to nothing. You're only interested in keeping cannabis illegal because you're just another money-grubber on the state rolls trying to protect your interests at the costs of citizens' liberty and tax money. How's that for junk theory? I mean really!

[Please insert as much sarcastic humor as possible into this post, it's meant as comedy, but sometimes that doesn't translate well into plain text.]

Rocky On the Ropes? The NYTimes Thinks So.

2009-02-09T11:50:00.004-05:00

I'm taking a quick break from duties in Hartford, CT, to make sure you see this editorial in the NY Times today, about the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The editorial is in response to a report released last week by the NY State Commission on Sentencing Reform. The report was roundly criticized, both by the Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, and by yours truly, for its lackluster recommendations re the Rockefeller Drug Laws. After two years, the Commission agreed that judicial discretion should be restored in drug cases, but couldn't figure out how to do it and ultimately recommended maintaining prosecutorial discretion in the meantime.

Says the Times:

The New York Legislature finally seems poised to overturn the infamous Rockefeller drug laws. The impending change comes too late for the tens of thousands of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who wasted away in prison because of mandatory sentencing policies when they should have been given treatment and leniency. But after years of building support for reform, legislative leaders now have it within their power to make wholesale changes in this profoundly destructive law.

Indeed. These reforms won't happen without vigorous advocacy. That's where we come in.

An Aside About the Associated Press and Cannabis

2009-02-09T09:42:00.003-05:00

This from the Associated Press, February 7, 2009 Saturday:
"Whiff of change in US medical marijuana policy"
(DEVLIN BARRETT) SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE

Just real briefly, from this short article on the new Whitehouse's potential to stop enforcement of anti-marijuana laws in states that allow for medical use of cannabis:

"At age 47, Obama is part of a generation that had plenty of exposure to pot."

I take exception to this statement. Homosapiens has had plenty of exposure to 'pot,' cannabis being an intricate part of human existence dating back as early as 8,000 B.C. (and possibly earlier). Drafts of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper, which by the D.E.A.'s standards would make it a controlled substance (there is a detectable amount of T.H.C. in any hemp product, just not enough to get anyone high).

By trying to analyze as a generational attribute, the Associated Press writer here commits a fallacy of distortion: during World War II, there was a "Hemp for Victory" project that encouraged U.S. farmers to grow hemp. Henry Anslinger had to use the misnomer "marijuana" to scare Congress into passing anti-cannabis legislation, because if he used the words 'hemp' or 'cannabis' his fear-mongering would have been laughed out of the legislature.

Simply put - it's not a generational thing. It's an honesty thing. President Obama is part of a new culture that's no longer interested in lying about reality - people have been ingesting cannabis since the Neolithic Era. Nothing done in the last 10,000 years has managed to stop it - why waste federal resources trying?

Kellogg's Cutting Off Nose to Spite Face

2009-02-08T21:08:00.007-05:00

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

As Malakkar wrote on Friday, Kellogg's will not renew its sponsorship deal with Michael Phelps because of his marjuana consumption. It seems they will let this contract expire because they don't realize exactly who buys their products. Although the Seth Myers' video above plays into the stoner stereotype, everything that is said is true to a point (and I especially enjoy his last sentence).

Bloggers on the internets, including Ethan Nadelmann who wrote on the Huffington Post, have called for a boycott on Kellogg's, urging them to reconsider their stance.

Kellogg's makes a lot of tasty treats, but I think the sacrifice is worth it -- although I will miss my cheeze-its.

So "Just say No to Kellogg's". Call them at 800-962-1413 and 269-961-3799 to tell them what you think.

The Elephant in the Desert

2009-02-06T12:44:00.007-05:00

"We're not having the right debate and we're certainly not covering it enough."
Dan Rather reporting from Afghanistan

Like thousands of others, I have become a constant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show. Ms. Maddow's depth of policy understanding, wry sense of humor, and ability to get any guest she wants make her one hour commentary on the day's news required viewing. We have lucked into a pundit that is beginning to wield a tremendous amount of influence with both our policy makers and her viewers. Which is why I feel that the drug policy community must call Ms. Maddow out on her coverage of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to watch this interview with Dan Rather:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's hard to argue with the conclusion that in regards to Afghanistan, we have three choices:

1. End the war completely and bring our soldiers home
2. Deploy a troop intensive counterinsurgency, and attempt to create a legitimate government and a legitimate source of authority
3. Counter-terrorism, a much smaller, more targeted mission where we're not trying to build up a state, only eliminate the enemy.

After eight years in Iraq at about 10 billion tax payer dollars per day, I cannot find one shred of pragmatic sense in pursuing number 2. As Ms. Maddow points out at the beginning of the piece, long term occupation of Afghanistan has been the fall of nations since Alexander the Great. With our economy in free fall and an Argentina-style economic collapse an emerging reality, it has got to be number 1 or number 3.

What Ms. Maddow doesn't mention here or in other segments about Afghanistan is that we cannot simultaneously fight a war on terror and a war on drugs. Consider the following commentary from Lee Rosenberg, a software developer who became motivated by the war in Iraq to start speaking out about politics and the direction the country is going in:

To get some perspective on how entrenched the heroin trafficking industry is in Afghanistan, it amounts to over half of the country's entire GDP. Compare that to Mexico, where drug trafficking makes up less than 10% of the country's GDP - yet is still far too powerful for the Mexican government to dismantle. The only real counterargument to the accusation that Afghanistan is a narco-state is that Afghanistan really isn't a state at all, just a loose federation of warlords, many of whom profit from drug production. It's an open secret among intelligence officials that even Hamid Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, profits from the trade.

The Taliban are enriching themselves by either providing protection for the drug trade or just participating in the trade themselves. In some cases, we've seen the Taliban being paid for their services directly in high-powered weapons, which have fueled the last several "spring offensives" against coalition troops. The reason that this time of year is when the Taliban strikes has little to do with weather, but because the early spring is when the opium is harvested, processed into heroin, and sent to the west, leaving the Taliban flush with cash, weapons, and plenty of free time that had recently been spent protecting fields.

Our eradication efforts do little more than anger local farmers and encourage corruption. Local officials who are tasked with carrying out the eradications (the law still requires that Afghan forces carry them out) are easily bribed or threatened by the drug traffickers and the Taliban. A recent report on a local group of Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan by the Canadian Globe and Mail found that half joined the effort to fight the international coalition because their family's livelihoods had been destroyed through opium eradication efforts. For another 25%, it was anger over heavy-handed military tactics, such as aerial bombings, being used by the coalition.

How about the following as a counter-terrorism tactic that doesn't involve killing:

One potential avenue for improving our approach in Afghanistan involves allowing for the legal production of opiates by Afghan farmers. It's been estimated that dozens of countries around the world are lacking in supplies of opiate-based medicines. Without a simultaneous reduction in demand for illegal heroin, this approach certainly won't end the illegal drug trade, but it could help limit some of the massive profits being made by the Taliban in certain areas of the country. The European Union even passed a resolution encouraging the international coalition to look at this option, but the approach was strongly rejected by the U.S. State Department under Condoleezza Rice.

As of the end of 2008, it was believed that the Taliban controlled up to 70% of the country once again. They've been able to do this primarily through the opium trade. Our mistaken belief that this illegal industry is a form of defiance akin with the anti-Western sentiments of al-Qaeda has been instrumental in allowing that to happen. Afghans have never participated in the opium trade in order to bring down the west. They participated in the trade in order to make a living in one the world's most destitute places. But our inability to understand the difference has created a situation where our paranoid beliefs have become self-fulfilling prophecies. The Taliban, which has itself evolved from an ultra-religious entity to a more generally nationalist one, now does see the drug trade as a way to poison the western world.

It's hard to watch someone as smart and influential as Ms. Maddow take a sustained interest in an important issue and leave such a big part of the picture out. If she were to draw the connection between the Taliban and opium production as well as the war on drugs' irreconcilable conflict with the war on terror, Hillary Clinton's state department not only would listen, Richard Holbrooke may come on the show for a real debate about our strategy and our options.

Perhaps you could take a minute to send Ms. Maddow an email at Rachel@msnbc.com and ask her to take a look at the elephant in the desert the next time she does a segment on our soon to be escalated war in Afghanistan.

Michael Phelps and the Tyranny of Expectation

2009-02-06T11:53:00.003-05:00

Call me nuanced, but I don't recall Michael Phelps agreeing to be a role model. I googled it and came up with nothing except other people volunteering Mr. Phelps to be a role model.

There's a lot of discussion about Mr. Phelps ever since a picture of him allegedly smoking cannabis from a 'bong' surfaced a week ago. Now he's apologizing for letting everyone down, for making 'a mistake.' Further, sponsors like Kellogg are dropping him for his alleged behavior, because it doesn't reflect the 'role models' that Kelloggs wants to associate with. The public outcry is over Mr. Phelps failing to provide a good 'role model' for our children (since all drug law seems to revolve around children) by making this 'mistake.'

It's a pretty common 'mistake' - on any given year, close to 10% of the U.S. population, by most estimates, at least tries cannabis. While the numbers don't actually pan out, it would appear that everyone in the U.S. tries marijuana every decade. However, this isn't true because of repeat users. Or people repeating their 'mistakes,' if you will.

Yet somehow, we expect Michael Phelps to be immune to this, or at least above it. The reaction to this incident indicates a level of hypocrisy and a level of tyrannical thinking in our society - a significant portion of our population doesn't expect Mr. Phelps to act his age, or like a normal human who can succumb to peer pressure, or experiment, or enjoy themselves with something the majority considers taboo. Instead, a large portion of our society expects perfection from Mr. Phelps, like he's a contemporary Jesus.

Sorry, Mr. Phelps, but you're no Jesus. Not trying to knock Mr. Phelps - he's a great swimmer. Actually, he's an amazing athlete. Arguably one of the best swimmers, ever. That is what he trained to be. What he did not train to be is a role model for our children - we chose that position for him. He did not train to be a saint - we've got a Pope and bishops and so on who train for that. He did not train to be more than human - and so the only reasonable thing to expect from him is to act like a human.

He's a swimmer, people. He's an athlete. Expecting him not to be human is asinine. And, considering that more people die from alcohol than cannabis, until any athlete from any sport is cited as making a mistake from imbibing booze, I refuse to consider smoking cannabis a 'mistake.' The true 'mistake' here is unreasonable expectations, and a phony addiction to the concept that cannabis is somehow worse (psychologically, physically, socially) than alcohol, when the reverse is true.

In fact, the only way in which cannabis is worse than alcohol is by legal and judgmental standards, which points more to their flawed nature, rather than to perceived flaws in people who choose to use cannabis.

DEA - the Publicly Funded Malpractice Agency

2009-02-05T10:45:00.005-05:00

I may be seen as radical and extreme, but let's just face facts:

1) An estimated 6,000 people have died along the U.S.-Mexico border last year, most of which was allegedly a result of drug trafficking violence.

2) An estimated 0 people died from medical marijuana use in California last year.

So why is the Department of Justice ordering and DEA carrying out raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California, when there is not a single marijuana overdose, ever, and tax-paying dispensaries operate within valid state laws?

Please, everyone, dial 202-456-1414, and let the President know that we don't need to waste time and energy, and the time to reign in these raids is now.

Simply put, in triage form, even taking the anti-marijuana arguments seriously (despite their lunacy), the DEA's actions still cannot be justified - they're applying band-aids to a boo-boo, while the patient is bleeding out from an mortal leg wound. You would sue a doctor who did this for malpractice, and try to ensure he or she never worked in medicine again. Yet there is no call for accountability for the DEA.

Please call. Be the voice that demands accountability from our 'drug warriors.'

State Department Ignores Obama: Head Still Stuck In Sand

2009-02-02T10:40:00.003-05:00

***Updated with Link Per Request in Commentary***

In Saturday's Late Edition of the New York Times, there is a story about the State Department's presence in Vienna during the U.N. Drug Policy Summit. The story talks about the State Department being at odds with President Obama's recent announcement that he would be working on lifting the ban on funding to organizations that participate in syringe-exchange programs.

So what does the State Department in Vienna have to say about it?

"State Department officials said that they were resisting the harm-reduction language because it could also be interpreted as endorsing legalized drugs or providing addicts with a place to inject drugs."

The New York Times does correctly point out - "But the Vienna plan does not require any country to adopt policies it finds inappropriate."

Regardless of the information provided by the Times, the State Department is just plain wrong. It's a tired old argument - that by providing harm reduction, somehow the activity itself is being endorsed. Using this absurd logic, seatbelts and helmets encourage motor vehicle collisions, hand sanitizer encourages touching contaminated surfaces, and fire extinguishers encourage arson.

I mean, really, can we all just grow up a little bit? People using needles to inject drugs don't need encouragement to do what they're already doing - the state condoning or rejecting a certain activity clearly hasn't had any impact in their life. But time and time again, access to clean needles has shown to make a significant impact on reducing HIV transmission rates, and that's not just harm reduction for the needle user, but for everyone.