tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4380230848242378372024-03-08T10:55:36.648-05:00Tony's Quest For UnderstandingEssays, quips, and musings on prohibition and its effects on American society.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-20004120341922952432012-08-13T11:36:00.000-04:002012-08-13T11:36:07.516-04:00Doesn’t Anybody Read Anymore? (Or Even Think?)
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">There’s been a
lot of talk recently about state and local employees who administer medical
marijuana programs being subject to federal prosecution under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example,
Governor Christie used this as one of his reasons for delaying the medical
marijuana program in New Jersey.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>More recently, the state Attorney General for Arizona has tried to put a
stop to their program in part because of this “concern.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Before we even
get to the part about not reading, let’s consider these people’s apparent
inability to even give some serious thought to this issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their alleged concern is that the CSA,
a federal law, makes it illegal for anyone to be involved with controlled
substances in any way whatsoever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>State laws in this case are irrelevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, and that’s that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the surface, it would appear that
this is a valid concern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>State and
local employees would indeed be involved in a program that the federal
government views as illegal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Sounds simple enough, obvious even.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until you think about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">But what about
other state and local officials that are involved with controlled substances,
and have been since those substances first became controlled?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m talking about state and local
police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These people are often in
possession of a controlled substance, in clear violation of federal law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a cop takes a joint from a kid on
the street, when a warehouse full of cocaine is seized, they are in violation
of federal law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The police are
also involved in trafficking as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When they set up a sting to buy or sell drugs, that could be considered
trafficking in a controlled substance under federal law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even planning the sting could be considered
conspiracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yet state and
local law enforcement officers are not arrested and charged with federal crimes
for their involvement with controlled substances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can that be?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Isn’t that exactly what Governor Christie and the AZ Attorney General
are so concerned about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t they
see the inconsistency in their argument? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The answer to
why these people are not prosecuted of course can be found by simply reading
the CSA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In particular, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Section 885. Burden of proof; liabilities</b>,
which states in section d:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 10.0pt; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">(d) Immunity of Federal, State, local and other
officials<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Except as
provided in sections 2234 and 2235 of title 18, no civil or criminal liability
shall be imposed by virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal
officer lawfully engaged in the enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any
duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof,
the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States, who shall be
lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating
to controlled substances.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">If anybody
bothered to first think about the issue, then follow up with reading the
relevant piece of legislation, this “concern” would have never arisen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As you can see, state and local
authorities are immune from prosecution for performing their duties under state
and local law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>End of discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a non issue.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Unfortunately,
this seems to be an effective scare tactic, as federal officials can count on
no one actually reading the CSA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
the ACLU seems to be unaware of this provision of the CSA. They are challenging
this threat in California with some court cases that supposedly set a precedent
for not prosecuting local authorities, when all they really need to do is refer
to the immunity clearly provided by the CSA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can only hope that someday, somewhere, somehow, someone
will read the CSA and call these bullies on their lies and empty threats.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</span><br />
Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-69876919370748003672012-07-31T13:57:00.001-04:002012-07-31T13:57:48.184-04:00Federal Government Acknowledges Medical Use of Marijuana<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>649</o:Words>
<o:Characters>3702</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Polyhedron Learning Media, Inc.</o:Company>
<o:Lines>30</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>7</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>4546</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">In light of the upcoming lawsuit (</span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Americans for
Safe Access v. DEA</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">, to
begin oral arguments this October), a review the federal government’s position
on the medical use of marijuana is in order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">The DEA may not want to admit it, but the federal
government already has. Cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds <i>do</i> have medical
uses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The federal government has
acknowledged this in the programs they administer, in the results of their research,
and in their official policy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">With respect to federal programs, the Compassionate Investigational New
Drug <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(IND) program is a federal
program administered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has been providing patients with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">FDA-approved marijuana</i> since 1976.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, this program was started in
response to a lawsuit (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Randall v. US</i>)
that the government lost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that
decision, marijuana was deemed a medical necessity, and criminal charges were
dropped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I’m not sure why this
decision doesn’t apply to anyone today, but that’s another story.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since then, a small group of
individuals have continued to this day to receive medicinal marijuana, grown on
the only farm licensed by the federal government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But wait, you might say, this is a research program, and the
feds have always encouraged medical marijuana research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not that I’d say something like that,
but someone might suggest that a research program is not necessarily an
admission that marijuana has medical uses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that would be true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the IND program is NOT about research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would ask any naysayers to point me
to one published study done on any of the participants of the IND medical
marijuana program over the last 35 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And if they’re not doing research, the federal government must believe
that marijuana is useful in treating these people’s various conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise, the federal government would
just be trafficking in a controlled substance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And we know they’d never do that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">When it comes to research, I won’t even mention the MANY government-sponsored
research programs that have found evidence to support the use of marijuana for
the treatment of a variety of conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In scie<span style="color: black;">nce (and in the DEA), results can
always be disputed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m talking
about </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia;">US Patent 6630507 - <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cannabinoids
as antioxidants and neuroprotectants</i>. The assignee of that patent is The
United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human
Services. What this patent means is that the research has been done, and the
results are conclusive enough to warrant a patent. (I didn’t even know the
government could hold patents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
always thought the results of research paid for by tax dollars was in the
public domain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shows how much I
know.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Granted, this patent is not
on raw marijuana, but on compounds derived from marijuana.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still, how could the federal government
have a patent on something that it claims doesn’t exist, like medical uses for
marijuana?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, the very
existence of this patent is an acknowledgment by the federal government that
marijuana has some very clearly-defined medical applications.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia;">Finally, the federal government has established a formal
policy with respect to the medicinal use of marijuana. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Just recently (July 2012), the Department of Veterans
Affairs officially announced that it will allow patients treated at its
hospitals and clinics to use medical marijuana in states where it’s legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, this is not a research
program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The DVA is saying they
will allow patients to use marijuana as part of their treatment regimens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If marijuana cannot be used safely as a
medical treatment, as its Schedule 1 classification suggests, why would the DVA
be subjecting our vets to such danger?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They wouldn’t, of course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So this must be yet another acknowledgment by the federal government
that marijuana has medical uses that are not inconsistent with the medical care
provided by the DVA.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">There are other examples of the
federal government’s acknowledgment that marijuana has medical uses, like
Congress explicitly allowing Washington, DC to implement a medical marijuana
program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I believe these three
are the most compelling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So it
would appear that the DEA is one of the few holdouts in the federal government,
along with the NIDA, the Drug Czar, a few overzealous prosecutors, and of
course the president.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So my
question is, why is it the DEA that represents the federal government with
respect to medical marijuana when they are clearly in the minority amongst
their federal peers?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-50169838158403023052011-04-01T07:21:00.001-04:002011-04-01T07:21:00.189-04:00DEA To Expand War On DrugsAmid growing concerns over the push for marijuana legalization and the devastation it could wreak on their funding, the DEA has announced that they will be expanding their war on drugs. The war will now target a number of other substances which the DEA believes have not been properly regulated. They will be kicking off this new campaign with the reclassification of insulin as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Beginning today, April 1, 2011, the production, sale, and possession of insulin will be illegal in the United States.<br /><br />According to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, insulin’s FDA approval has been revoked, meaning it no longer has an accepted medical use in the United States. “We were trying to help these people who claim they have a medical need for this drug, but the situation is getting out of control,” Leonhart warned. She went on to explain how it’s become a “wild west show,” with anybody and everybody being able to get the drug and the paraphernalia needed to inject it. “It’s very obvious to me,” she said, “that far too many of these so-called diabetics just want to enjoy a recreational sugar rush.”<br /><br />Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske praised the DEA’s new classification of insulin. “I’ve visited several pharmacies and seen some of the ‘patients’ who are there filling their insulin prescriptions,” he said, making the air quotes as he spoke. “They sure didn’t look sick to me.” Kerlikowske went to quote government statistics which show that many insulin addicts are in fact young and “healthy looking,” with many under the age of 18. “How can we stop these kids from using drugs when their parents are buying the drug for them and even teaching them how to inject it?” Knowing they will serve time in jail if caught is the only deterrent that can keep people off this addicting drug, he noted. “Spending some time behind bars will make them think twice the next time they want a fix,” he said with a straight face. The Czar added that this new law is the only way we can be certain that teachers, eye doctors, and airline pilots aren’t shooting up on the job.<br /><br />Law enforcement officials from across the nation have come out in support of the DEA’s new agenda. “Drugs are a scourge on our society, and the only solution is to vigorously enforce any law, real or imaginary, that takes drug users off our streets,” said San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. Dumanis used the opportunity to announce a crackdown on all San Diego county pharmacies. Rather than warn them to stop selling the drug in advance of the new law, she is planning a series of raids that will involve local police, area SWAT teams, and masked, heavily-armed DEA agents. “These people are drug dealers plain and simple, and the only thing they understand is extreme force,” she said, following up with a maniacal laugh. In response to Dumanis’ announcement, the private prison industry in California collectively creamed its jeans.<br /><br />Addiction counselors and a number of religious groups have also praised the new legislation. Partnership for a Drug Free America spokesperson Denise Fahr Rite could barely contain herself when she heard the news. “Pharmacies are everywhere these days,” she pointed out. “There’s even one right across the street from my daughter’s pre-school. How can I teach my kids that drugs are bad when they see young, healthy-looking people come and go all day with their bags of drugs and needles?” The rehab industry was also very positive about the new law. Industry spokesman Jebediah Deadwood pointed out that, although treating insulin addiction has not been very profitable in the past, they are very optimistic about the future. “We are planning a major expansion to help this new class of criminal addict kick their habits, “ he said. “As long as they are insured, we will spare no expense to get them drug free.” Stock in a number of private prison and rehab corporations rose sharply on the DEA’s announcement.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Happy April 1st!</span>Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-27987963152287536462010-11-03T10:35:00.002-04:002010-11-03T10:41:13.246-04:00The Pendulum Swings BackToday is a sad day for the fight against prohibition. Not only was California’s Proposition 19 soundly defeated, but medical cannabis initiatives in three other states failed as well. Even in Arizona, where medical cannabis had already passed twice before. I hate to say it, but I think the pro-cannabis pendulum is now on its way back to the prohibition side. And I’m afraid it will swing pretty far the other way before coming back around again.<br /><br />If you want to know what’s in store for the future, you just have to look to the past. Anybody remember the 1970s and 1980s? Back in the 1970s, things were starting to look pretty bleak for prohibition. Over 20 states had passed medical cannabis legislation. Many others decriminalized cannabis. But then in the 1980s, things changed. The Republicans took over, and every single one of those medical cannabis programs was either repealed or never implemented. Even the federal government’s own medical program was discontinued. It wasn’t until 1996 that the pendulum started swinging back to the pro-cannabis side again.<br /><br />I predict the same will happen all over again starting now. In 2012 Republicans will once again control the country. They will be stoked by yesterday’s defeat of Proposition 19 and the other medical initiatives. And why shouldn’t they be? The voters have spoken, and told them that prohibition is what they want. Of course, the politicians knew all along that being pro legalization was political suicide, and this just confirms it. And their fears that medical cannabis was just a first step toward full legalization have also been confirmed. So it will be full steam ahead for prohibition in the years to come.<br /><br />What can we expect over the next 10 to 15 years? Here are my predictions:<br /><ul><li>No new medical cannabis legislation will pass.</li><li>No new decriminalization or legalization legislation will pass.</li><li>Medical cannabis programs in some states will either be repealed or drastically cut back.</li><li>Penalties for possession and other cannabis-related offenses will increase in some states, which will probably involve mandatory minimum sentences and/or three-strikes laws.</li><li>Arrests and imprisonment for cannabis offenses will increase across the country.</li><li>The same things will happen in Canada.</li></ul>Sure, the Proposition 19 folks are giving things a positive spin, saying they’ll be back in 2012. But let’s face it. There will never be a legalization initiative that will please everybody. The existing black market and wild-west mentality are too deeply established. There's just too much money involved. The result will be what we have now: Constant bickering about the best way to go about ending prohibition without endangering the children or cutting into anybody's profits.<br /><br />So check back here again in 10-15 years and see how accurate my predictions were. Around that time the pendulum should start swinging back again. The older folks who are the staunchest supporters of prohibition will be gone, and we might have a fighting chance. Then again, the younger voters will be older by then and worrying about the message they send to their children. Sadly, when many people become parents, that message becomes, “don’t do what I did.”Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-50609030617093635212010-09-09T14:24:00.000-04:002010-09-09T14:26:45.805-04:00If Proposition 19 Fails, A New StrategyIf you are even remotely interested in current drug war events, you already know about Proposition 19, affectionately known as Prop 19. For those of you who don't follow drug war happenings, its official title is the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.” That’s right, it’s the California voter initiative to legalize cannabis, also known by its slang name, marijuana. Prop 19 will be on the ballot this November and, if it passes, will become part of the state’s constitution. Whether it will pass or not is anybody’s guess at this point. But if it does, it will inevitably get the ball rolling in other states. If it fails, it will be a major victory in the war on drugs and a setback to the anti-prohibition movement throughout the country.<br /><br />Right now, if I had to bet, my money would be against Prop 19 passing. Sadly, I have to be a realist. So I started wondering, what then? Where do we go from there? The answer is really quite simple. Adopt an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy. The next obvious step would be a voter initiative to criminalize alcohol. That should make both sides happy, right? Cannabis remains illegal, which satisfies the prohibitionists. And both alcohol and cannabis are treated the same, which satisfies the anti-prohibitionists.<br /><br />If you think about it, it’s not that far fetched After all, it happened before not so long ago. A vocal minority did it then, and they could easily do it again. It’s pretty obvious that prohibitionists learned nothing from our little experiment with banning a recreational drug in the 1920s. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the self-proclaimed moral watchdogs, along with rehab professionals, police, prosecutors, and the prison unions, jumped on the bandwagon. Before you know it, we could have another full-blown temperance movement on our hands. Pretty scary thought, if you ask me. <br /><br />But what would adding alcohol to the list of banned drugs accomplish? Aside from creating a lot more criminals, and being a boon to the private prison industry, that is. After all, two wrongs don’t make a right. So, what’s the point? Just to get even with the prohibitionists, and give them a taste of their own “medicine”?<br /><br />As nice as that sounds, punishing the prohibitionists would only be a (pleasant) side effect. The point would be to generate a little empathy. Generally speaking, people who support prohibition are not really affected by it. They’re not really interested in using any drug other than alcohol. Their drug is legal because it’s the “good “drug, and people should not be using the other, “bad” drugs. So maybe it wouldn’t hurt for them to walk a mile in the other side’s shoes. See what it’s like to have one’s preferred drug declared “bad.” See what it’s like to be labeled by society a criminal for relaxing with a cold beer at home. Before you know it, the prohibitionists would be organizing protests, having tea parties, and criticizing the government for taking away their rights and intruding into their private lives. Until prohibition has a personal impact on the lives of the people who support it, they will never understand how destructive a policy it really is. Nor will they budge in their adamant support of it.<br /><br />So, what do you say? Are you with me on this? If Prop 19 fails to pass, let’s do this prohibition thing right. Not the half-assed way we’re doing it now, with some drugs good, and some bad, some legal and some not. Let’s wipe out the devil’s brew once and for all, and for the first time in history, live in a completely drug-free society. We can do it if we keep doing the same thing, but try a little harder this time.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-33574375865019977942010-08-10T08:03:00.003-04:002010-08-10T08:03:00.733-04:00A New Prohibitionist TacticOver the last few years, since the advent of medical cannabis and especially since the ballot initiative to legalize cannabis in California, one of the main objectives of the prohibitionists seems to be to insult just about everybody. They're no longer belittling just the stoners and potheads like they used to. Now just about everyone is a target of their mistrust and suspicion. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by this new tactic. In a war, don't you want to win the hearts and minds of the people you're trying to subjugate? So what are they up to? Are they really crazy... like a fox?<br /><br />What got me thinking about this was a recent statement by our beloved former Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey, that struck me as a bit odd. Speaking about the possibility of legal cannabis in California, he said that he feared that virtually everyone would be under the influence virtually all the time. In particular, he said he fears that truck drivers, teachers, airline pilots, and even eye doctors would be using the drug while on the job. Aside from this being just plain ludicrous, I think the people of California should be very offended. And if I were one of those professions he named, I'd be pretty pissed. If I were a California eye doctor, I'd be thinking “slander.”<br /><br />But this is not an isolated incident. I've since noticed others using this very same tactic. For example, the Reverend Ron Allen, who opposes the NAACP's endorsement of the legalization initiative in California. He is essentially saying the same thing about minorities that McCaffrey is saying about people in general: Legalization will lead to wild, uncontrolled abuse. It’s one thing when you insult a profession. But when you say that sort of thing about a race of people, I think they call that racism.<br /><br />What I’m wondering is, why stop there? What about non-minorities and other respected professions? What’s to stop the Drug Czar himself from abusing cannabis if it becomes legal? I guess we’ll find out soon enough as medical cannabis is now legal in Washington DC. Surely we can expect Mr. Kerlikowske to get himself one of those "bogus" medical recommendations and start toking on the job. And lets not forget the DEA. What’s to stop them from swinging by a dispensary and picking up some Kush or Skunk on the their way to work? I mean, if you are going to start accusing people, why would you expect civil servants to make intelligent decisions about their drug use when even respected professionals, like doctors and pilots, won’t be able to?<br /><br />So what are those crafty prohibitionists up to? Have they somehow stumbled upon the ultimate scare tactic? Or do they really believe that literally everyone is a potential stoner/pothead? Except for themselves of course? Because it really sounds to me like they are saying that the law is the only thing standing between civilization and zombie land (great movie). I surely must be misinterpreting something. No one could really believe such a thing. But I think there just might be a way to find out. Next time you hear a prohibitionist say that legalization will lead to people being high on the job, ask them exactly how high <span style="font-weight:bold;">they</span> plan to be on <span style="font-weight:bold;">their</span> job. Surely they consider themselves no better than a teacher or doctor, so they too should be expected to abuse drugs on the job. I’d love to hear a prohibitionist’s response to that question. Any reporters willing to ask it?Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-926573790632188562010-08-03T05:28:00.001-04:002010-08-03T05:28:00.422-04:00The Whole TruthWhen federal agents raid a medical marijuana dispensary or grower, as they’ve been doing and continue to do in California and Colorado, the victim of the raid is charged with a federal crime. Their case is heard in a federal court. No surprise there, as cannabis is illegal under federal law. And did anybody really expect the DEA to stop the raids just because the U.S. Attorney General and President said so? But I digress. Fair enough. You commit a federal crime, you go to a federal court.<br /><br />But that’s where the fairness stops. You see in federal court, the “defendant” is not allowed a defense. OK, they’ve obviously committed a crime in the eyes of the feds. Unless they can get off on a technicality, it’s pretty hard for a dispensary owner to deny that they were selling and/or growing marijuana when they have a storfront that’s open to the public. So their only possible defense is that they were acting in accordance with state and local law. In one case, the victim a DEA raid had even been deputized by the City of Oakland expressly to shield him from federal prosecution. Sounds like a pretty good defense to me.<br /><br />But that is exactly the kind of defense that federal judges do not allow. In all such cases to date, the defendants were not allowed to present evidence that they were in compliance with state laws. They were not allowed to mention medical marijuana or use a medical necessity defense. In other words, they were not allowed a defense, any defense, period. There is currently legislation pending that would change this, and would allow what most would consider a reasonable defense when federal and state laws are in conflict. But it’s not passed yet, and the raids continue. And once you are arrested and charged by the feds, you’re as good a convicted as things stand today.<br /><br />Pretty screwed up if you ask me. But what I’d really like to know is how can these defendants take the oath before testifying? You know, the one that goes, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” If they take this oath and testified, wouldn’t they be committing perjury? They would, under orders of the court, not be telling the whole truth. In fact, they would be witholding pretty much all of the relevant truth. Of course if they do tell the whole truth, they would probably be found in contempt of court and a mistrial declared.<br /><br />So if it were me, and I took the stand, and I was asked to take the oath, I would have to respectfully decline. I couldn’t, in good conscience, swear to do something that I was expressly instructed not to do. I wonder what would happen? Can a judge order someone to violate the law? I’d like to find out. Might make for an interesting precedent.<br /><br /><div><br /><div><br /><i>If you’d like to learn more about how the system works, Google the cases of U.S. v James Dean Stacy, U.S. v Edward Rosenthal, or U.S. v Charles C. Lynch. For more information about recent and pending cases, check out </i><a href="http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html" target="_blank"><i> Federal Medical Marijuana Cases in California & elsewhere</i></a><i>.</i></div></div>Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-66692974808971339072010-07-27T08:37:00.004-04:002010-07-27T08:37:00.652-04:00Prohibition and the 13th AmendmentRemember the 13th Amendment? The one that goes something like this:<br /><blockquote><b>AMENDMENT XIII</b><br /><br />Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.<br /><br />Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><i>Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1</i>865.</blockquote>According to my dictionary, a slave is<br /><blockquote>a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.</blockquote>Putting two and two together (and getting 5), I’m going to go way out on a limb, a limb out past left field, and suggest that prohibition is a violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Before you write this off as crazy talk, let me explain my reasoning, circuitous as it may be.<br /><br />If the government controls what we can and can’t put into our own bodies, and forces us to obey their restrictions with the threat of arrest and imprisonment, doesn't that make us slaves, at least according to the dictionary definition? If I own my own body, then I have the right to decide what to do with it and what to put into it. If I don’t have that right, then someone else must own my body. No one can have that kind of absolute power over me (except maybe my wife or mother) unless they own me. And if someone owns me, that makes me a slave.<br /><br />“Come on,” you’re probably thinking. “The government’s not beating or whipping you, or making you work the fields.” That’s true. (As far as you know.) But being physically abused or forced into hard labor are not what makes one a slave. You can be a slave and have a relatively easy life, or you can be a paid servant and be abused. We’re more like house slaves than field hands. We get to live in a nice house and wear nice clothes, but are never allowed to forget our place or who makes the rules. <br /><br />What makes one a slave is that, unlike the free man, the slave does not own their own body. Someone else makes decisions for them, and they do as they are told. When the government decides what we can and can't put into our bodies, whether we abide by their rules or not, then they, for all intents and purposes, own us. Decisions are made by our master, who knows what’s best for us. We must do their bidding, or suffer the consequences. We are no longer the masters of our own domain.<br /><br />Unlike many other arguments against prohibition, this one does not apply to victimless crimes in general. Things like gambling or prostitution involve others and the behaviors we engage in with them. Prohibition is different in that it seeks to control a behavior that we engage in entirely on our own. If the government tells me that I can’t drink and drive, that’s OK because they are protecting others from my potentially dangerous public behavior. But if they tell me I can't drink, period, then it would appear that they have absolute control over my body.<br /><br />So what do you think? Am I crazy? Has our government turned us into slaves with their prohibitionist policy? Or do they just want to be my wife/mother? Who knows? But invalidating the Controlled Substances Act based on the 13th Amendment is no more insane than validating it with the Commerce Clause. So who’s <b>more</b> crazy, me or the government?Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-20473799856486431562010-07-15T14:27:00.000-04:002010-07-15T14:27:22.159-04:00Prohibitionism: A Religious CultIt occurred to me that prohibitionists are a lot like religious fanatics. They believe what they believe, because... Well, because that’s what they believe. And they believe it to the max. But, you might argue, their beliefs are not based on any kind of logic or truth. So what? That hasn't prevented their success for the past 70 years. In fact, like most religions, their purely subjective beliefs sound very convincing to lots of people. So much so, that those beliefs have become ingrained into our society. Most people today can recite the prohibitionist prayers without even thinking about it.<br /><br />Prayers, you say? OK, maybe not prayers exactly. I guess they are more like mantras or incantations. “Just say no.” “Only dopes use dope.” “This is your brain on drugs.” “Think of the children.” “It’s a gateway drug.” “If you legalize it, everyone will use it.” “Those hippies and potheads just want to get high all the time.” I’m sure you’ve heard these and many others, and never really thought about them. Non-prohibitionists might laugh them off, and see them for what they are, meaningless sound bytes. But to a hard-core prohibitionist believer, those mantras are gospel. They are common sense and common knowledge. Anyone who questions the prohibitionist beliefs is trying to destroy the moral fabric of our society. There’s no room for doubters in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Damn those hippies and potheads! Literally.<br /><br />And just like religious zealots, prohibitionists believe that they are taking the moral high ground. They are the ones that know how people should behave, what they should and shouldn’t do, how they should live their lives. But, unfortunately, they are not content living their own lives according to their beliefs. Like many other religions, they have missionaries, who go out upon the land and preach to anyone who will listen. Ever hear of the Drug Czar? They want everyone else to know about their beliefs, and live their lives accordingly. And they want to punish those who don’t, the infidels. <br /><br />Of course, you can’t argue with a religious fanatic. You can’t convince them with a logical argument or empirical evidence. That’s because their beliefs are not based on logic or evidence. They know what they know. They’ve always known it, and anyone who doesn’t know what they know is ignorant or delusional. Or worse, evil and deserving of punishment. <br /><br />So they have their incantations, their moral standards, their missionaries, their intricately-crafted and deeply-rooted belief system. It looks a lot like a religion to me. Except for not having their own special prohibitionist god. But that’s OK. They can and do borrow a god from other religions. Which is what makes them, technically speaking, a cult.<br /><br />So why does it even matter what they are? Because knowing what they are can help us understand how to fight them. Information, facts, and logic are not effective weapons when dealing with cult members. Sadly, short of an intervention and intensive de-programming, there is very little that can be done to change their world view. Which is why their cult has endured for so long. I wish I knew of an effective means of de-programming them, but I don’t. And, I don’t mean to sound overly pessimistic, but I think the media campaigns I’ve seen recently, in California and elsewhere, will do little to actually change the minds of any of the hardcore fanatics. Might as well try to convert a Baptist to Islam.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-49993061505967287342010-07-11T15:05:00.002-04:002010-07-11T15:18:41.477-04:00Prohibition Really Is A SuccessI’ve noticed that prohibitionists never like to talk about the effectiveness of the current drug war. Sure, from time to time they bring the press in and show them a big pile of drugs that were seized. And they talk about things like street value, the number of people arrested, and how long they worked and how much money they spent getting ahold of those drugs and the people who possessed them. And I suppose you could say this is their way of showing off their victory in a major battle. But though they may win a fair number of battles, and brag to no end about it, they never really talk about the war. You know, things like the impact of their victories on drug availability, or price, or use. And who can blame them? Because in reality, the battles they win really are pretty few and far between. Skirmishes really. If you look at the big picture, the war as a whole is not going their way at all. Which is not something to brag about.<br /><br />But I think I’ve figured out a way for the prohibitionists to show the world indisputable evidence of success in their war. And it’s really just a matter of spin. All the drug warriors need to do is redefine their objectives. In other words, if what you are doing is inconsistent with your intentions, and you don’t want to change what you’re doing, then change your intentions. In the drug warrior’s case, they don’t even really have to change their intentions. They just have to admit to them. Isn’t that always the first step?<br /><br />The drug warriors just need to admit that the purpose of their current prohibitionist drug policy has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing people from using or abusing drugs. It’s not about public health or safety. It’s not about fighting crime, or protecting us from ourselves, or any of that malarky. That’s just their story for public consumption. Kind of like that bachelor uncle that is just neat, or artistic, or sensitive. He’s just waiting for the right woman. I can understand why the Drug Czar refuses to use the term “harm reduction.” Prohibition doesn’t and can’t prevent any harm associated with drug abuse. And it clearly can't stop people from using drugs. If any of these things are really their intention, then it’s plain to see that the war was lost long ago.<br /><br />So why don’t they just come out of their closet of denial and admit the real purpose of the war. The truth will set them free. The only purpose and, unfortunately, outcome of their ongoing war on drugs is to punish people for using drugs. Drugs are bad, therefore people who use drugs are bad. They need to be punished for their badness. It’s all about defining a moral standard, then declaring that anyone who doesn't adhere to that standard is a criminal. See? Doesn’t that feel better?<br /><br />Not only that, but now all of a sudden, the war on drugs can be legitimately described as hugely successful. I’d say that, by this criterion, its success is beyond even the wildest dreams of Richard Nixon, the man who first declared the war. Our government has succeeded in punishing more people for using drugs than anyone ever thought humanly possible. We have the largest prison population, not only in the world, but in the history of the world. If our intent is to punish, we couldn’t be more successful. That’s something to brag about!<br /><br />Now I usually don’t like to give the bad guys (i.e., the prohibitionists) any help. But I’m feeling generous this fine day. So this one’s on me. Consider it some free ammunition in winning the hearts and minds of the people on whom you’ve declared war. Or at the very least, as a way to get more money to carry on your war. You’re welcome.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-83692152477814653282010-04-26T07:46:00.000-04:002010-04-26T07:46:00.496-04:00McCaffrey Fears Stoned Eye SurgeonsIn a recent interview on MSNBC, former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey was spouting more of the nonsense that he has become so famous for. On that show he was debating the upcoming initiative to legalize marijuana in California with Paul Armentano, director of NORML.<br /><br />So what is most troubling to Mr. McCaffrey about the possible legalization of marijuana in California? Well, I think the answer is obvious. With a legal supply of the drug readily available, everyone will be smoking it all the time. Truck drivers, teachers, pilots, and yes, eye surgeons will undoubtedly be performing their official duties under the influence. See, I told you the answer was obvious.<br /><br />Being an open-minded individual, I really want to understand Mr. McCaffery’s concerns. So I will try to see the world through his eyes: Right now, under prohibition, the law prevents responsible people from using marijuana. Only hippies and addicted pot heads smoke marijuana now. Respectable people respect the law and abstain. In other words, it’s prohibition that is keeping our country from falling apart. The fact that another very potent mind-altering drug, alcohol, is currently legal is completely irrelevant. Responsible people understand that, even though alcohol is legal, they should not consume it under certain circumstances, like while driving a truck or performing surgery. But I guess those respectable people aren’t really all that respectable. They’ve been sitting around, abstaining from alcohol while on the job, waiting for the day that marijuana becomes legal. Once the floodgates are open, however, they will rush out and start smoking pot. All the time. Chaos will ensue.<br /><br />So if I understand Mr. McCaffery’s reasoning, legal alcohol and legal marijuana are two completely different things. Drinkers understand that alcohol can impair them and use their own judgment as to when they should and should not drink. But marijuana is different. Responsible people using their own judgment does not apply to marijuana. I guess that’s because only irresponsible hippies use it. But wait, he’s not concerned about more hippies smoking pot if it were to be legalized. He’s concerned about truck drivers and teachers using it. The responsible ones.<br /><br />I think I’m starting to get it. Unlike alcohol, marijuana makes people irresponsible. Trying it once in a legal environment would destroy their sense of responsibility. They would become hopelessly addicted and never be able to stop smoking it. They’ll use it constantly, making them unable to carry out their official duties. A rash of airline crashes and botched eye surgeries will necessarily follow.<br /><br />Thank goodness Mr. McCaffery is looking out for our welfare. I feel so much safer knowing that my doctor or airline pilot does not smoke marijuana. How do I know they don’t smoke marijuana? That’s easy. Because it’s illegal. I shudder to think what might have become of me, for example, if my teachers had smoked marijuana. Like those long-haired, jeans-wearing professors I had in college back in the 70s. Here I thought they were pot smokers. I guess smoking with a few of them was what really fooled me. But now I know, they couldn’t have been marijuana smokers because marijuana was, and is, illegal. I guess they were just liberals. Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. McCaffery.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-36342152062708426202010-04-16T17:03:00.003-04:002010-04-16T17:08:32.970-04:00A Simple Solution for Oregon Medical Marijuana UsersIf you are a medical marijuana user in Oregon, you’ve probably already heard about the recent Supreme Court decision. I’m talking about the ruling in the case<i> of Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries of the state of Oregon</i>. In their infinite wisdom, the Oregon Supreme Court decided that the state’s medical marijuana law does not protect an individual from being fired for failing a drug test. It’s the same old story, federal law trumps state law. In effect, this ruling could potentially scuttle Oregon’s medical marijuana program. Only the unemployed, and those not receiving federal aid or living in federal housing, will be able to take their medicine without fear of reprisal. Could be devastating to a lot of seriously ill people.<br /><br />But it doesn’t have to be. The solution is simple, and unfortunately I can’t take credit for it. I’m just posting here in hopes more people will be made aware of it. You see, while the federal government still classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, the FDA has approved Marinol. In case you don’t know, Marinol is synthetic THC (one of the active ingredients in marijuana) that can be legally prescribed by doctors in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Even better, Marinol is classified as a Schedule 3 controlled substance. (If anyone can explain that discrepancy, I’m all ears.) What this means is that employers in Oregon can fire you for taking doctor-<i>recommended</i> marijuana, but they cannot fire you for taking doctor-<i>prescribed</i> Marinol. So the solution is really quite simple: when your doctor gives you a recommendation for medical marijuana, also ask for a prescription for Marinol. No need to ever fill that prescription. Just keep it around in case you ever fail a drug test. Since drug tests can’t distinguish between synthetic and natural THC, just show them your prescription and you will be fine. Problem solved. No one need ever be fired for taking their medicine in Oregon again.<br /><br />Of course then it will be up to the feds to sort things out. If drug tests can’t distinguish between a <i>prescribed</i> and a <i>recommended</i> drug, then maybe the classification system needs to be reconsidered. Or maybe they need better drug tests. But who really cares. As long as the federal government wants to play these games, people will always find loopholes. Not that they are so hard to find. When you have the same drug classified under two different schedules, there’s bound to be some confusion. But that’s their problem. And that problem is in turn a solution for medical marijuana users in Oregon and across the country. I have a feeling that the number of Marinol prescriptions being written is going to go way up in the near future. Too bad for the pharmaceutical companies the vast majority of those will go unfilled.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-61209711734890142192010-04-12T07:27:00.004-04:002010-04-12T07:27:00.823-04:00My Response to Denny ChapinLast week, Mr. Chapin wrote a guest article for my blog about the decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana. Now it’s my turn to <i>respectfully</i> disagree.<br /><br />Denny, you ignorant slut. How can you live in the good ol’ U.S. of A. and still not have a clue about the American way of life? It sounds like you just don’t understand how we do things around here.<br /><br />You talk about our president’s apparently contradictory views on the marijuana issue. But it makes perfect sense to me. Before being elected, our president was in favor of decriminalization and medical marijuana. Now that he’s president, he’s not. But he’s an admitted (former?) marijuana user, you might say. OK. And????? It’s just presidential privilege, and it’s as American as apple pie. In fact, it goes all the way back to the days of our Founding Fathers. For example, take John Adams, an outspoken critic of King George and the British government when he was a member of the Second Continental Congress. Yet after being elected president, he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticizing our government against the law. See? Putting others in jail for something you yourself once did is just a part of being president. I think it might even be in the Constitution (I’ll have to check).<br /><br />And I think you are being a little harsh on Mr. Kerlikowske. Remember, he’s just a civil servant doing his job. Surely you are aware that a Congressional mandate forces him to say the things he does. And you can’t blame the guy for taking the job in the first place. It’s easy money in these uncertain economic times, especially for a cop. So what if he has to lie and say things no self-respecting person would? So what if he had a completely different opinion before becoming Drug Czar? Do you really expect someone with a cushy government job to rock the boat? Again, I have to ask, what country do you live in? The guy’s just doing the job he’s paid to do and being a good American at the same time.<br /><br />I also have to agree with Mr. Kerlikowske’s statement that science should determine what medicine is, not popular vote. Surely you know that while an individual person may be smart, “people” are most definitely not. Science is the one and only thing our drug laws should be based on. And not the kind of science that’s been done in the last 40 years, the hundreds, if not thousands, of papers published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals. I mean, most of that research was done by foreigners! When it comes to marijuana, that kind of “scientific” science is totally irrelevant. Our Drug Czar is talking about “real” science. You know, the kind that supports what the government wants you to believe. Until that kind of science is done, and done here in the good ol’ U.S. of A., I fully support Mr. Kerlikowske in his position that there is no evidence of any medical use for marijuana.<br /><br />And finally, I have to come out in support of Mr. Kerlikowske’s fears regarding the dangers of widespread marijuana use. (I think his examples of the physical and psychological effects were taken from a pamphlet on alcohol abuse, but that’s neither here nor there.) Surely you’re aware of the horrible consequence of marijuana use. Haven’t you ever seen that classic documentary “Reefer Madness”? Watch it some time — you just might learn something. All these decriminalization and legalization advocates want is for everybody to be “high” all the time. Teachers, truck drivers, airline pilots, and yes, even eye surgeons. They want the streets to be filled with crazed hippies and jazz musicians. I’m not sure why they would want such a thing, but they do. So they must have a plan. And I’m sure it’s an evil plan. So I applaud Mr. Kerlikowske for not wanting our country to be overrun with marijuana addicts. As he so eloquently pointed out, marijuana use causes nuisance and crime. I don’t know about you, but hearing loud, overly-long Grateful Dead or Phish songs (or even worse, jazz music) blaring at all hours is a nuisance I can certainly live without.<br /><br />So, Mr. Chapin, I’m afraid you are delusional, at best. Or perhaps you’re a marijuana addict, preaching your doctrine of immorality and lawlessness. Either way, the American people aren’t interested in the goods you’re selling. Or should I say “pushing”? We are a nation of law-abiding citizens (except of course for the 7.3 million of us currently serving time in jail or prison, on probation, or on parole). We believe in and trust our elected officials, and we know they would never lie to us. Maybe you should tell your story to someone who cares. Like all those hippies in the Netherlands or Portugal or Argentina. And thank your president and drug czar for looking out for your best interests.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-52336297768777035312010-04-05T06:55:00.004-04:002010-04-05T06:55:00.437-04:00Obama: Pro-Decriminalization and Anti-Legalization?<i>This week we have a very special guest post by none other than Denny Chapin. Mr. Chapin is the Managing Editor of </i><a href="http://AllTreatment.com/" target="_blank"><i>AllTreatment.com</i></a><i>, a directory of drug rehab centers and resource for substance abuse information. He has written for other blogs like </i><a href="http://www.drugwarrant.com/" target="_blank"><i>Drug WarRant</i></a><i> and </i><a href="http://morningdonut.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><i>Morning Donut</i></a><i>.</i><br /><br /><b>Marijuana is Harmful</b><div><br /><a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1879306,00.html" target="_blank">Recently-appointed ‘Drug Czar’</a> Gil Kerlikowske gave a speech on March 4th, 2010 entitled “Why Marijuana Legalization Would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety” in which Kerlikowske, speaking for the Obama Administration, strongly opposes the legalization and continued distribution of medical and potentially-legal marijuana. In his speech, Kerlikowske states that “science should determine what a medicine [referring to medical marijuana] is, not popular vote.” Citing instances where communities are using zoning, creating nuisance laws, and planning regulations, as well as the decrease in marijuana outlets in the Netherlands, the argument seems simple: legalizing marijuana causes nuisance and crime.<br /><br />Beyond this point, Kerlikowske argues that the issue with marijuana is not about a culture war, but about what recent science has told us about the effects of the drug. “And the science, though still evolving, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. It is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.” Kerlikowske also cites decreased attention, negative effects on short-term memory, and decreased ability to learn and process information as other major negative side effects of marijuana use.<br /><br />Kerlikowske, speaking for the Obama Administration, makes it clear that they are fighting legalization and the growth of medical marijuana dispensaries. The issue with all this is not whether or not it’s accurate, but rather what is motivating this loud reaction to medical marijuana, marijuana decriminalization, and marijuana legalization.<br /><br /><b>Background on the Drug Czar </b></div><div><br /><a href="http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Director_of_Drug_Control_Policy__Who_is_R_Gil_Kerlikowske_90224" target="_blank">Before Kerlikowske became the U.S. Drug Czar</a> he was the Seattle Police Department’s Police Chief from 2001 until his appointment to the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 2009. In 2003 there was a local ballot initiative in Seattle that would make marijuana possession for personal use a low priority. Kerlikowske opposed the initiative, but in a response he stated, “arresting people for possessing marijuana for personal use... is not a priority now,” going on to say that the SPD was focusing more on cocaine and heroin traffickers.<br /><br /><b>Change in Position?</b> </div><br />What changed from 2003 to 2009 that brought Kerlikowske to deliver a vehement speech touting the ills of marijuana? Perhaps these videos will shed some light on the subject:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/cpBzQI_7ez8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" target="_blank">Barrack Obama – “I inhaled frequently”</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/LvUziSfMwAw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" target="_blank">Barrack Obama and Medical Marijuana</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/wQr9ezr8UeA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" target="_blank">Barrack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization</a><br /><br /><b>Political Reaction</b><div><br />Barack Obama, too often it seems, has supported liberal views about marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana, and his own personal use of marijuana, all before he was elected President of the United States.<br /><br />First, can we not applaud this man for at least being honest about his past drug use, treating it with a bit of humor? At least we can see that Obama willingly goes past politics in certain cases.<br /><br />However, it seems like the backlash against Obama’s liberal views have prompted a far more conservative, ‘scare-based’ approach at the federal level. Kerlikowske’s statements paint marijuana legalization as the disastrous path that the United States seems to be treading.<br /><br /><b>Contradiction?</b><br /><br />Is there contradiction within these views? Obama is explicitly against, and with Kerlikowske’s help, has removed the fiery language of the “drug war,” favoring legislation for marijuana decriminalization, also admitting he smoked marijuana in his youth with the intention of getting high. Kerlikowske stated that police enforcement of marijuana possession was a low priority for the SPD in 2003. So the question remains: are these views compatible with the notion that marijuana legalization is a sure-fire path to a dumber youth population, increase in crime, and decrease in productivity in our citizens?<br /><br />I believe the answer to this question is simply that there is no contradiction in holding a pro-decriminalization and anti-legalization stance. Being against legalization does not prohibit or necessarily prevent one from being for decriminalization. While this position is uncommon (usually someone who is against legalization is also against decriminalization), there are no inherent logical faults in stating that marijuana possession should not be a criminal offense, while also stating that marijuana should not be legalized. As such, legislating in favor of decriminalization is compatible with legislating against legalization. <div><br />One simply wonders: Is this speech a product of millions of YouTube views, or real sentiment our government is willing to spend time, energy, and money on? And that, I’m afraid, remains up in the air.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Be sure to tune in next week for my rebuttal—T.A.</i></div></div>Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-31667056281608140372010-04-01T06:22:00.004-04:002010-04-01T06:22:00.979-04:00Congress Amends Controlled Substance ActWashington, DC — In a move many are saying is long over due, President Obama today signed into law the most sweeping changes to the Controlled Substances Act since its passing in 1970. In addition to recreational drugs, the newly-expanded law outlaws a variety of other activities that have been deemed harmful to individuals and to society. Accordingly, the law has been renamed the Controlled Pleasures Act of 2010, or CPA for short.<br /><br />As expected, prostitution and gambling were immediately classified as Schedule II controlled pleasures under the CPA. Both will now be federal crimes, but because of their Schedule II status, will still be allowed in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Outside of those two locations though, raids are expected to shut down any operations that don’t comply with the new law. Indian reservations are not exempt. To accommodate the anticipated need for more law enforcement personnel, the DEA’s role has been greatly expanded. The agency has been renamed the Pleasure Enforcement Administration (PEA), and former DEA director Michele Leonhart was named as interim PEA director until a formal appointment can be made. “There’s no one better at denying people pleasure,” said Leonhart, “just ask my husband.”<br /><br />In a surprise move, masturbation was classified as a Schedule I controlled pleasure, meaning it will now be illegal under any and all circumstances. Former Drug Czar, now interim Pleasure Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, was supportive of the decision. “What kind of message would we be sending our children if their government allowed such behavior,” said Mr. Kerlikowske. “We’ve known for years that masturbation is a gateway activity, leading to other forbidden pleasures, such as gambling, drugs, and prostitution. It has no medical benefit, is highly addictive, and undermines the moral integrity of our society.”<br /><br />Law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and the private prison industry have also unanimously praised the new legislation. Mr. Kerlikowske, a former police officer, pointed out that masturbation is a major contributor to violent crime. “Most violent criminals at the time of their arrest had either recently masturbated or were planning to do so later that night. No other single activity has been associated with such a wide array of antisocial behavior.” <div><br /></div><div>The newly-redesigned PEA web site provides plenty of data to support these and other claims. According to evidence provided by the PEA, masturbation has been linked to a variety of physical and emotional problems, especially in adolescent boys. Poor grades, short attention span, decreased cognitive ability, carpal tunnel syndrome, and blindness have all been reportedly caused by excessive masturbation. “We even have studies that show that masturbation causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others,” said PEA director Leonhart. “Statistics don’t lie,” she added.<br /><br />Commenting on this far-reaching new legislation, the president admitted it could potentially affect a large number of people, as over 50 percent of the population have admitted to engaging in one or more of the forbidden activities at least once. But in the long run, our nation as a whole will benefit. Especially those in law enforcement and the private prison industry. When asked if he personally had ever engaged in any of these activities, the president admitted, “Yes, I tried masturbation a few times when I was in college. But it was the 70s, and all the kids were doing it. I realize now that no one should be allowed this unhealthy, immoral pleasure. “Choking the chicken” is no longer in my vocabulary.”<br /><br />But reactions outside of Washington were not as consistently positive about the new law. Susan Herman, president of the ACLU, denounced the legislation as not only an invasion of privacy, but discriminatory to minorities and the poor. “The poor will be unfairly targeted by this law. Because of crowded living conditions, those of lower socioeconomic status will be far more likely to be caught pleasuring themselves than middle-class kids who don’t have to share a bedroom.” Many medical experts also oppose the new law. “Masturbation is a completely normal activity that people have been doing for thousands of years,” said Dr. I.M. Wood of the Stanford Masturbation Institute. “The government’s claims of its potential harm are greatly exaggerated. There has never been a death attributed to masturbation, except of course those that have been linked to DWM (driving while masturbating).”<br /><br />Nevertheless, the new law will go into effect today, April 1, 2010. If you wanted to “rub one out,” as the kids say, one last time, you are already too late. And if you still must, be sure to be quiet about it. Under the new law, “sounds of pleasure” are now grounds for a search warrant. But remember, it’s for your own good.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">This is a work of fiction. Any similarity between the characters and events portrayed herein and any actual people or events is purely coincidental. Happy April 1st!</span></div>Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-38611009087651861102010-03-26T07:51:00.000-04:002010-03-26T13:58:48.554-04:00Hillary Clinton Declared Legally InsaneOK, I’m the one making the declaration, and maybe I don’t actually have the authority to make this declaration official. At least not in a strictly legal sense. But I think it’s obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention.<br /><br />What I’m talking about is the delegation the U.S. of A. sent to Mexico this week to discuss the growing drug-related violence south of the border. In case you don’t know it, lots and lots of people have been killed in Mexico in the past few years since the Mexican government started their crack down on the drug cartels. Not that we really care all that much about some Mexicans killing each other. Sure, we’ve been sending them money to help them in their war on the cartels. But, as they say, out of sight, out of mind.<br /><br />But all that changed last week when some Americans were killed in Mexico. Killing Mexicans is one thing. We might express our condolences, but beyond that it’s not really much of a concern to us. But when Americans are killed, well that’s an entirely different story.<br /><br />So what do we do as a response? We send an impressive “delegation” to Mexico (it includes our Secretary of State, our Drug Czar, our Secretary of Defense, and our Secretary of Homeland security) to set them straight. Show them how we deal with drug violence here in the good ol’ U. S. of A. Which, nobody seemed to notice, is exactly the same way they deal with drug violence in Mexico. But no, that alone does not qualify anyone for an official declaration of insanity. What does is this little exchange quoted in the Wall Street Journal:<br /><blockquote><i>Mrs. Clinton said the administration was looking at anything that worked in fighting drug cartels. When asked if that included legalizing or decriminalizing drugs like marijuana, she said “no.</i>”</blockquote>They are willing to consider <b>anything</b> that might work. But that does not include decriminalization or legalization of marijuana. I guess her definition of “anything” is different than mine. Could Ms. Clinton have taken a lesson from her husband on how to change the meaning of common words?<br /><br />Regardless, I think the U.S. strategy south of the border illustrates what Albert Einstein was talking about when he defined “insanity” as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” That’s exactly what we are doing. By “anything,” Ms. Clinton really means we will continue to do only what we’ve already been doing. In other words, more of the same. Doesn’t matter that this strategy has been, by any objective measure, a total failure. Both illegal drugs and drug-related violence are as prevalent as they’ve always been. Nevertheless, we are going to stick with it because we know in our hearts that it’s a good strategy. If we keep at it long enough, we’re bound to get the results we want. We just have to be patient. Why try something new, no matter how likely it is to work, when we already know we’re doing the right thing?<br /><br />So, because Ms. Clinton believes that doing the same thing over and over will eventually produce different results, I officially and legally declare her insane. But what about the Drug Czar, you might ask? He’s spouting the same nonsense as Ms. Clinton. True. But he’s bound by law to spout that nonsense. He’s not insane, he’s just a good civil servant doing his job (not that there’s always a clear distinction between the two). But Ms. Clinton is not bound by the law that requires our Drug Czar to mindlessly regurgitate the party line. She can speak for herself. And if she really believes what she’s saying, it’s time somebody booked her a nice padded room in a secure institution where she can do no harm to herself or others. It’s for her own good. And ours.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-8245408333148548512010-03-19T11:17:00.005-04:002010-03-20T14:12:27.773-04:00US and Canadian Officials on Cartel Payroll?The evidence may be entirely circumstantial, but its volume is rapidly increasing every day. It’s getting to the point where it will soon be pretty difficult for politicians and law enforcement officials on both sides of the border to deny their involvement. After all, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...<br /><br />What first made me sit up and take notice was what some might call a coincidence. Both the US Drug Czar and the Canadian Prime Minister both made public statements in the same week implicating their involvement in the Mexican drug cartels. That was just too much of a “coincidence” for me not to notice.<br /><br />First there was our very own Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who has repeatedly pointed out the connection between illegal marijuana and the Mexican cartels. Here’s a great example from his testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:<br /><blockquote><i>The violent international drug cartels operating on both sides of the border are criminals, but they collectively pose a national security threat to our Nation.</i></blockquote>He is pointing out the obvious, that the cartels are so dangerous as to threaten our national security. And he agrees that the majority of the cartels’ funding comes from the black market marijuana trade. Yet he consistently opposes any changes in our laws that might serve to undermine those very cartels. “Legalization” is not in his nor in the president’s vocabulary.<br /><br />And then there was a comment made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a YouTube interview. When asked about the legalization of marijuana, the number one most popular issue, his reply included the following:<br /><blockquote><i>Buying marijuana, he said, means supporting “international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence, intimidation, social disaster and catastrophe all across the world.”</i></blockquote>He’s promoting a policy of strict prohibition and at the same time admitting that that policy is putting money into the hands of some of the most violent criminals in the world. If that isn’t virtually admitting his involvement with those cartels, I don’t know what is. Smells a little ducky to me.<br /><br />So that got me wondering, if this conspiracy reaches to the highest levels of government, who else is involved? What about some of these so-called tough-on-crime drug crusaders. Is their crusade just a ruse to hide their involvement with the cartels? What about DEA agent Jeffrey Sweetin who recently conducted a raid on a legitimate Colorado medical marijuana grower. At the time of the raid, agent Sweetin commented, “The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody.” So he wants to put an end to the legal marijuana market. It doesn’t take rocket appliances to know that every legitimate dispensary or grower that is shut down puts money into the pockets of the cartels. Could agent Sweetin be on a cartel’s payroll?<br /><br />And what about those crusaders in Southern California: San Diego district attorney Bonnie Dumanis, Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, or Los Angeles city attorney Carmen Trutanich? Surely they must realize that every dollar of income they take away from a legitimate dispensary goes directly to an illegal cartel. More lackeys of the cartels? You tell me.<br /><br />Although circumstantial, I’d say the evidence against these and other alleged prohibitionists is overwhelming. I think it’s about time that these people be investigated. In fact, I’d say that any time any politician or law enforcement official appears to favor the black market over the legal market, that’s grounds for an investigation. Let’s nip this collusion in the bud. Let’s stop these puppets of the most violent criminals in the world from infiltrating and corrupting our government. Let’s root them out and exile them to Mexico where they can hang out with their cartel buddies and leave us the hell alone.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-61014710531014267202009-12-14T20:42:00.003-05:002009-12-19T13:16:10.210-05:00A Constitutional Loophole?Marijuana and other recreational drugs are illegal everywhere in the U.S. of A. because of a piece of federal legislation passed in 1970 called the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). So how is it, you might ask, that criminalizing alcohol in 1919 required a Constitutional amendment, yet criminalizing any and all other drugs required nothing more than Congress passing a law? The answer involves what you might call “finding a loophole” in the Constitution. After briefly explaining that so-called loophole, I’m going to outline what I think is another loophole that might just negate the first.<br /><br />To begin with, the 10th amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, any powers not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution are given to the states or the people. That’s why alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment: the power to criminalize alcohol had to be specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution.<br /><br />But those tricky folks in the Nixon administration figured out a way around that pesky old 10th amendment. They justified the CSA with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” Since a lot of recreational drug use involves international and interstate commerce, the CSA can be seen as Congress exercising its power to regulate the drug market. It doesn’t matter that it is a black market, ironically <span style="font-weight:bold;">because</span> of the CSA. The law doesn’t distinguish–a market is a market–so the Constitutionality of the CSA has been upheld.<br /><br />But what, you may be wondering, about drug-related activity that occurs entirely within a single state, or even entirely within one’s home? Believe it or not, the Supreme Court has decided that the national and/or international market is still involved. Yes it’s true. If, for example, you were to grow your own marijuana in your own home and consume it there, you are still affecting the market because you’re not spending your money in it. Hard as it is to believe, the Supreme Court supports the Constitutionality of the CSA because it helps protect the business interests of black market drug dealers. In other words, the CSA created and now protects the black market for illicit drugs.<br /><br />But what about the medical marijuana market? Couldn’t it be said that states that currently allow medical marijuana have created a <span style="font-weight:bold;">brand new market</span>? Actually a set of new markets, each entirely self-contained within its state. Markets that do not involve interstate or international commerce. Legitimate markets that are entirely different from the illicit black market created by the CSA. Markets that do not fall under the federal government's authority to regulate commerce.<br /><br />So it seems to me (I am not a lawyer) that the Constitutionality of the CSA could be challenged on these grounds. Granted, the Supreme Court decided that the illicit drug market can be “controlled” by the federal government. But we’re no longer talking about that market. The legal, state-controlled markets for medical marijuana are completely separate and different, and in no way involve any commerce outside of their respective states. What do you think? Could this be a legitimate loophole? Any Constitutional lawyers out there care to comment?Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-16287110284677181802009-10-03T19:50:00.003-04:002009-10-04T11:57:38.809-04:00Canada’s Our BitchIt’s been a while since I’ve felt motivated to write something for my blog, but a recent development in the drug war has gotten my creative juices flowing again. What I’m talking about is the situation with Marc Emery. In case you haven’t heard, Mr. Emery ran a successful mail-order cannabis seed operation for many years in Canada. He paid his taxes, and the Canadian government was (mostly) happy. That is, until they were approached by the good ol’ U.S. of A., who considered Mr. Emery a major drug kingpin and a threat to the American way of life (i.e., prohibition). So when the DEA asked for Mr. Emery’s head on a platter (figuratively speaking), surprisingly, the Canadian government was more than happy to oblige. After a lengthy legal battle, Mr. Emery surrendered himself last week to be extradited to the U.S. Once here, he will spend years in an American prison for what is a minor offense in Canada. That is, if the Canadian government had ever bothered to prosecute him. Which they didn’t. (Now that I think about it, this would make a great episode for that TV show, <span style="font-style:italic;">Locked Up Abroad</span>).<br /><br />Let’s face it, Canada may have at times seemed like a independent-minded country, but deep down they’ve always wanted to be just like us. And with their now-conservative government, there’s no longer any need to pretend. It’s kind of nice actually, having things out in the open like this. I mean where else are we going to find a country where when we say, “jump,” they ask, “how high?” It’s especially refreshing at a time when we just can’t seem to get any respect around the world. Maybe Canada’s new motto should be, “What’s OK in the U.S. is fine with us.”<br /><br />It’s sort of like when you were a kid and you had a little brother. You know, the one that’s always tagging along, wanting to play with the big kids. Sure they’re annoying at times, but having someone that’s willing to do just about anything to get into your good graces can be kind of fun. You want them to go fetch something, they hop to it. You need somebody to do your chores, they’re more than happy to. Of course, no matter what they do, they’re still that annoying little brother, and you can never really take them seriously. But you pretend to, and everybody is happy. If that little brother were a country, he would be Canada.<br /><br />The main reason we can’t ever take them seriously is because they do things that we would never, ever do ourselves. (Or at least admit to doing.) For example, what do you think would happen if the situation were reversed? Let’s say that someone in the U.S. was selling liquor over the internet to people in Iran, where alcohol is illegal. What do you think would happen if the Iranians wanted to come over here and arrest those liquor peddlers with an armed paramilitary force, and then haul them off to an Iranian prison? Not a chance in hell we would allow that. I have no doubt that the U.S. government would stand up for the rights of its citizens and tell the Iranians to take a hike. But the Canadians have no problem with handing one of their own law-abiding citizens over to a foreign country to sit for years in a foreign prison. That’s what makes them fun to have around, but we can never accept them as equals. <br /><br />And I almost forgot the best part, the aspect of this situation that shows how big and important we really are. At least compared to Canada. You see, Mr. Emery was not arrested for anything he’s <span style="font-weight:bold;">done</span>. There are hundreds of cannabis seed vendors in Canada and around the world that are still in operation and still selling their product to Americans. Turns out Mr. Emery was singled out and arrested for what he <span style="font-weight:bold;">said</span>. And for how he spent his profits. The DEA even admitted it. Publicly. When speaking to the press after Mr. Emery’s arrest, did the DEA mention the impact of their bust on the flow of illegal drugs into our country? Did they mention the impact on drug production in our country? Did they mention the impact on drug use in our country? No, no, and no. Their only comment was on the impact the arrest had on the marijuana legalization movement, now that one of its major spokesmen and funders was out of the picture. I guess it just goes to show that freedom of speech applies only to American citizens, at least as far as we’re concerned. After all, we can’t allow foreigners to go around criticizing our government and its policies, now can we? And who else but Canada is going to let us lock up their citizens for criticizing us? It’s nice not to have to invade a country to make them see things our way.<br /><br />So now that we’ve made Canada our bitch, I wonder how else we can make them bend over and take what we’re pushing. More importantly, how can we insure that after we have our way with them, they stand up and politely say, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?” You know, they’ve got that universal health care system that we hate so much (damn socialists!). Maybe we ought to start arresting Canadians who speak out on the benefits of their health care system. I’m sure we could find an excuse. And that’s only the start. Before you know it, Canada will be just like our 51st state. Without any of the benefits, of course.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-70141747931053158222009-09-01T10:07:00.002-04:002009-09-01T10:10:03.859-04:00Another Three Bite the DustHistory was made last week. What? You didn’t hear about it? Maybe that’s because this particular story doesn’t fit in too well with the message the mainstream media is trying to sell you. What I’m talking about is the decriminalization of drugs in Mexico. People can no longer go to jail for personal possession of small amounts of any controlled substance. At least not after the new law goes into effect. And when I say “small,” I’m talking really small. The limit for marijuana is five grams, and for cocaine it’s half a gram. If you are caught with the specified amount or less, you are encouraged to seek treatment. If you are caught three times, treatment is mandatory. That’s it. No jail or criminal record.<br /><br />Granted, this is a very small step. It will likely do nothing to impact the extreme violence in Mexico caused in big part by the U.S.’s prohibitionist policies. Cartels will continue to kill and be killed by the authorities in record numbers. So other than refocusing the efforts of the Mexican police, there will probably be very little immediate effect. “So, what’s the big deal?” you might ask. Well, I’m glad you asked. The big deal is that this very same legislation was proposed in Mexico less that three years ago. The result? The good ol’ U.S. of A. threw a hissy fit. It might have been a conniption, I’m not sure. But the point is, the U.S. told Mexico that such a law was not acceptable. Prohibition was the one and only way to deal with the drug menace. And of course Mexico said, “Yes sir. Thank you sir, may I have another.” End of story.<br /><br />But things seem to have changed here in the land of the free. This time, the Mexican legislation was proposed and passed with nary a word from the bully to the north. Zip. Nada. No response whatsoever. In fact, you might even think that we are trying to avoid the issue entirely. It’s kind of like if we just ignore the Mexican’s attempt at a sensible drug policy, it will just go away and leave us alone. But that’s OK. Progress is progress, no matter how small or how quiet it’s kept.<br /><br />But wait, there’s more. At the same time that Mexico was making history, drugs were decriminalized in Argentina as well. Well, sort of. The Argentinean supreme court unanimously ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish an adult for the private use of marijuana as long as that use doesn't harm anyone else. Now this is not quite the same as actually changing legislation, but it’s pretty close. This ruling will force the Argentinean legislature to reconsider their drug laws. As if that wasn’t enough, earlier this year a Brazilian court made a similar ruling. That’s right, possession of a controlled substance for personal use is no longer against the law in Brazil.<br /><br />So that makes three – count them, three – nations in this hemisphere that have eliminated criminal penalties for the personal possession of controlled substances. I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to feel just a little optimistic again. Just when I thought things were back to normal and there was no hope. If this keeps up, my optimism might just become a habit. Now if they’d just stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in this country, as was promised, I might very well become downright giddy. Nah. That’ll never happen.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-84411147241126632632009-08-25T08:42:00.004-04:002009-08-25T08:42:00.414-04:00Grounds for Dismissal?You may recall me talking about our Drug Czar and his role in keeping illegal drugs illegal. Pretty sleazy if you ask me, this whole thing about him stifling research and opposing all legalization efforts. But at least he’s doing his job. And, like it or not, we taxpayers are getting our money’s worth out of him. Which is more than can be said about a lot of other civil servants<br /><br />Just to refresh your memory, Mr. Kerlikowske recently told some folks in Fresno, CA that “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.” He also included the standard required statement, “Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it’s not in mine.” He’s made these very same statements in public on other occasion in recent months as well. Fair enough. The guy’s just saying what he is required to say, being the good puppet. I may not agree with his message, but when someone is paying you to do a job, I believe you should do that job to the best of your abilities. In this case, that would be lying, preferably with a straight face. And so far, our czar has been doing just that. Good job, Mr. Kerlikowske. Way to earn that paycheck.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that was then, and this is now. Fast forward a couple of weeks, and we find our beloved czar in Seattle for a roundtable discussion on drug policy. You would expect Mr. Kerlikowske to continue being the good puppet and repeat the standard message yet again. At least I would, since that’s what he’s being paid to do. But no. During an interview with local news our czar backpedalled on his previous statements, and said:<br /><br />“I certainly said that legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary nor is it in mine. But the other question was in reference to smoked marijuana. And as we know, the FDA has not determined that smoked marijuana has a value, and this is clearly a medical question, and that's where I've been leaving it.” He continued his mixed message with, “Sometimes you make a mistake and you work very hard to correct it. That happens. I should’ve clearly said ‘smoked’ marijuana and then gone on to say that this is clearly a question that should be answered by the medical community.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">WHAT!?!?!?!</span> What do you mean you were talking about “smoked” marijuana? What do you mean the issue of medical marijuana should be decided by the medical community? That’s not the way we do things here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Nosiree. Whether or not people have access to a medicine that improves the quality of their lives has nothing whatsoever to do with the medical community. Where have you been for the past 70 years, Mr. Kerlikowske? When it comes to marijuana, the opinion of the medical community, or any other community outside the Beltway, is irrelevant. If the medical community had anything to do with it, medical marijuana would have been legalized long ago. Or, at the very least, would have been extensively studied for the past 40 years. What could Mr. Kerlikowske have been thinking? What could possibly explain his very un-czar-like behavior? Could he have been self-medicating with an illegal substance?<br /><br />Well, he did also say, “We had been hiking in 107 degree weather in the Sierra Nevadas...” OK, that explains it. He was suffering from heat stroke and was confused. But wait, that was in reference to his original statement that marijuana was dangerous and had no medical value. Now I’m the one that’s confused.<br /><br />But one thing I’m <span style="font-weight:bold;">not</span> confused about is our Drug Czar’s blatant disregard for a Congressional mandate. He is required to oppose medical marijuana research and any other efforts toward making marijuana, and all other Schedule I drugs, legal in any way. That’s what he’s being paid to do. Seems to me if any other public servant so cavalierly disregarded the mandate of the people (i.e., Congress), they would probably be forced to resign. In shame. So what do you say Mr. Kerlikowske? After embarrassing yourself and your government so publicly, don’t you think it’s time you passed the torch to someone better suited to the job? I think Barry McCaffrey is available.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-78655555750053932972009-08-18T08:23:00.000-04:002009-08-18T08:23:00.371-04:00Do We Really Need a Schedule I?For those of you that don’t know, the Controlled Substances Act places all controlled substances into one of five categories, or schedules, with each schedule having its own set of criteria for inclusion. Schedule V is the least restrictive for the safest, least abused drugs, such as cough medicine. Schedule I, on the other hand, is the most restrictive and reserved for only the most dangerous drugs that have no medical use. Schedule I substances, which include heroin, LSD, and marijuana, are strictly forbidden under virtually all circumstances, including research. That’s not to say that absolutely no research is ever done with these substances. But it’s very limited and subject to the approval of the DEA. Marijuana, for example, is at this time legally available for research purposes from only one source, and then only in a very low-grade form. What that means is that even if someone were to get to the point of conducting the large-scale clinical trials necessary for FDA approval, enough of the drug would not be available.<br /><br />So what I’d like to know is why we even need a Schedule I. What’s the point? From a control standpoint, substances in Schedule I are restricted only to those doing legitimate research. Others can easily acquire them from the black market. Substances in Schedules II through V are strictly controlled, but they are legally available for research or through prescription.<br /><br />So it looks like the answer to my question is that the point of having a Schedule I is to restrict research, not unauthorized, recreational use. Whether or not anyone would actually admit to that being the reason, it is certainly the result. And restricting research of any kind is not the sort of thing a free society should do. The whole point of scientific research is to further human knowledge. That’s a good thing. Restricting the generation and flow of knowledge only serves to stifle a society.<br /><br />Now I can certainly understand restricting, or at least strictly controlling, certain types of research. Obviously we can’t have high school kids trying to build nuclear devices in their garages. But medical research? I think you’d be hard pressed to find too many people that believe we shouldn’t do everything we can to find new medicines and new cures. Unless of course that medicine involves marijuana (or stem cells, but that’s another story). Of course those people are probably not doctors. They have no way of knowing what might be discovered if marijuana and other Schedule I substances were able to be freely studied. And of course there’s no way to convince those people otherwise because the research cannot be done.<br /><br />And it’s not only research that suffers from there being a Schedule I. Substances that have been shown to be beneficial under certain circumstances cannot be prescribed by doctors if they are in Schedule I. And it’s not just marijuana. For example, heroin is one of the most effective pain killers known. Yet only its less effective relative morphine can be prescribed. LSD and other psychedelics have been shown to have some uses in psychotherapy, yet they cannot be prescribed either. While substances such as cocaine and methamphetamine are in Schedule II and can be used therapeutically. Seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction.<br /><br />So the whole existence of a Schedule I seems pretty crazy to me. What’s crazy about it is the government telling the medical community what drugs they can and can’t prescribe. Any such policies should be determined by physicians based on science, not politicians based on politics. Even crazier is restricting medical research of any kind. Regardless of where a particular line of research might lead, it will at the very least generate new knowledge. And today, just as it has been throughout human history, knowledge is power.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-41845305597521811632009-08-11T08:50:00.002-04:002009-08-11T08:50:00.769-04:00The Writing On The WallJust last week the National Institute on Drug Abuse (i.e., the federal government) published an RFP. That’s a “request for proposals” to you and me. Nothing unusual about that, as the government is always soliciting proposals for grants and government contracts. But what <b>is</b> unusual is the nature of this particular contract. Perhaps the title of the RFP will give you an idea of what I mean: <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2f734e46a74d477e37ac07798c08a3ae&tab=core&tabmode=list" target="_blank">Production, Analysis, & Distribution of Cannabis & Marijuana Cigarettes</a>. Yes, that’s right. The federal government is looking for someone to grow marijuana for them.<br /><br />But what, you might ask, about the University of Mississippi? Haven’t they been the sole supplier of all legal medical and research marijuana in this country for the past 40 years? And wasn’t it just a few short months ago that this very same federal government, after a protracted legal battle, declined a legitimate application from the University of Massachusetts to produce marijuana and other Schedule I drugs for research? And wasn’t it the DEA who, in spite of support from a number of Congressmen and a favorable ruling from their very own DEA Administrative Law Judge, ruled that ending the government’s sole-source monopoly on marijuana would lead to increased illicit use? And besides, claimed the DEA, the University of Mississippi provides all the (low-grade) marijuana that researchers in this country could ever want.<br /><br />So what’s happened in the past 7 months to change things? Well, for starters, just a few days after the DEA’s decision was handed down, a new president was sworn in. But neither he nor his new attorney general reversed or overruled the DEA’s decision. I think it’s something bigger than just a new administration, although that certainly has a lot to do with it.<br /><br />I think the people in our government are finally starting to see the writing on the wall. In the past few years a number of legitimate scientific papers have been published on the medical benefits of the various compounds found in marijuana. The science is getting pretty hard to deny, even for hard-core drug warriors. But helping cancer patients alleviate their nausea or stimulate their appetites is not enough to change these people’s minds. Not when there are plenty of other expensive alternatives provided by the pharmaceutical industry. What is starting to get their attention is the research focused on cannabis compounds as a cure for cancer. That’s right, <b>a cure for cancer</b>.<br /><br />You see, I believe that within the next 5-10 years a real cure for cancer will be found. By “real” I mean one that doesn’t practically kill the patient to rid them of cancer. And I believe that cure will be based on compounds derived from marijuana. More importantly, that cure will come from somewhere other than the good ol’ U.S. of A. How embarrassed will we be when the world learns that we had a cure for cancer right under our very noses all this time while we did our best to prevent anyone from discovering it. Boy, will our government’s face be red. What are they going to say? Sorry? Our bad?<div><br />It’s true you know, CBD and other cannabinoids (the active compounds in marijuana) have been shown to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed. Unlike current chemotherapy alternatives, which kill all cells indiscriminately, the only side effect of CBD treatment is a relaxed feeling. And here’s the kicker: almost all of this research is being done somewhere else. It’s yet one more area where our country is falling behind the rest of the world, medicine. How embarrassing indeed.<br /><br />So I believe that not wanting to look stupid in the eyes of the world just may be responsible for the changing attitude of our government with respect to medical marijuana research. Not that looking stupid has ever stopped us before. But this is different. In most cases, like wars, right or wrong can be pretty subjective. But when it comes to suppressing research that might lead to a cure for cancer, there’s no two ways about it. That’s a bad thing. Oh well, at least it will give all those government propagandists something to do—spin it so it looks like our war on drugs really was a good thing, and show how smart we were by putting an end to it.<br /><br />FYI, here are a few studies that have come out in the past few years that show promising results with respect to using cannabinoid compounds to treat cancer. Notice where most of this research has been done?<br /><ul><li><a href="http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/short/64/16/5617" target="_blank">Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas</a></li><li><a href="http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/ww_en_db_study_show.php?s_id=193" target="_blank">A pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme</a></li><li><a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php" target="_blank">Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels</a></li><li><a href="http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/897" target="_blank">Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells: A Novel Role of Cannabidiol in the Regulation of p22phox and Nox4 Expression</a></li><li><a href="http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=220#2" target="_blank">Cannabidiol inhibits tumour growth in leukaemia and breast cancer in animal studies</a></li></ul></div>Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-67448236506900328012009-08-04T07:56:00.001-04:002009-08-04T07:56:00.612-04:00Who’s The Boss?All this talk recently about and by our Drug Czar (aka, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy) has got me wondering: Who exactly does this guy answer to?<br /><br />The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy was officially created by the “National Drug-Abuse Act of 1988” (not to be confused with the “National Drug-Abuse Act of 1986”). So the office was created by an act of Congress. But the office itself, and its director, are a part of the executive branch. And, up until the current administration, the Drug Czar was a cabinet-level position.<br /><br />And then in 1998, Congress passed the “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998.” That act stated, in part:<br /><blockquote><i>The Director ... shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that ... is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration.</i></blockquote>OK, sounds clear enough. The Drug Czar’s job has nothing to do with setting policy or providing factual information to citizens. Pretty shameful, if you ask me. But at least we know where the Drug Czar stands on national drug-control policy: Exactly where the federal government tells him to stand.<br /><br />But wait, there’s more. In March, 2009 the President issued a “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies” that stated, in part:<br /><blockquote><i>Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.<br /><br />The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public.</i></blockquote>As you can see, the plot has thickened considerably. What was once clear and unambiguous is now confused and contradictory. Congress has mandated that the Drug Czar oppose all efforts to reschedule Schedule I drugs (i.e., legalize them). Science has nothing whatsoever to do with his position on the subject. On the other hand, the President has mandated that science must guide all relevant decisions of his administration, and that policy makers must not lie to the public about science.<br /><br />So what’s a Drug Czar to do? And I have to ask again, who’s the boss? Does the Czar answer to Congress, who created his position in the first place and who wrote his job description? Or does he answer to the president, who appointed him to a position in the executive branch? For now, at least, it looks like the President’s mandate to tell the truth about the science behind policy decision is trumped by Congress’s mandate to ignore science and stick to the official party line. Not that anybody really believed politicians would suddenly start telling the truth about the reasoning behind their policy decisions. But it sounded good on paper. So to answer the original question, it looks like the Drug Czar answers to the president but must follow the rules laid down by Congress. He is, as I’ve said before, nothing more than a shill for the federal government’s anti-drug propaganda machine. Sad, but true.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-438023084824237837.post-76001387079032179672009-07-28T08:40:00.004-04:002009-07-28T08:40:00.630-04:00Meet the New Drug Czar, Same As The Old Drug CzarSoon after taking office, our current president appointed a new director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, otherwise known as the Drug Czar. Nothing really surprising about the appointment, other than for the first time it is no longer a cabinet-level position (no explanation for that). But at the time, the marijuana news and blog sites were buzzing with facts and speculations about the new appointee, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske. Based on his history, some were actually hopeful that this new guy would be more sympathetic to the anti-prohibition cause than his predecessors. Sadly, these hopes were soon dashed as Mr. Kerlikowske has since stated publicly on more than one occasion that decriminalization and legalization are not in his vocabulary (nor in the president’s), and that marijuana is a dangerous drug with no medical uses. Period. End of “discussion.”<br /><br />Apparently all these hopeful people were not aware of the Drug Czar’s job description, which which was modified by Congress in 1998 to read, in part:<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>The Director ... shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that ... is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration.</blockquote></span><br />What this means is that the Drug Czar is required by law to oppose any efforts toward ending prohibition, and to even oppose medical or other research of schedule I substances (e.g., marijuana). So, when he says that certain words are not in his vocabulary, he means that literally. By law, he cannot speak in favor of any change in policy. You see, it doesn’t matter who the Drug Czar is, or what his personal opinions might be. His job is to do everything he can to maintain the status quo. In other words, to keep schedule I substances in schedule I. It wouldn’t have mattered if Woody Harrelson had been appointed Drug Czar, the message would have been the same. Any public statement contrary to the official position of the federal government would, at the very least, get him fired. My only question is, what’s the president’s excuse?<br /><br />I don’t know about you, but this institutionalized lying seems just a tad blatant to me. Sure, all politicians lie. Much like death and taxes, it’s inevitable. But they typically don’t like to admit it, unless they get caught and have to. What’s unusual in this particular case is that lying is part of the job description. Regardless of any scientific evidence or public opinion, the Drug Czar must oppose any change in the current state of prohibition. Even if marijuana were widely accepted as having great medical value, he must say it doesn’t. Even if every citizen in the country were to be in favor of ending prohibition, he must say that it will never happen. So don’t blame Mr. Kerlikowske too much. He’s just being a good civil servant and fulfilling his job responsibilities as best he can.<br /><br />The people you should be blaming are those that created the office of Drug Czar in the first place. And those that made the person holding that position into nothing more than a PR shill for the federal government. Once you understand the situation, you really can’t get too upset over what the Drug Czar says. Granted, some Czars have been more enthusiastic about it than others. OK, they’ve all be pretty enthusiastic crusaders for prohibition. But what can you expect? Given the job description, anyone with any contrary opinion (or self respect) probably wouldn’t even accept the appointment. Or be nominated in the first place.<br /><br />To summarize, the Drug Czar has nothing to do with drug policy in this country, other than doing his best to make sure that it doesn’t change. No need to even listen to what he says, as it’s the same story we’ve been hearing for over 70 years now. So any time the Drug Czar makes a public statement, just move along, nothing to see here.Tony Aromahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498092242484857022noreply@blogger.com0