Tony's Quest For Understanding

DEA To Expand War On Drugs

2011-04-01T07:21:00.001-04:00

Amid 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.

According to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, insulin’s FDA approval has been revoked, meaning it no longer has an accepted medical use in the United States.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.”

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.

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.

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.

Happy April 1st!

The Pendulum Swings Back

2010-11-03T10:35:00.002-04:00

Today 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.

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.

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.

What can we expect over the next 10 to 15 years? Here are my predictions:

No new medical cannabis legislation will pass.
No new decriminalization or legalization legislation will pass.
Medical cannabis programs in some states will either be repealed or drastically cut back.
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.
Arrests and imprisonment for cannabis offenses will increase across the country.
The same things will happen in Canada.

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.

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.”

If Proposition 19 Fails, A New Strategy

2010-09-09T14:24:00.000-04:00

If 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.

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.

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.

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”?

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.

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.

A New Prohibitionist Tactic

2010-08-10T08:03:00.003-04:00

Over 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?

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.”

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.

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?

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 they plan to be on their 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?

The Whole Truth

2010-08-03T05:28:00.001-04:00

When 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Federal Medical Marijuana Cases in California & elsewhere.

Prohibition and the 13th Amendment

2010-07-27T08:37:00.004-04:00

Remember the 13th Amendment? The one that goes something like this:

AMENDMENT XIII

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.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

According to my dictionary, a slave is

a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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 more crazy, me or the government?

Prohibitionism: A Religious Cult

2010-07-15T14:27:00.000-04:00

It 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prohibition Really Is A Success

2010-07-11T15:05:00.002-04:00

I’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.

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?

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.

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?

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!

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.

McCaffrey Fears Stoned Eye Surgeons

2010-04-26T07:46:00.000-04:00

In 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Simple Solution for Oregon Medical Marijuana Users

2010-04-16T17:03:00.003-04:00

If 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 of Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries of the state of Oregon. 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.

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-recommended marijuana, but they cannot fire you for taking doctor-prescribed 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.

Of course then it will be up to the feds to sort things out. If drug tests can’t distinguish between a prescribed and a recommended 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.

My Response to Denny Chapin

2010-04-12T07:27:00.004-04:00

Last week, Mr. Chapin wrote a guest article for my blog about the decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana. Now it’s my turn to respectfully disagree.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obama: Pro-Decriminalization and Anti-Legalization?

2010-04-05T06:55:00.004-04:00

This week we have a very special guest post by none other than Denny Chapin. Mr. Chapin is the Managing Editor of AllTreatment.com, a directory of drug rehab centers and resource for substance abuse information. He has written for other blogs like Drug WarRant and Morning Donut.

Marijuana is Harmful

Recently-appointed ‘Drug Czar’ 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.

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.

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.

Background on the Drug Czar

Before Kerlikowske became the U.S. Drug Czar 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.

Change in Position?

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:

Barrack Obama – “I inhaled frequently”

Barrack Obama and Medical Marijuana

Barrack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization

Political Reaction

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.

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.

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.

Contradiction?

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?

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.

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.

Be sure to tune in next week for my rebuttal—T.A.

Congress Amends Controlled Substance Act

2010-04-01T06:22:00.004-04:00

Washington, 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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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).”

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.

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!

Hillary Clinton Declared Legally Insane

2010-03-26T07:51:00.000-04:00

OK, 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.”

They are willing to consider anything 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?

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?

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.

US and Canadian Officials on Cartel Payroll?

2010-03-19T11:17:00.005-04:00

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...

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

Buying marijuana, he said, means supporting “international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence, intimidation, social disaster and catastrophe all across the world.”

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.

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?

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.

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.

A Constitutional Loophole?

2009-12-14T20:42:00.003-05:00

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.

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.

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 because of the CSA. The law doesn’t distinguish–a market is a market–so the Constitutionality of the CSA has been upheld.

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.

But what about the medical marijuana market? Couldn’t it be said that states that currently allow medical marijuana have created a brand new market? 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.

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?

Canada’s Our Bitch

2009-10-03T19:50:00.003-04:00

It’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, Locked Up Abroad).

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.”

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.

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.

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 done. 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 said. 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.

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.

Another Three Bite the Dust

2009-09-01T10:07:00.002-04:00

History 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Grounds for Dismissal?

2009-08-25T08:42:00.004-04:00

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

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.

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:

“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.”

WHAT!?!?!?! 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?

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.

But one thing I’m not 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.

Do We Really Need a Schedule I?

2009-08-18T08:23:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Writing On The Wall

2009-08-11T08:50:00.002-04:00

Just 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 is unusual is the nature of this particular contract. Perhaps the title of the RFP will give you an idea of what I mean: Production, Analysis, & Distribution of Cannabis & Marijuana Cigarettes. Yes, that’s right. The federal government is looking for someone to grow marijuana for them.

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.

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.

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, a cure for cancer.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Who’s The Boss?

2009-08-04T07:56:00.001-04:00

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?

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.

And then in 1998, Congress passed the “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998.” That act stated, in part:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Meet the New Drug Czar, Same As The Old Drug Czar

2009-07-28T08:40:00.004-04:00

Soon 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.”

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

On The Other Hand...

2009-07-21T08:26:00.003-04:00

I wrote a rather optimistic piece a short time ago (Thank You, Mary Beth Buchanan) about how the tide was changing and things were starting to happen on the re-legalization front. If you’ve been reading my stuff for a while, you probably know that I am nothing if not pessimistic, at least when it comes to prohibition. So I thought I’d mention some recent developments that are less than positive. Just so you don’t think I’m starting to view things through rose-colored (or is that weed-colored?) glasses. Or going soft (that’s what she said).

One major blow to the movement came just a couple of weeks ago when the governor of New Hampshire vetoed the most restrictive medical marijuana bill ever drafted. And by restrictive I mean, for example, it applied to only to terminal patients and did not allow patients to grow their own medicine. The bill ended up being so limited because of objections by the governor to earlier drafts. In spite of changes that addressed all of the governor’s concerns, he still vetoed the bill. And it’s not a sure thing that the state Senate and House will be able to override the veto. Sad.

That same week an Illinois Congressman announced a bill that would specifically target the new devil’s weed, so-called “kush,” with stiffer penalties compared to just plain old regular marijuana. Helpfully, this Congressman explained how hydroponic growing techniques and controlled environments make this weed so dangerously potent. You learn something new every day. These proposed new penalties would put someone convicted of selling this killer weed in prison for up to 25 years. Yes, you heard me right, 25 years for selling good pot.

And let’s not forget some of the drug war’s latest martyrs. There’s Charlie Lynch who was recently sentenced for his convictions related to operating a legitimate medical dispensary in California. Clearly the federal judge was reluctant to impose the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. He delayed the sentencing and even wrote to the Attorney General to question whether the newly-announced hands-off policy applied in Mr. Lynch’s case. It did not. But the judge won out, sort of, by only sentencing Mr. Lynch to one year and one day in federal prison. So I guess there’s something positive in this otherwise sad, and unnecessary story.

Unfortunately, Eddie Lepp was not so lucky. He recently did receive the mandatory minimum 10-year sentence. This is a 56-year-old man in ill health who did nothing but grow and distribute medicine. The judge did allow for Mr. Lepp to receive another hearing if the laws ever change. That’s mighty white of him.

I guess my point is that, although we might (just might) have turned a corner, there’s still a long way to go. And if often seems that for every step we take forward, we take two back. Not that that’s anything new. Pretty much the same thing that’s been going on for the past 40 years. Same shit, different day.

There, now I feel better. Too much optimism makes me feel unsettled. Off balance. So don’t worry, I won’t go getting all positive again anytime soon. Back to business as usual.

That’s What They Say—Part 2

2009-07-14T08:22:00.000-04:00

The other part of the pro-drug war argument is the actual, once-and-for-all, definitive way to make it really work: get tough(er). In other words, the solution to our drug problem is stiffer penalties (sounds a lot like the first President Bush). Some qualify that by saying that the severe penalties should be aimed not at users, but at the rest of the people that make up the recreational drug black market—the producers, smugglers, dealers, and such. If you make the penalties severe enough, that will certainly discourage people from producing and selling drugs. Granted, it just might discourage a few, but I think the negative side effects of such an approach would be far worse than its doubtful benefits.

For one thing, higher risk means higher prices. And the one thing we can be certain of is that if addicts have to pay more, crime will go up. Higher risk also means that only the most hard-core, serious criminal types will continue to be involved in the business. The drug black market attracts some pretty bad individuals already. If the stakes are higher, they’re only going to get worse, mainly because the less serious will find other means of making a living.

And of course stiffer penalties don’t address the fact that once something is made illegal, the government loses all control over it. Legal drugs are regulated—their sale and distribution is controlled. You have to be 21 years old to buy liquor and, as a result, it’s not so easy for kids to get it (not impossible of course). Responsible merchants, which most are, won’t sell liquor without proof of their customer’s age. However, illegal drug dealers are generally not quite so responsible. They tend to be equal-opportunity vendors, and will sell to anybody with money. And if the risk is higher, even the ones with a bit of a conscience might relax their standards to make all they can as fast as they can. Even now, for most kids illegal drugs are easier to come by than legal ones. Stiffer penalties are not going to change that, other than possibly making the situation worse.

In conclusion, I don’t think it’s our government’s job to protect people (i.e., competent, sane, adults) from themselves. Nor do I think it’s even possible. Legislation will never prevent stupidity. And I don’t think stiffer penalties will help either. Other than the law enforcement and prison industries, who certainly welcome all the money thrown their way. If you think that’s crazy talk, then just look at the historical data. Anti-recreational-drug legislation has, at best, maintained the status quo. In some cases it’s exacerbated the problem, and even created new problems. What’s crazy is expecting the government to solve all of our social and medical problems.

That’s What They Say—Part 1

2009-07-07T17:34:00.001-04:00

From time to time I read about or hear someone discussing the war on drugs. In fact I read an editorial in a local paper about it just the other day. And I’ve noticed that pro-drug war arguments tend to focus on two aspects: why it’s a just cause and how to make it work.

The war on drugs is a just cause because it’s the duty of the government to protect people from themselves. Interesting concept, and arguably a noble ideal. It also sounds like a pretty liberal idea to me (i.e., the nanny government), although I doubt conservatives view trying to stop people from using drugs in quite that way. However it is not the role of our government. I’m not talking theoretically, but in terms of the duties granted to the federal government by our Constitution. The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of the federal government, and states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are left to the states or to the people. Many of the powers granted to the federal government could be described as intended to protect people from others (e.g., piracy, treason, international trade). But none could even remotely be interpreted as protecting people from themselves. So, while it may sound to some like something our government should be doing, protecting people from themselves is not something that our government has the power or authority to do. And if you think about it, you just might realize that in practice it is virtually impossible. People always have and always will do really stupid things and no legislation will ever stop them. Nor in my opinion should it even try, because doing stupid things is a big part of our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Not to mention a very fundamental part of human nature.

Here’s the other thing about trying to use legislation to prevent people from hurting themselves: Not only does it typically not accomplish what it is intended to, but it tends to hurt the people who have no need of such protection. Just because one or two people burn themselves with hot coffee, does that mean coffee shouldn’t be served hot ever again? Just because a small percentage of people who consume alcohol become alcoholics, does that mean we should prevent the vast majority of responsible drinkers from enjoying their frosty beverages? Likewise, because a few people abuse other recreational drugs, should we deprive everyone of the right to enjoy and use those drugs responsibly? Not only deprive them, but turn them into criminals? Well, apparently the answer is yes—punish many in a futile attempt to help a few.

To be continued…

Thank You, Mary Beth Buchanan

2009-06-30T14:44:00.002-04:00

Back in September of last year I wrote about Tommy Chong’s run-in with the feds and his subsequent incarceration. It hasn’t been that long, and yet a lot has happened since Mr. Chong’s imprisonment. After giving that unfortunate incident and some more recent events some serious thought, I’ve decided to go out on a limb and make a prediction. At some point in the future, when prohibition has ended, we will look back and mark the bust of Tommy Chong as a major turning point in the war on the war on drugs. I believe that the national publicity that surrounded the unreasonable treatment of Mr. Chong at the hands of our federal government finally brought the situation (i.e., the horrors of prohibition) to the attention of the American public. And that is a significant accomplishment.

So what exactly has happened since then that makes me want to go a-predictin’? Well, for starters we got ourselves a new president. I won’t go so far as to attribute any credit for that to what happened to Mr. Chong. But it didn’t hurt that this new president came into office when the media’s interest in the prohibition issue is at an all-time high. It’s getting so you can’t hardly turn on the TV or read a blog without seeing a news report or editorial about some aspect of prohibition. Mostly against. Then shortly after taking office, our new president appointed a new attorney general, as new presidents are wont to do. Although nothing is official yet, that new AG has stated publicly that the federal government is not interested in raiding law-abiding medical marijuana dispensaries. (A few have been raided since then, but that’s another story.) And let’s not forget our new Drug Czar, who said he doesn’t like the term “war on drugs,” and thinks we should probably call it something else. Again, nothing earth shattering (or even real), but at least people in the executive branch are talking about the issue. That’s something that hasn’t happened since the 70s.

As for actual legislative activity, just a few weeks ago Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) along with 9 co-sponsors introduced legislation that would protect medical marijuana patients from federal prosecution. Then a week later, Frank and others introduced a bill that would remove federal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. This isn’t the first time such bills were introduced only to die, but clearly some momentum is shifting.

At the local level, the number of states that allow medical marijuana now stands at 14—two of which were added to the roster along with the election of that new president of ours, and one, NH, was added just this week. Three of those states now permit the operation of dispensaries, and together they are home to over one third of our population. And at this very moment 12 more states have medical marijuana legislation pending. It’s looking like within the next couple of years well over half of the people in this country will have access to medical marijuana. No matter how you look at it, these are some significant, unprecedented developments.

And just a few of days ago the United Nations, in an abrupt 180 to their long-standing policy, made a statement in favor of drug decriminalization (sort of). That’s especially surprising seeing as how not that long ago the UN’s position was that prohibition could end all drug use in the world within 10 years. Seems kind of sudden to give up now, seeing as how they were so close. Who knows, another 10 years and their prohibitionist polices might have worked.

But what does all this have to do with Tommy Chong’s imprisonment. As I said, it’s all about the media. Not to mention the effect a martyr can have on a movement. And what better martyr could the cause have? Mr. Chong is well known, beloved by young and now old alike, viewed as mostly harmless, and (here’s the biggie) was clearly singled out and treated more harshly because of who he is and what he stands for. An ambitious young U.S. Attorney who wanted to make a name for herself ended up making a martyr of a beloved American icon. Which also, incidentally, did wonders for his career. And of course, most importantly, gave the anti-prohibition movement some much-needed attention. People, including politicians, are now talking openly about the issue, where not too long ago an elected official wouldn’t dream of using the “D” word, let alone the “L” word, in public. Even the anti-drug, conservative governor of California recently stated that it’s time for an open debate. Decriminalization and even legalization are now in a lot more people’s vocabularies. Unfortunately, they are not yet in our Drug Czar’s.

So a hearty thank you to Mary Beth Buchanan, the prosecutor who I predict will go down in history as the one responsible for getting the anti-prohibition movement off the ground. Keep up the good work! And if I might make a suggestion to all ambitious prosecutors throughout the land: Find a few more harmless, beloved, elderly American icons and bust them for something marijuana related. Single them out and make examples of them. I’m thinking perhaps someone like Walter Cronkite or Doris Day. Or how about Oprah? She’s not elderly, but quite beloved nonetheless. A few more of these high-profile busts, and we’ll be buying weed right alongside alcohol and tobacco at our local convenience stores before you know it.

Who Is Tony Aroma?

2009-06-23T08:29:00.003-04:00

A while back I wrote a piece about where my pseudonym came from (Tony Who?), but I think it’s time I tell you a little bit more about the person behind the pen name. Like why do I even use a fake name in the first place? Why not just be myself? Who is the real Tony?

Well, there are two main reasons for the made-up name. First, I would be a bit embarrassed if my family or friends knew what kind of stuff I am writing. Aside from a few close friends, no one even knows I have any interest at all in the devil’s weed. If they found out what I was writing, most would probably decide (if they hadn’t already) that I was stupid, silly, crazy, pathetic, obsessed, drug-crazed, or all of the above and then some. Granted, I may be any or all of those things, but that doesn’t mean I have to flaunt it. So no one, not a single living soul, knows that I write this blog.

Second, although I have never admitted to committing any crimes in my writings, nor have I encouraged others to do so, I do nevertheless criticize my government. That alone may not be a crime at this particular point in time, but it sure has gotten a lot of people in a lot of trouble. And with all the fear of terrorists and other threats to our national security these days, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if our government were keeping an eye on anyone who is critical of their policies. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Not that anyone can really be totally anonymous on the internet. But I do what I can to remain unknown and hope it works.

So, what can I say about myself without compromising my anonymity? I think it’s safe to say that most people that know me would be surprised, shocked even, to know what I’ve been writing about. I can say that I am not a youngster, nor would I be referred to as elderly or spry. I guess that makes me middle-aged. I’m pretty well educated and have what would probably be considered a white-collar or professional job. I don’t consider myself a conservative, but then again I don’t like a lot of liberal polices. If I had to pick a political label, I’d have to say I’m a libertarian. I believe in the Constitution and the limited federal government it describes.

I was pretty rebellious when I was young(er). Some might even have labeled me a “hippy.” But I’m not old enough to have been a real hippy, so I don’t think that label really applies. But now I’m just your typical member of “the establishment.” Although I like to think I’m not all that typical. And for the record, I am not (overly) lazy or a slacker, I don’t lack ambition, I am reasonably successful, I am a generally well-adjusted and happy person, and I rarely ever say things like “man” or “dude” in a conversation. And I hope you’ve determined from reading my work that I am reasonably intelligent and have a pretty good grasp of the English language. So much for the stereotypes.

But I think the best way to describe me is the last person in the world you would expect to write such a blog. Picture in your mind the type of person that you might imagine writes about this sort of thing, and then picture the exact opposite. That’s me. Picture the “person next door” in suburbia U.S.A. Really, like I said in my blurb, I’m pretty much your average Joe. I could be somebody you know. I could be that neighbor that you see every once in a while and say hi to or maybe exchange some small talk with. I could be that person in the next cubicle that you talk to on breaks and have the occasional lunch with. I could be that old friend that you grew up with and wonder what ever happened to. Makes you think, doesn’t it? Then again, this could all be a product of my overactive imagination and not be an even remotely accurate description of me. I hope this answers all those burning questions that you’ve been too afraid to ask.

Smiley Face — Friend or Foe?

2009-06-16T08:11:00.000-04:00

I saw Smiley Face (the movie) a while back and never got around to writing about it. But I’ve seen it several times since and decided it was about time I got around to doing a review.

First, let me just say that I loved this movie. And I love Anna Faris. Not in any kind of weird, stalker-ish, John Wayne Hinckley kind of way. She may not be a great actor (then again, maybe she is), but she is cute and funny, and thus far in her career has chosen roles that make the most of her comedic acting talents. The part of Jane in this film is no exception.

Smiley Face is a modern take on the classic stoner movie. Ms. Faris plays Jane, a “pothead” who accidently eats a plate full of marijuana-laced cupcakes, and then goes about her day in a less-than-optimal state of mind. She only really has to do two things that day: pay her electric bill and show up at an audition (she’s an aspiring actress). And even that turns out to be a little too much for Jane on this particular day. Driving—forget it. Not spending her roommate’s electric bill money on more pot—not likely. Impressing the casting agent with her acting skills—not exactly. Getting the money to pay both her dealer and her electric bill—ain’t gonna happen. As you might expect, hilarity ensues.

And, like all good movies, it’s the details that make this one really stand out. There are lots of little things that make it apparent that the writer, director, and actors really know their subject matter. Anyone who’s ever smoked pot (about half the adult population of the U.S.) will instantly relate. Like when her dealer comes over and she drifts off while he’s talking and forgets he’s there. And while waiting for “Mrs. C” (Marion Ross, whom I will always think of as the mom on Happy Days), a photo of corn sets her off on this hilarious stream of consciousness rambling. Or when she thinks she is giving this eloquent, moving speech, but in reality never completes a sentence. Or the boredom, the paranoia, the daydreams, the craving for Doritos and orange juice. These are some people that know what it’s like to be stoned.

Also in the cast are Danny Masterson (Hyde from That 70s Show) as her nerdy/scary roommate, John Krasinski (Jim from The Office) as the ultra-nerd who has a crush on Jane, and John Cho (Harold from Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle) as the driver of a truck she stows away in. All in all, a great cast, great writing, great directing, and great comedic acting. As a screwball/adventure comedy, Smiley Face is top notch.

So what could possibly be wrong with such a fun movie? Well, I hear tell that some in the anti-prohibition community feel that this film, and films like it, portray pot smokers in a negative light. And I guess that’s true. And “they” feel that such portrayals hurt their cause. Maybe, maybe not. It’s true that pretty much all the characters in this film are blatant stereotypes—the stoner, the nerd, the various authority figures. So I can certainly understand how some people might not like having these stereotypes perpetuated. It might make some people think that everyone that smokes pot is like Jane. And they’re probably right–that some people might think that. There are certainly some people out there who really believe all pot smokers are like Jane (or Cheech and Chong). Some of those people are running this country.

But not enjoying this delightful comedy for those reasons is like being a vegetarian because you don’t want animals to be killed. I’d guess that virtually all of those people that think every pot smoker is a dazed and confused danger to themselves and society would think so regardless. So screw them. Let those of us who enjoy this sort of thing do so, and let those others wallow in their own delusions.

And just for the record, every pot smoker is not like Jane. Or Cheech and Chong. Or James Franco’s character in Pineapple Express. Any more than every one who consumes alcoholic beverages is like Otis Campbell (the town drunk on The Andy Griffith Show) or Jim Lahey (the drunk trailer park supervisor on Trailer Park Boys). It’s comedy, people. That’s where you take some little thing, some little trait or quirk or behavior, and you exaggerate it. The characters in comedies often say and do things that no human being in real life would ever conceivably even think of saying or doing. That’s what makes it funny. You can’t take them seriously, as if that needs to be said. So enjoy Smiley Face and films like it for what they are—mindless entertainment. Not social or political statements. If it makes you laugh, that’s a good thing. And this film made me laugh, a lot.

Killer Marijuana!!!!!

2009-06-09T08:35:00.002-04:00

OK, I’m exaggerating to get your attention. Much like they’ve been doing in England recently with their stories of the new, super-potent “skunk” weed that is sweeping their nation. And although they haven’t actually said this skunk is killing people (as far as I know), there have been reports like this one that claim it is causing schizophrenia and violent behavior. That’s some scary weed. Indeed.

Could this reefer-madness-esque sort of thing really be true? I don’t know about modern marijuana causing murderous rampages and such but, according to the U.S. government, marijuana potency has been rising for the past 30 years and is now at an all time high (pun intended). Surely this statistic, at the very least, must be true. Surely our government wouldn’t lie to us. Not about marijuana, anyway. But, just for the sake of argument, let me play devil’s advocate here. As I am wont to do.

First, let’s think about the history of marijuana. We know people have been growing and ingesting marijuana for its psychoactive properties for at least 2700 years. And, although there is no hard evidence, I’d bet people have been using marijuana for a lot longer than that. It’s probably one of the oldest domesticated, non-food crops known to mankind. So, why is it that all of a sudden about 30 years ago marijuana suddenly started getting more potent? Is there something we discovered at that time that growers and breeders had missed for the past several thousand years? Granted, modern marijuana breeders know how genetics works. But farmers have known about selective breeding for a long, long time. You don’t need to know about genes and DNA to be able to select the best specimens to use for breeding.

Just a minute there buckeroo, the government might say, you’re forgetting about modern technologies, like hydroponics. Sounds reasonable. After all, so-called “hydro” weed is much sought after. And there are certainly some advantages to growing under perfectly-controlled conditions. Plants do grow quicker and produce higher yields. But, contrary to the hype surrounding hydroponically-grown marijuana, the potency of marijuana is determined almost entirely by its genetics. And where did these modern-day genetics come from? Did some new species of cannabis suddenly appear around 30 years ago? Hardly. Did somebody use some high-tech gene-splicing technique to create a super race of cannabis? Guess again. The genetics that people are growing today are the same genetics that have been developed and improved upon for thousands of years. Granted, there are a lot more varieties around today, but they can all trace their ancestry back to a relatively few strains that have been around for a long time.

So what could explain the finding that the potency of marijuana has been steadily increasing over the past 30 years? As is often the case, our government likes to play fast and loose with statistics. You see, this report refers to the average potency of marijuana that the government has confiscated and tested. And it is true that with more people than ever growing marijuana, and more high-quality genetics more widely available, there is a lot more good weed around. At least in places like California which, coincidentally, is where the federal government conducts a lot of its raids. So, overall, the average potency may have indeed gone up. But, and this is the crux of the biscuit, the highest potency has not really changed. True, there is marijuana today that tops 20% THC (that’s a lot). But there has always been marijuana that topped 20% THC. The Sadhu of Nepal have been smoking this high-potency stuff for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And today, there is also marijuana that is much less potent, just like there always has been. It’s just that at this point in time, there is a greater proportion of good, compared to bad. Hence a higher average. (The government has also started including hash in their statistics, which raises the average, but that's another story.)

So don’t be misled by more of the same from your government. Marijuana today is not some completely different substance than it was 30 years ago. Or 50 years ago. Or even 1000 years ago. It’s the same pot that your parents smoked. And their parents. And so on. It’s just that where your parents might have gotten lucky and scored some really good smoke every once in a while, the good stuff is a lot more readily available today. At least in some places. And just so you don’t go off half-cocked worrying about your kids getting ahold of too much of a good thing, it’s not that bad. Research has shown that the more potent marijuana is, the less of it people tend to smoke. And achieving the same effect with less smoke entering your lungs can only be a good thing. So in reality, if the government’s claims of more potent marijuana are really true, it should make them very happy. Since its citizens’ health is the main reason for prohibition, the government should be celebrating. In spite of everything they’ve done, people will be smoking less of the new, super-potent weed. When you think about it, there’s really no downside.

The Oldest Profession

2009-06-02T07:50:00.001-04:00

It occurred to me one day that smoking marijuana is in many ways a lot like prostitution. Before I go on, I want to put those jokes that immediately spring to mind behind us. Here’s one to get you started: They both involve putting something in your mouth and sucking on it. OK? Satisfied? Got it out of your system? Now we can move on.

First of all, people have smoked marijuana and engaged in prostitution, in one way or another, as long as there have been people. If you want to get all scientific about it, agriculture is probably the oldest profession, but I’d guess prostitution comes in a close second. And we know that people have been using marijuana both recreationally and medically at least since the beginning of recorded history. The oldest known medical manuscript mentions the medicinal properties of cannabis, and a 2700-year-old tomb was recently uncovered in China that contained, among other things, almost two pounds of marijuana that had clearly been cultivated for its psychoactive properties.

Both have been legal throughout much of human history, but recently have been outlawed. Why? No particular reason, other than on moral grounds. Some people believe you shouldn’t do these things, and that making them illegal is the most effective way to make people stop doing them. Apparently, in a civilized society, we all need to follow the same moral code, even in private.

They are both, in most cases, victimless “crimes.” Unlike most crimes that involve one person doing harm to another, no one is really harmed by engaging in these activities. Granted, that’s not always the case. But I think it’s safe to say that reasonable, intelligent adults can commit these acts without doing anyone, other than possibly themselves, any harm. Most of the problems associated with these activities are the result of them being against the law, rather than the activities themselves.

And in both cases, if the activity were legal and regulated, much of the danger would be eliminated. As we know, in the case of prostitution, a legal industry is much safer for all involved. Consumers do not have to deal with criminals. The spread of disease is drastically reduced. And people do not have to worry about a criminal record for doing something that is really nobody’s business but theirs. Similar things could be said about legalized and regulated marijuana (except for the part about spreading disease).

Making these activities illegal also brings the government into the privacy of one’s home, which is supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Somewhere along the line, our government got the idea that it was within their power to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in private. I guess I missed the part in the Constitution that gives the government the power to tell its citizens what kind of sex they are allowed to have. Or what kind of home remedies they can use. When you get right down to it, people really should be able to do whatever they want in private, as long as all parties involved are agreeable and the activity doesn’t harm or otherwise affect other people.

It’s also the case that arresting and imprisoning people for these activities has no demonstrable effect on the number of people engaging in them. Will outlawing prostitution make it go away? Will prohibition make people stop smoking marijuana? It hasn’t so far. Of course, who knows? Maybe in another 10,000 years the laws will finally start to have an effect, and we just need to be patient. But I tend to doubt it.

Which brings me to my last point. Paying for sex and ingesting psychoactive compounds is what people do. They always have done it, and always will. It’s human nature. As I’ve said before, legislation that goes against human nature will always fail. Threatening people with punishment will not make them stop being people. It’s like passing a law that forbids dogs from relieving themselves on fire hydrants. Ain’t gonna happen. So what’s the point? Don’t we have enough criminals already? Why do we need to make up laws that make even more people into criminals. Why can’t the government stay out of people’s personal lives? More importantly, why does the government insist on legislating morality? Why does it bother some people so much when others do something they don’t approve of? Why can’t we just live and let live? Anybody? Bueller? I’m waiting for some answers. I haven’t got all day.

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide—Again

2009-05-26T08:21:00.000-04:00

A while back I wrote a column, U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide, about the case of a California man whose medical marijuana was taken by local authorities who then refused to return it even though the man was a legal medical marijuana patient under California law. That case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, who refused to hear it. Case closed, federal law does not trump a state’s medical marijuana law. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Well it’s happened again. Back in 2006, two counties in California that had refused to issue medical marijuana ID cards filed suit. They claimed they didn’t have to issue these cards because it was a violation of federal law. They lost their case in the state superior court and in the state appeals court. The state supreme court refused to hear their appeal, so they took it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Funny thing, just like the previous case, the highest court in the land decided against hearing this one too. Case closed, yet again. Lots of taxpayers’ money wasted, yet again. (Good thing California has so much extra money to throw around.)

So what does this second landmark non-decision mean? Basically, the same as the first one. Let me say it again, just so we’re clear: federal law does not trump a state’s medical marijuana law. The U.S. Supreme Court has now made this point quite clearly and unambiguously. Twice. The immediate effect of this law will (or at least should) be that San Diego, San Bernadino, and the seven other California counties that have refused to comply with state law must now do so. In theory. In practice however, I’m not so sure it will make much of a difference. The elected officials in these 9 counties quite clearly do not want to honor the people of California’s decision to allow medical marijuana. I’d put my money on them delaying and wasting more taxpayers’s money on additional pointless legal battles. As we all know very well, drug warriors do not give up easily. Things like laws and supreme court decisions are of little consequence when keeping drugs out of the hands of sick people is the issue. I mean after all, what kind of message would it send the children if we allowed sick and dying people to take any drug they want to just because it makes them feel better? If sick people want to feel better, let them take the more expensive and less safe drugs offered by the pharmaceutical companies just like everyone else. Our children need to know that this is the only reasonable alternative in a civilized society. (As far as I can tell, a civilized society, according to our government, is one in which the government, rather than the people or the medical community, decides what medications its citizens are permitted to take.)

There’s not much more to say about this, other than it’s another small step in the right direction. While it may have little immediate impact in those California counties, it does send a message to the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the people in states hesitant to pass medical marijuana laws because they conflict with federal law will reconsider. Assuming of course that such reasoning is sincere and not just an excuse to avoid doing the right thing. Regardless, it’s one less leg for the prohibitionists to stand on. Knock out a few more legs, and they will hopefully collapse under their own (dead) weight. I know, I’m the eternal pessimist. But perhaps, just maybe, there is finally the tiniest bit of very faint light at the end of the seemingly endless tunnel.

Busting The Biggest Myth Of All—Part 2

2009-05-19T08:03:00.003-04:00

In last week’s column I discussed the myth that decriminalization leads to increased drug use. People who believe in this myth have no basis for their prediction. It’s just common sense. But, as I also pointed out, some real, solid evidence does in fact exist that would enable us to make a more informed prediction. For the past 8 years, all recreational drugs have been decriminalized in Portugal. Granted, Portugal is not the U.S., but I think what’s been going on there is still pretty relevant when it comes to making a prediction of what would happen here. The Portuguese are, after all, a pretty conservative and religious people. It might not be a perfect comparison, but better than just going on a hunch.

So, what’s been happening in Portugal over the past 8 years? Are dogs and cats currenlty cohabiting? Has it been a tragedy of biblical proportions? The simple answer to this complex question is, no. Not a single, observable bad thing has happened. In fact, just the opposite is true. Some really good things have resulted from Portugal’s insanely-tolerant drug policy. Not that that’s relevant to the good ol’ U.S. of A., where we base our drug policy on fear and baseless speculation rather than facts. So even though it’s pointless, let’s see what the results of decriminalization really are, minus the fear and baseless speculation.

A study of the drug situation in Portugal was recently completed by the CATO Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation. They’ve posted a video on their web site that discusses the history of decriminalization in Portugal and the results of their study. So you don’t have to view the entire video, I’ve summarized the main points here. But please do check the video out, so you’re not basing your opinion entirely on my interpretation of it.

Drugs were not decriminalized in Portugal for socially progressive or libertarian reasons. The drug problem there was out of control in the 1990s as their criminalization efforts intensified. They decided to try decriminalization out of desperation, because what they had been doing was not working. So they formed an apolitical commission in 1998 made up of scientists and medical professionals to examine their drug policy and figure out how to fix it. The commission decided that decriminalization was the best way for the government to get the drug problem under control. Legalization was not an option because of international treaties. Not surprisingly, they heard the same arguments against this “experiment” as we hear in this country—that drug use would go up, that they would become a haven for drug tourists, etc. All those dire predictions turned out to be false. Now it’s pretty unanimous among the citizens as well as the government that decriminalization is a success, and there is no longer a movement to return to prohibition.

So what exactly is the current law in Portugal? Personal use or possession of small amounts (enough for 10 days usage) of any recreational drug is still prohibited by law, but is not a criminal offense. If you are caught, you will not be tried, convicted, sent to jail or receive a criminal record. (This is not at all like the situation in The Netherlands, where the existing laws are not enforced under certain circumstances.) Drug trafficking and selling to minors is still illegal. If you are cited for possession, you are given the opportunity for treatment, but treatment is optional. A recommendation is made at an informal hearing, but it is up to the individual what to do. Police still do issue citations for possession, even more now than before. That’s because now there’s a possibility it could help the individual, whereas imprisonment never really did anyone any good.

There are basically two reasons the Portuguese believe decriminalization is working: (1) If using/abusing drugs makes you a criminal, you’re not going to go to the government for help. Decriminalization removes the fear of government and the barrier to help. More people are now in treatment and government addiction programs are now far more effective. (2) Imprisoning nonviolent offenders costs lots of money (Portugal is a relatively poor country) without helping anyone. Freeing up much of that money allows the creation of education and treatment opportunities not previously possible.

Sounds good, right? But what about some hard data? Prevalence rates of the use of all drugs in adolescents and post-adolescents decreased between 2001 and 2006, and for some drugs the decrease was dramatic. There is no evidence whatsoever that drug use has increased in the dramatic way decriminalization opponents predicted. Portugal now has the lowest marijuana usage rate across all age groups (age 15-64) among EU nations. It has the sixth lowest cocaine usage rate across all age groups. That alone may not sound so great, but the EU nations with the most severe penalties have cocaine usage rates 5-6 time higher than Portugal. Drug deaths in Portugal have also dropped dramatically from their all-time high in the 1990s. And Portugal has not become a drug tourist destination.

Whether or not these decreases are just a reflection of world-wide trends, it still remains true that drug use did not dramatically increase with decriminalization. Just to be clear, this result clearly and unambiguously refutes the dire predictions made by the prohibitionists. This is in spite of the fact that in Europe overall, marijuana and cocaine use are at all time highs. So if decriminalization reduces the intrusiveness of the state and doesn’t favor the arrest of minorities while at the same time not increasing drug use, what’s the problem? Even if there are no major positive consequences of decriminalization, there are at the very least no negative consequences.

So there you have it. Solid evidence that, contrary to the baseless speculation of drug warriors everywhere, decriminalization does not lead to increased drug usage. Regardless of the other pros and cons of decriminalization, this outcome is quite clear. So every time you hear someone in favor of prohibition spouting off about the rampant drug use decriminalization would cause, politely ask them, “What about Portugal?” If they don’t have an answer, then go right ahead and educate them. There’s nothing prohibitionists like more than hearing about facts that show how wrong their uninformed opinions really are.

Busting The Biggest Myth Of All—Part 1

2009-05-12T08:30:00.000-04:00

If I were to ask you which country in the European Union has the most lenient recreational drug laws, what would you say? I’m no pollster, but if I had to put money on it, I would bet virtually everyone in the U.S. would answer that question with The Netherlands. Is that what you were going to say? I thought so. But you, and most people in this country, would be wrong. The Dutch have not decriminalized marijuana or any other recreational drug (except of course for alcohol). They just have an unwritten policy of looking the other way under certain circumstances.

If however you had answered my question with Portugal, you would have been absolutely correct and would have won a valuable prize. You didn’t, so don’t try to change your answer now. But it is in fact true. In 2001, Portugal became the first western nation to decriminalize the personal possession and use of all recreational drugs. Don’t confuse this with outright legalization. They still arrest people for producing, importing, and selling drugs. But they no longer treat casual users, or even addicts, as criminals.

Time now for another quiz. (I know, if I would have told you in advance you could have studied. Sorry.) What is the one consequence of decriminalization that even intelligent, well-educated people almost always assume without question is true? If you said that drug use would increase, you are correct. (OK, technically there is no right answer, but this is my quiz so I decide what’s right. Kind of like our federal government.) I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that decriminalizing, or god forbid legalizing, recreational drugs would lead to an out-of-control society where drug abuse is running rampant. Everyone would be high all the time and our nation would be in ruins. It would be a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Dogs and cats living together. And this is what the more intelligent people think.

Of course expecting the worst from decriminalization is purely speculation, at best. We really don’t have any evidence to support or refute that prediction. I mean just because recreational drugs have been legal for the entire history of mankind, up till 70 years ago, means nothing. Somehow civilization has managed to progress quite nicely in its first 20,000 years with all those drugs being freely available. But that’s ancient history. We are now much smarter and just “know” that the consequences of freely-available recreational drugs would be devastating to our society. We don’t need no stinking evidence. It’s so obvious that actual scientific study, let alone trying decriminalization and seeing what happens, would be pointless.

But wait. What was that I said earlier about Portugal having decriminalized drugs 8 years ago? We don’t even need to try it here. We already have a place where we can see first hand the effects of decriminalization over a period of several years. That is, if we care to look. Which we clearly don’t.

But let’s say we did look. What’s been happening in Portugal over the past 8 years? Are dogs and cats now living together? Is the country in ruins? You’ll have to come back next week to find out the answer.

U.S. Supreme Court: Molesting Children OK?

2009-05-05T07:41:00.001-04:00

I thought there was no new prohibition-related insanity that could still surprise, let alone shock, me. I was wrong. It looks like it is now acceptable to molest a 13-year-old girl in the name of the war on drugs.

On October 3, 2003 a 13-year-old honor student at an Arizona school was accused by a friend of giving her Ibuprofen, an over-the-counter aspirin substitute. Apparently, that is a banned drug. When a search of her locker, backpack, and clothes failed to turn up any of the drug, the student was stripped to her underwear then forced to remove even that to satisfy school officials. This was without her parents’ permission. And the girl had never been in any trouble before. All over an aspirin. Were they afraid that some child would experience unauthorized headache relief?

My first response to this, after recovering from being shocked and stunned, is why would such a case end up in an appeals court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court? This is a criminal matter. Upon hearing from their child what had happened, the girl’s parents should have immediately contacted the police and had everyone involved arrested. Surely there must be some laws in Arizona against molesting little girls. And as far as I’m concerned, when an adult forces a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes without the presence, or even permission, of her parents, it is sexual assault. Period.

In what universe would there even be a discussion of whether or not such an act is acceptable? I mean, what could these people possibly say on a witness stand to justify such behavior? We were looking for an aspirin? I’m sure all pedophiles have similar excuses. These people are child molesters, plain and simple. They belong behind bars and their names added to the national and local registries of convicted pedophiles. They are a danger to children, and should not be allowed anywhere near a school ever again.

What shocks me almost as much as what happened to this little girl is the fact that this case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. I guess these people really want to prove to the world that they are not perverts and what they did is perfectly alright. Just to show you what kind of a world we live in, the Court may actually find in favor of these child molesters. After hearing arguments, comments made by our esteemed Supreme Court justices suggest they are leaning toward overturning the lower court’s decision. Believe it or not, they might just decide this sort of behavior is OK. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer didn’t seem to understand how a strip search could harm a child. Justice Breyer was reported as saying, “why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?” But wait, there’s more. Justice Breyer went on, “In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day. We changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear. Or not my underwear. ... I mean, I don't think it's beyond human experience.” And then there’s Justice David Souter who said he “would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search ... than have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry.” Dead? Really? From an aspirin? Now maybe if it were a bomb or a gun, OK. But I don’t think a strip search would be required to find a deadly weapon. Unless it was really, really small.

There’s more, but I think you get the point. And don’t forget, we’re talking about an aspirin here, not a bomb or even a particularly dangerous drug. If this situation doesn’t fall under the 4th Amendment, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”, then I’d like to know what does. Surely forcing a little girl to take off her clothes to find a suspected aspirin is unreasonable under any and all circumstances. My only remaining question: What have these people, in particular our esteemed Supreme Court justices, been smoking and where can I get some?

Historic First: Politicians To Be Trusted

2009-04-28T08:27:00.002-04:00

On March 9, 2009 our president did something that no other leader in recorded history has ever attempted. He officially declared that elected officials must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Well OK, not in so many words. Nor as a general rule. But specifically in regard to science that guides national policy.

What the president did was issue a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies that stated, in part:

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.

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. To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking. The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

In other words, we should be able to trust those we elect to office not to lie to us about scientific justifications for their policies. Apparently, this needed to be explicitly stated. I guess the oath of office doesn’t cover honesty. Am I naive, or could this be relevant to the war on drugs? Could this, along with the recent proposal to review our entire criminal justice system, the case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court, and a few other apparently unrelated developments, actually be small steps in an indirect route toward the end of prohibition? Maybe the current administration really is on our side, and they are approaching the prohibition issue in a roundabout, non-confrontational, path-of-least-resistance sort of way? Or not.

Not that this memorandum is going to make a difference, but just imagine a perfect world where it would. First, let’s consider some of the major scientific studies commissioned by the government itself. Starting with The LaGuardia Report, virtually every major study conducted in the U.S. has at the very least recommended rescheduling of marijuana. For example, let’s looks at some of their conclusions:

The LaGuardia Report (1944)—“The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking ... is unfounded.”
The Consumer’s Union Report (1972)—Recommended “the immediate repeal of all federal laws governing the growing, processing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana.”
The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1972)—“Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.” (This is the study Nixon commissioned to justify the Controlled Substances Act.)
The American College of Physicians Policy Paper (2008)—“Given marijuana’s proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity, reclassification would reduce barriers to research and increase availability of cannabinoid drugs to patients who have failed to respond to other treatments.”

It’s clear that the vast majority of studies conducted in the U.S. in the past 60 years have come to similar conclusions. And these are just a few of the biggies that addressed prohibition in general. What about the hundreds of reputable scientific studies on the medical uses of marijuana conducted over the last decade (most of them done outside the U.S.)?

A thorough review of the latest medical marijuana research, The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy, was published in Pharmacological Reviews in 2006. It summarizes recent findings on the medical uses of the various compounds found in marijuana. Not surprising, there are many conditions that can be effectively and safely treated with marijuana-based compounds. Even the Institute of Medicine, the group that the federal government is always quoting to justify their prohibition, concluded in 1997 that scientific developments indicate marijuana and its various cannabinoid compounds have therapeutic properties that could potentially treat many illnesses and conditions. And did I mention the patent that the federal government holds on medical marijuana, U.S. Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants?

In a perfect world, this consensus among the scientific community and the overwhelming evidence that supports the medical benefits of marijuana would be more than enough to satisfy the president’s mandate that policy be based on actual science. It would result in an immediate rescheduling of marijuana and a retraction of the blatant lies the government has been spreading over the past 70 years. Unfortunately, we live in the good ol’ U.S. of A. where if a politician is speaking, chances are pretty high that they are lying. Presidential memoranda notwithstanding.

Trying To Make The Government Tell The Truth

2009-04-21T08:30:00.000-04:00

Ever hear of the Information Quality Act (IQA)? Not many people have, and many in the government wish they hadn’t. Passed in 2001, the IQA requires information disseminated by federal agencies to be accurate and objective. It also establishes a mechanism by which people affected by inaccurate information can seek to have it corrected. Basically, it’s saying that the federal government must tell the truth and when it doesn’t, there’s a way to make them correct their “mistakes.” Pretty crazy, eh? The government telling the truth! What’s next? Flying monkeys?

As it turns out, one group in particular is aware of the IQA and is using it as a new tactic to try to end the federal government’s war on medical marijuana. Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a medical marijuana advocacy group, filed a lawsuit in February, 2007 demanding that the federal government cease issuing misinformation and correct its statements on medical marijuana. In particular, they want the government to stop saying that there is no accepted medical use for marijuana in the United States. This is important because it is one of the criteria that is keeping marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled substance. If there are indeed medical uses for marijuana, then it can should be rescheduled. Makes sense. To me anyway.

On April 14, 2009 (only a little over two years after the lawsuit was filed) the Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments for this case. There’s a reasonably decent audio recording of those arguments here, in case you’d like to listen to them for yourself. (It’s a little garbled in spots.) It is however a lot of legal mumbo jumbo to wade through, so I’ll take the liberty of translating those arguments into plain English for you. Please be aware though that I am not a lawyer.

The attorney representing the Department of Health and Human Services (the defendant) seemed to be making two main points. One is that the DEA is already considering a petition to reschedule marijuana, and that’s where this issue should be resolved. She argued that the DEA proceedings make the IQA irrelevant in this case. The second main point she made is that the IQA is not enforceable. It is up to individual agencies how or if they respond to requests to correct information, and there is no recourse if they deny a request. In other words, the HHS is saying it's not their problem, and even if it was, there’s nothing anybody can do about it.

ASA (the plaintiff) are basing their entire argument on the IQA. The information that the government has been disseminating on the medical uses of marijuana is wrong and, according to the IQA, must be corrected. ASA are representing the “affected persons” in this case—someone must be affected by the inaccurate information in order to request it be corrected. Being affected gives one “standing” to bring such a case before the court. He also pointed out that the DEA proceedings the HHS attorney mentioned are not actually ongoing. There has been a request to reschedule, but after several years it has not been acted on. So the issue is not really being decided by the DEA at this time, and the IQA is indeed relevant.

What it boils down to is the same old government response used whenever anybody tries to tell them they are wrong. I like to call it the “you're not the boss of me” argument. Either the individual or group does not have “standing,” (i.e., they are not permitted to bring such a case before the court in the first place) or the decision of the court is not enforceable by anyone. Reminds me of that Mel Brooks line, “It’s good to be the king.” In this case, it might be more appropriate to paraphrase that saying: “It’s good to be the U.S. government.”

Criminal or President?

2009-04-14T08:37:00.001-04:00

Sometimes I just don’t understand how politics in this country works. According to our Constitution, a president can be removed from office upon conviction of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Yet admitting to having committed such a crime does not prevent one from being elected president. I guess the important distinction is whether or not you are convicted. That is, caught.

You see our current and previous two presidents have (more or less) admitted to committing one or more crimes prior to their election. They were never convicted (as far as we know), but still. Do we really want a president in office that is an admitted criminal? Apparently, the answer is “yes.”

The crime of which I speak is the possession and use of a controlled substance. Depending on the location and the circumstances, our future presidents’ offenses could have been civil infractions, misdemeanors, or even felonies. If a president committed such a crime in office, it would certainly be grounds for impeachment. At least according to the Constitution. But in reality, no one takes these crimes very seriously. Except of course for law enforcement officials and those who are caught and convicted and must live with a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

So I can’t help but ask, what kind of message is this sending to our children? You can ignore, disregard, violate, and even flout the laws regarding recreational drugs, and as long as you don’t get caught you can become president. Get caught though and you are screwed. Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a bit of a mixed message: Drugs are bad. If you use them and get caught, you are branded for life as a criminal. But if you use them and don’t get caught, then it’s really not so bad. Sounds to me like they are telling us that the actual ingesting of certain drugs isn’t what’s bad. It’s doing it in violation of the law that’s the bad part. So that must be the message: Drugs are OK, breaking the law is not OK. So, why is it again that we have a law that makes these drugs illegal if they're really OK?

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that anyone should be denied a career in public service just because they admitted to committing this particular crime. What I’m suggesting is that our government make up its mind. Is possession of a controlled substance a serious crime? It would look that way since hundreds of thousands of people in this country are in jail for it. Yet when a presidential candidate admits to committing this crime, it’s barely a blip on the media’s radar. That suggests to me that, to the public anyway, this crime is about as serious as driving without a seatbelt. So which is it, serious crime or barely worth mentioning?

But then again, maybe the government isn’t as confused as their message would make them appear. Maybe this mixed message is intentional. That crafty government of ours. Could it be a sort of weeding-out process? A way to thin the herd? Only those smart enough to elude law enforcement and commit the perfect crime can go on to become president. They would certainly prove that they have what it takes to lead this country. I guess the same would apply if you get caught but have the connections necessary to make it appear that you didn’t. That would be another way to pass the test and prove that you are presidential material. On the other hand, if you’re so dumb that you do get caught and don’t have what it takes to make your criminal record go away, then you don’t even deserve to go to college or live in public housing, let alone be president. Your future lies in the retail or service industries. Now that I think about it, that really is the only sensible explanation. Once again, message received, loud and clear. And understood.

Happy Anniversary, Tony’s Quest

2009-04-07T08:23:00.003-04:00

This piece marks the beginning of my second year of writing this blog, and I’m afraid that I might be getting just a little sentimental about this significant milestone. And before you ask, no, I just got something in both my eyes. It all started, appropriately enough, on April 1st, 2008. Every week since then, without fail, I have posted a new, original essay. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Not bad for a lazy slacker with no ambition and drug-induced brain damage. Granted, they weren't all gems (like this one). Even so, I thought surely I would quickly run out of insane aspects of the war on drugs to comment on. But no. Just when I think I'll have nothing more to say, I read something or hear something or think about something, and a new essay practically writes itself. It would appear that as along as there is no end to the insanity, there will be no end to this blog. So, onward I will trudge, whether anybody reads what I write or not.

I'd also like to take this opportunity, faithful reader, to encourage you to leave comments or ask questions. The process is simple and anonymous. Just click where it says the number of comments at the end of each article, usually zero, and start typing in the pop-up window. Now that my readership has soared into the double digits, I’d like to start hearing from my readers. Your feedback is all I have to keep me going, and I have to say it’s been pretty slim pickin’s so far. So please don’t hesitate to leave me a comment—tell me that you liked something I wrote, or hated it, or think I’m an idiot, or that I’m really cool, or that I’m not really as cool as I like to think I am, or suggest something for me to apply my unique brand of analysis to. Whatever. It’s getting pretty lonely in here (cue the crickets).

Namaste.

Get up. Stand up. Stand up for your right.

Get up. Stand up. Don’t give up the fight.

B. Marley

The Government Was Right, It’s All True

2009-04-01T08:30:00.003-04:00

I don’t know how it happened, but I’ve been born again. At least with respect to using dangerous narcotic drugs. Maybe it was my government relentlessly bombarding me with facts and “scientific” evidence. Maybe it was me taking a long, hard look at what I’ve been doing and saying for so many years. Maybe I’m on drugs and have no idea what I’m talking about. Regardless, I’ve seen the error of my ways. What follows are some of the realizations I’ve come to. Epiphanies, if you will.

After 25 years of smoking weed, I’ve noticed lately that I’ve had quite a few almost-uncontrollable urges to smoke some crack and/or shoot up some heroin. Maybe “mainline” or “chase the dragon” — that sounds pretty cool. All this time I’ve been poo-pooing the gateway effect, when in reality I just failed to appreciate its time frame.

And I see now how growing my own weed really does affect our national economy. Just think of all that money that I’ve not been pumping into the (black) market. Forget uncontrolled government spending. My not buying drugs from illegal dealers is the real problem. Why I’m probably personally responsible for the recent collapse of huge segments of our economy.

And I just realized that I am, in fact, a lazy slacker with no ambition. I just want to sit around all day, get high, and listen to Bob Marley. Really loud, mon. I am not even close to being the well-adjusted, well-educated, normal, happy, productive member of our society that I thought I was. If I were, I sure wouldn’t want to be smoking marijuana. I’d be out pounding some brew-skis.

And how could I have not known that my opinions favoring legalization have been sending the wrong message to “the children.” Why I’ve been practically telling them that all recreational drugs are good and encouraging them to “get high” 24/7, starting on the day they are born. Even though I’ve never said anything remotely like that, I must have subconsciously meant it, and the kids pick up on that sort of thing.

Now that I think about it, I wonder if I got ahold of some of that super-potent “skunk” weed they’re talking about in England. Maybe I got a touch of the psychosis that they say it causes. That would explain how I could have been so wrong about so many things and not even realize it. Either that, or the massive brain damage I’ve suffered from all those years of ingesting a deadly narcotic drug.

You know, I might be high, but now that I think about it, maybe those people that believe in intelligent design have a point as well. Maybe the Earth really is only 8,000 years old and The Flintstones really is based in fact. I guess I’ll have to rethink this whole evolution thing now too. And the smoking pot thing. I didn’t forget about that. I’m definitely going to stop before it’s too late. At the very least I’m going to consider it. Seriously. Soon.

Oh, and I still hate the Dutch.

This is a work of fiction. Any similarity between the character and events portrayed herein and any actual people or events is purely coincidental.

President Laughs At Supporters

2009-03-31T14:07:00.001-04:00

I wasn’t going to do a post today because I have something very special planned for tomorrow (are you as excited as I am?). But this is something I just had to mention. Our president held a “town hall meeting” last week where he answered questions submitted over the internet. And guess what the number one question was. That’s right, the legalization of marijuana.

So the president knew this in advance and had time to prepare an intelligent response to this question, which is clearly important to a large portion of the American public. And how does he respond to this question? With mocking derision. His response:

“There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, and I don’t know what this says about the online audience. The answer is no, I don’t think that [is] a good strategy.”

He chuckled as he said it, and his studio audience laughed right along. Ha ha, stupid stoners think the president gives a shit about them. And in the few days since, many have written about our president’s mocking of the very people who played a big role in getting him elected. Not to mention the embarrassing follow-up by his press secretary. So I’ll say no more about that aspect of it. Shame on you, Mr. President!

But in all fairness, the topic of the questions to be addressed was the economic situation. And with the trouble our country is in, does anybody really think that the few billion dollars saved and generated by legalizing marijuana would be any more than a drop in the economic bucket? Hardly. So the president’s response, that legalization would not be an effective strategy to boost our economy, is probably true. Granted, he could have said this without deriding anybody. But his answer alone, taken literally, did not really rule out any future changes in the legal status of marijuana. Just that legalizing it to save the economy would be pointless.

On the other hand, I think the question was not phrased correctly and/or not really answered completely. Because if marijuana were legalized, I would assume that hemp too would be legalized. And that’s a whole different story. Legalizing hemp could indeed go a long way toward fixing what’s wrong with this country. Like reducing our dependence on foreign oil for starters. And I think virtually anyone would admit that our being the only country in the world that forbids the growing of the most valuable crop known to mankind just because it is related to a plant that produces a “dangerous narcotic drug” is beyond ridiculous.

So perhaps if our president had given his answer some serious thought, and not been so flippant in blowing off a serious issue, he might not have come across as so pompous and condescending. Not to mention insulting. So please, Mr. President, next time a large group of your supporters poses a serious question to you about an issue that is very important to them, take them a little more seriously. Maybe if you could ignore the propaganda and the hysteria it produces and inject some of that rational thought you are known for, things could really change. We might even stop trying to cut off our nose to spite our face.

My Solution To Our Economic Crisis

2009-03-24T08:20:00.000-04:00

A while back I wrote an article, called By The Numbers, about the number of people in our country who are criminals because of our current drug laws. I pointed out that if the DEA and other law enforcement officials were really doing their jobs, we could easily put 5, maybe as many as 10, percent of our population behind bars. At that time it didn’t occur to me what the economic implications of that might be. And now, as our country is sliding deeper into the pit of economic despair, suddenly it’s all become clear to me. This could be the solution to all of our problems.

First, let’s look at what would happen to employment opportunities if say 5 percent of our population were convicted and incarcerated for possession of marijuana, as they should be. They are, after all, criminals. Assuming most of these new convicts were previously employed, it would mean that there would be immediate openings in about 1 of 20 jobs. And these would not all be minimum-wage, entry-level jobs. No sir. Marijuana smokers come from all socioeconomic levels, so there would be vacancies from corporate CEOs all the way down to fast-food counter people. The current unemployment rate is around 6 percent, so that alone would almost wipe out our unemployment problem. Assuming we could find qualified, non-incarcerated people to fill all those jobs.

And then there’s that sudden increase of around 15 million new convicts. New prisons would have to be built. Lots of them. And guards would have to be hired. And let’s not forget all the support industries needed to provide for all of the prisoners’ needs. Why it would be a golden age for the private prison industry. It would surely mark the end of unemployment as we know it. And just think of the other, more indirect benefits. Traffic will be lighter, lines will be shorter, and schools will be less crowded. Getting front row-seats at major concerts will never have been easier.

Of course there would probably be some minor inconveniences us law-abiding folks would have to endure. Taxes would probably have to go up to pay for the people in prison. But what would you expect with 1 in 20 people being supported by the state. Sure there would be fewer students in institutions of higher learning, but the faculties would be greatly reduced as well, so it should work out. And we may no longer lead the world in computer technology, with a lot of our top talent out of the picture, but there’s always the cheap knock-off business. And I’m afraid the entertainment industry would probably grind to a halt. But that’s OK, since those of us on the outside don’t really want to watch all that pro-drug propaganda anyway. Now that I think about it, there probably isn’t any industry that would be untouched, except perhaps the clergy. But they have other problems to deal with.

So, you’re probably saying to yourself, it sounds like there’s really no downside. But how are we going to accomplish our goal of sniffing out, arresting, and imprisoning every single one of the regular marijuana-smoking criminals in our country? I mean our law enforcement officials are already stretched to the limit already, aren’t they? Again, where there’s a problem there’s a solution. Yet another industry where employment opportunities will skyrocket. But even with lots more police, how can we possibly catch these people, what with them tending to keep a low profile and all? I mean you can’t just go house to house and search everyone, can you? Why not? Since when has the Constitution stood in the way of accomplishing something really important? Not in my lifetime it hasn’t. If it had, we wouldn’t have all these criminals running around in the first place.

And really, that’s all just a start. Once we get all the regular marijuana users safely locked away, there’s the occasional and even the one-time users we still have to worry about running around free on our streets. Occasionally breaking the law is still breaking the law. According to most estimates, somewhere in the neighborhood of half the adults in this country have used marijuana at least once. That’s right, 1 out of every 2 people in this country is a fugitive at large. If we could pull off apprehending and incarcerating all of these dangerous criminals, we wouldn’t have to worry about anything other than the prison industry ever again. Half the population would be behind bars, and the other half would be guarding and taking care of them. It would be a new era of unheard-of prosperity. And our streets would be safe once again (or for the first time). Well except for the murderers and such. With all that effort devoted to dangerous drug users, a few other criminals might just slip through the cracks. Seems like a fair trade. Do you think it’s too late to reconsider that economic stimulus package?

Most Intelligent Statement By A U.N. Official—The Winner Is...

2009-03-17T08:52:00.003-04:00

Drum roll, please... Antonio Maria Costa (Maria?), director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. And that statement, made at the recent U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs meeting in support of the ongoing war on drugs, is:

“Should humanity accept pedophilia, human trafficking or arms smuggling out of a naive sense of market inevitability or intractability? ”

So let me get this straight. A consenting adult, smoking marijuana in the privacy of his or her own home is comparable to engaging in pedophilia, slavery, and/or arms smuggling? If we legalize one, we might just as well legalize them all? Is it just me, or this this guy a few cards short of a full deck? (Or maybe he’s high on drugs.) Is personal use of a recreational drug really such a serious “crime” as to be equated with some of the worst offenses known to mankind? To answer that, I think we need to take a look at exactly where recreational drug use fits on the “seriousness” scale of crimes. To better illustrate this scale, I’ve created this blog’s first-ever original graph.

The horizontal axis of this professional-looking graph represents the seriousness of a crime. I’ve taken the liberty of placing some common crimes in their approximate locations on the scale. You may disagree with the exact placement of these items, but I think you get the general idea. You might also notice that almost all of the “crimes” on this scale have something in common. They are considered crimes because they involve one person doing harm to another. And that harm doesn’t have to actually happen. For example, driving under the influence or speeding are crimes because those acts have the potential for doing harm to another person. And it’s generally true that the more harm caused, actual or potential, the more serious society considers that crime.

So where exactly does recreational drug use fit on this scale? I’ve separated that “crime” from the scale and surrounded it with question marks on the graph (pretty cool, eh?) because that is the $64,000 question recently under consideration by the U.N.: How serious of a crime is using recreational drugs? Apparently the director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime believes it should be located on the right half of the graph, somewhere between arms smuggling and pedophilia. Makes you wonder who this guy knew (or blew) to get his cushy U.N. job. I suspect he did not dazzle them with his intellect during the job interview. Unfortunately, among world leaders and policy makers, he is far from alone in his opinion. That’s why we are where we are today. And why it looks like the U.N. will decide to continue with its failed prohibitionist policies. In other words, stick with the status quo.

Now me, I’d place personal use of recreational drugs somewhere to the left of speeding on the graph. Actually, I guess that would put it off the graph, and thus make it not a crime at all. But that’s just me. I can’t help but think of all the responsible recreational drug users I know, and can’t quite equate them with pedophiles or arms smugglers. And in case you didn’t realize it, I was using sarcasm in the title of this piece, as I am wont to do.

The Message

2009-03-10T08:21:00.001-04:00

Every time you hear someone speaking out in favor of the war on drugs, they invariably mention one reason why this war can never end. They may discuss other valid and not-so-valid reasons to continue the war, and these reasons vary depending on the source. But it always seems to boil down to the single, bottom-line, most-important, fundamental reason why the war on drugs can never end: The Message.

If we decriminalize or, god forbid legalize, any or all drugs, what kind of message would that send to our children? Good question but, you know, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard any anti-drug crusader actually answer that question. (Perhaps it’s a rhetorical question?) So I’ll take it upon myself to answer for them, to put words into their allegedly drug-free mouths. The message that they believe it will send to our children is simply this: Drugs are OK.

But I think it’s more than that. And it’s not just children that might get the wrong message. I think they believe that by saying drugs are OK, that they will be condoning drug use. Even worse, they fear that people will infer from the message that the government is not only condoning, but actually encouraging people to use drugs. They seem to believe that the only thing stopping the vast majority of Americans from using and abusing drugs is the law. Without such a law, every man, woman, and child in the U.S. of A. would start abusing drugs. Not just the people that would use drugs in spite of the laws, but everyone. They won’t be able to help themselves. Without their government telling them what is bad for them, they have no way of knowing. If something is legal, people just can’t help doing it.

And you know what? I think they are absolutely right. I can’t speak for others, but I know that the law is the only thing stopping me from committing a variety of immoral acts. Without such laws in place, I would most certainly be totally out of control. Multiply that by 300 million, and you can see why our government is so worried. I mean, what if other victimless crimes involving only consenting adults were suddenly no longer crimes? Again, I can’t speak for everyone, but if prostitution were suddenly legal in my state, I’d probably be found in the company of hookers more often than not. Thank goodness the law is preventing me from engaging in such immoral behavior. Not that I’ve ever had any desire to engage the services of a prostitute, but who knows if I’d feel the same way if my government didn’t threaten to put me in jail for such behavior. The same is true for gambling. I don’t really enjoy gambling and never really had much interest in it. But maybe that’s because it’s illegal in most places. If it were to become legal in my state, I’d probably loose everything in a matter of days. You’d find me day and night in a casino, probably with a hooker by my side. And what about gay marriage? I’m not gay, but who knows what might happen if the government sent me a message that marrying someone of the same sex is OK. I’d probably be first in line for a marriage license. That is, if I could tear myself away from the hookers and black jack tables. And worst of all, just imagine if there were no seat belt laws. I can just see myself cruising along at high speed, my unused seat belt flapping in the breeze, my gay spouse by my side, a hooker in the back seat, all the while shooting craps. And I’m a reasonably responsible adult. It would surely be total anarchy.

Assuming that I’m your typical, average Joe, maybe the government has a point after all. If a behavior is not illegal and there is no threat of being labeled a criminal if you engage in it, what’s to stop people from doing it? You can’t count on people to have common sense or even to make reasonably intelligent decisions. That’s what the government is for. Sort of like a kindly Big Brother, watching out for our best interests and threatening to punish us if we get out of line. And the big brother analogy is very apt, since they use threats and intimidation to keep us on the straight and narrow. Anyone who’s ever had a real big brother knows how effective that approach is. Kind of makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that my government will always be there to tell me what is right and wrong, and to make me sorely regret ever doing anything that they’ve told me is wrong.

Oh, and since my government decided back in 1933 that alcohol is OK, I’ll be consuming that drug non-stop. Why? Because by making it legal, my government is encouraging me to use it. And because I know that my government wouldn’t ever let me do anything that might cause harm to come to me. Cheers!

No More DEA Raids?!?!?!

2009-03-03T08:12:00.001-05:00

The American medical marijuana community is practically creaming their collective jeans over a statement made by (Obama-appointed) attorney general Eric Holder at a recent press conference. Just to put things in context, here is the question he was asked:

“A second thing on drug policy: Right after the inauguration there were some raids on California medical marijuana dispensaries. Was that a deliberate decision by you, by the Justice Department? Is that a prediction of policy going forward? Do you expect those sorts of raids to continue? <…unintelligible…> what the president said during the campaign.”

And here is Mr. Holder’s response:

“Well, what the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing here in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. And so what he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

Virtually every medical marijuana proponent in the country is taking Mr. Holder’s statement as absolute truth. They are hailing his statement as a milestone, a turning point in the government’s policy toward medical marijuana. It’s official—DEA harassment of the medical marijuana community is now a thing of the past. Medical marijuana patients all across the country can now live happily ever after without fear of prosecution for taking their medicine.

And it may very well turn out to be everything medical marijuana users have hoped for all these years. Then again, maybe not. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but I feel the need to play devil's advocate here.

Mr. Holder’s statement sounds kind of vague to me. He didn’t specifically mention marijuana in his response, though that was the question he was responding to. He can easily come back to quote what he said as having nothing to do with marijuana. A lot of campaign promises were made. Does that mean they are all “American policy” now?

Even if we are to take what Mr. Holder said in good faith, since when does a sound bite from a press conference equate to the establishment of a national policy? At least any more so than a campaign promise does. It may come as a surprise to some, but politicians have been known on occasion to say things that are not entirely truthful, especially when they are trying to get elected.

And I’m no legal scholar, but I’m pretty sure you can’t change a law by making a statement at a press conference. In other words, the Controlled Substances Act is still in effect, and marijuana is still a Schedule 1 substance. So it sounds to me like our Attorney General is saying that he will not be enforcing the law. Not that I’m complaining in this particular case. But do the American people really want an Attorney General that publicly states he is not going to do his job? Surely someone other than me has asked, or will ask, this question. Does the president really want to give his opponents even more ammunition against him by appointing someone to his cabinet who openly flouts the law? And what about when a new president is elected and a new attorney general is appointed? What’s to prevent them from enforcing the law again? At best, this can only be a temporary solution.

Don’t get me wrong. I really hope all the optimism in response to this statement is justified. But I’ve been around long enough to have learned that premature chicken counting is never a good idea. I’ll believe what Mr. Holder said and start celebrating when something is actually put in writing (i.e., a new or modified piece of legislation) or we’ve gone a year without any further DEA raids of medical marijuana dispensaries. For now though I am, at best, cautiously optimistic.

Another Way To End The War On Drugs

2009-02-24T08:51:00.001-05:00

I read a story recently about a jury in rural Illinois that found one of their peers not guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a crime that would have resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of six years. Now that alone may not sound like much, but this guy was caught with 25 pounds of marijuana and a number of live plants in his home. It was an open and shut case, and conviction appeared certain. Nevertheless, the jury acquitted the defendant.

How can that be? If you’ve ever served on a jury, you know that the judge instructs you to base your decision on the law and the facts of the case. No other factors, including the possible sentence, should influence your decision. But what the judge never tells you is that as a member of a jury you are a part of your government’s system of checks and balances. You are the last line of defense against unjust laws and cruel or unusual punishment. If you feel a law or its application is unjust or the penalty too severe, even if the evidence overwhelmingly indicates guilt, you have the right to find a defendant not guilty. In other words you, as a member of a jury, have the power to nullify a law. This power is called jury nullification, and is a right that has been exercised by U.S. juries throughout our nation’s history. It is also a right that judges and prosecutors do their best to keep jurors ignorant of. In fact, it is not unusual for a judge to declare a mistrial if the defense mentions anything even remotely related to jury nullification.

Officially, jury nullification is defined as “the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against them.” What this means in practice is that not only is the defendant on trial, but the law is as well. Of course a jury’s decision applies only to that one particular case. But if a pattern develops over time, it can essentially prevent a law from being enforced. And thus it provides a way for the people to express opposition to an unpopular law.

Jury nullification is nothing new. In fact John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. is quoted as saying, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” There are several notable examples of the use of jury nullification in our history. Way back in the colonial days, juries refused to convict for certain violations of English law. And in the pre-Civil War days, juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. And in the last century it is estimated that 60 percent of the time juries refused to convict for violations of the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition). Some consider this refusal to convict as contributing to the adoption of the 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition).

The tricky thing about jury nullification is that even though the courts have upheld this right since 1840, recent decisions have also upheld the court’s right to refuse to allow the defense to instruct a jury about it. What that means is that as a citizen it is your responsibility to know your rights as a member of a jury. Regardless of what a judge might or might not tell you, it is up to you to know that as a member of a jury you have the right to nullify a law. So now you know. Wake the kids and phone the neighbors. Tell everyone you know. If someone you know is going to serve on a jury, especially for a case that involves simple possession of marijuana, please mention this power to them. It is starting to look like this is the only way the will of the majority is going to be heard when it comes to the war on drugs.

Your Government Wants You To Smoke Joints

2009-02-17T08:33:00.000-05:00

There are currently 12 states in the U.S. that have more or less decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. But what does that mean? And what about the rest of the country? Let’s take a look at the current legal status of marijuana in the U.S.

First, the good news. Believe it or not, there is one state in the Union that has legalized the possession of marijuana. Do you know which one? Give up? It’s Alaska. Because their state constitution guarantees a right to privacy, the state’s courts have upheld the decision that personal possession cannot be a crime. Too bad the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee the same right to privacy.

In the rest of the country, possession of marijuana is either a civil offense (i.e., decriminalized) or a misdemeanor, depending on the amount. The following states have essentially decriminalized marijuana:

CA – less than 1 oz. no arrest	CO – less than 1 oz. petty offense
GA – less than 1 oz. probation	ME – less than 1.25 oz. civil violation
MA* – less than 1 oz. civil offense	MS – less than 1 oz. no arrest
NE – less than 1 oz. civil citation	NV* – less than 1 oz. rehab
NY* – less than 25 g civil citation	OH* – less than 100 g minor misdemeanor
TX – less than 2 oz. class B misdemeanor

If you live anywhere else in the U.S. and are arrested for simple possession you could potentially spend up to 1 and a half years in prison for a misdemeanor conviction and pay thousands of dollars in fines. Those states are:

AL	AZ*	AR*	CT	DE*
DC	Federal*	HI	ID*	IL
IN*	IA	KS*	KY*	LA*
MD	MI*	MN	MO*	MT*
NH*	NJ*	NM*	NC*	ND
OK*	OR*	PA*	RI	SC
SD	TN*	UT*	VT*	VA*
WA*	WV*	WI	WY

And don’t get caught in Puerto Rico, as possession of any amount there is a felony.

What this means is that in most states, if you are convicted of simple possession you may or may not go to jail. But whether you’re incarcerated or not, you will have a criminal record with a misdemeanor conviction on it.

And I bet you’re wondering what all those asterisks mean. Those indicate states in which the penalty for possession of paraphernalia is as severe, or in some cases, worse than for possession of marijuana. Take Ohio for example—outside of Alaska one of the most tolerant states when it comes to marijuana. You can be convicted of possessing up to 100 grams (that’s 3.5 oz.) and receive a maximum fine of $100 with no criminal record. But if you are convicted for possession of paraphernalia, you could receive up to 30 days in jail, a fine of up to $750, and a criminal record.

Since our government is so concerned about the messages they are sending when it comes to recreational drug use, what kind of message are they sending our children with these laws? In the states where possessing paraphernalia is a more serious offense than possessing marijuana, I think the message is quite clear. If you’re going to smoke, don’t use a bong. Or a vaporizer, or a pipe, or anything like that. Yes, your government is telling you that smoking joints is the preferred method of getting high. Or using a soda can, or a pen, or a plastic bottle, or an apple, or a piece of aluminum foil. As long as you don’t go out and buy something specifically made for smoking marijuana, you’re OK. Message received, loud and clear. And understood. Bongs bad, joints good.

Think For Yourself

2009-02-10T08:48:00.000-05:00

I recently read this article about the decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts. The article talks about the new law and how the police plan on enforcing it. And the article includes the obligatory comment by someone opposed to the new law about the gateway effect and sending the wrong message to our children. But what is really interesting is the response to the article. As is often the case, the comments are much more interesting and informative than the article itself.

As you might expect, the majority of the comments are people in favor of the new law, which is not surprising since it was voted in by a majority of the people. People that like the new law mention things like not ruining a kid’s life because of being caught with a joint, or saving taxpayer money. You know, common-sense kinds of things.

The few comments from people opposed to the new law however are something different entirely. They are, almost invariably, a regurgitation of the same government propaganda we’ve been hearing for the past 70 years—it’s a gateway drug; it makes you a lazy slacker; it causes lung cancer; it causes brain damage; there is no safe level of use; successful, well-adjusted adults do not smoke it. The usual. These are the ones that want to put people in jail for smoking marijuana, yet their justifications for being so harsh are based on ignorance and/or misinformation.

My point is that with something as important as prohibition, which has destroyed countless people’s lives, maybe you should have some facts before you go talking about sending the right message to our kids. Don’t believe everything your government tells you (e.g., weapons of mass destruction). Do a little research. Spend 15 minutes with Google and see what you can find out. You might learn that virtually every major legitimate scientific study done since the 1940s, in this country and around the world, refutes these common misconceptions. Even studies conducted by our very own government recommend decriminalization. So all those reasons given by the people who oppose the new law are simply not based on any real facts. I’m not saying that there might not be other, valid reasons for opposing the decriminalization law, but I didn’t see a single one in any of the opposing comments.

It’s not that I’m trying to say that this is a good law. I think you can probably guess my opinion on that. My point is that if you are going to have a position on an important issue, please get some facts. Don’t believe everything you hear, and think for yourself.

Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You?

2009-02-03T08:02:00.001-05:00

Ever see that TV show Cops? Well this is sort of like the exact opposite of that. It’s a web-based show called KopBusters. KopBusters is a reality show that sets up stings to catch crooked cops. Yes, I know what you are thinking, but it’s true—there are indeed some police officers in the U.S. of A. who do not always play by the rules. And the show’s creator ought to know. He used to be a police officer. And he himself did some not-strictly-legal things during his career in law enforcement (or so he says).

Now I don’t know if this show is supposed to be a series or what, as there is currently only one “episode.” Even so, it’s worth watching just to see the bad guys get what’s coming to them for once. (The “bad guys” in this case being the police.)

What got the KopBusters involved in this particular case was the sentencing of a young Odessa, Texas woman to 8 years in prison for possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. There appears to be evidence (e.g. forged documents, informant’s testimony) to indicate that police planted the drugs this woman was convicted of possessing. That evidence was allegedly ignored at her trial. So her father brought in KopBusters to expose the wrongdoing on the part of the local police.

What KopBusters did was rent an house in Odessa and secretly set up a marijuana grow operation. But they didn’t grow marijuana there. No, they planted two small Christmas trees under their high-intensity lights. They also wired the house for video and had the cameras transmitting to a remote location. And then they waited.

It didn’t take long before the house was raided. In addition to the Christmas-tree growing operation, the raiding officers were greeted with a sign informing them that there was no one in the house and nothing illegal was going on there. Oh, and that they were on camera as part of a sting operation. As you can imagine, this is not the sort of thing that makes the police very happy. And rightly so. Being caught on video tape using an illegal warrant can ruin anybody’s day. So they arrested the KopBusters’ attorney when he showed up on the scene. He was eventually released, under pressure, but according to an evening news story the police were still trying to figure out how to charge the KopBusters with a crime. Which strikes me as just a bit crazy when the police were the ones engaging in illegal activities. Ironic even.

Now as great as this scenario sounds, I do have some misgivings about it. For example, “Mr. KopBusters,” Barry Cooper, is a former police officer who has been making money selling a video showing people how to avoid being arrested for using illegal drugs. A noble concept, but you have to wonder about people’s motives when money is involved. Is he selling out his former profession by using his inside knowledge for profit? Or is he trying to make up for his former evil doings? I don’t know, but having all the pertinent information is the only way to come to an informed decision.

And one thing that really makes me wonder about the legitimacy of this sting is the way the local police found out about this “grow operation” in the first place. If the house was set up in secret, how did anybody outside their organization know about it? It’s not entirely clear to me, but it appears that an “anonymous tip” was delivered to the police. And that alone, they say, is what led to the search warrant. Of course an anonymous tip in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for issuing a search warrant. So there’s some part of the story we’re not being told. But since the police refused to provide KopBusters with a copy of their warrant, I guess we’ll never know. (I don’t quite understand this, since I thought the police were supposed to present their warrant to the person being raided.) So for now at least I’m going to give KopBusters the benefit of the doubt and chalk one up for the good guys.

By The Numbers

2009-01-27T08:43:00.000-05:00

As you may or may not know, the United State still has at least one accomplishment in which it leads the world: We have the highest prison population rate in the world. That’s right, with 738 of every 100,000 people in the U.S. in prison, we are number one. That’s roughly 0.7 percent of the population. Now 0.7 percent might not sound like such a big number, but compared to the rest of the world it’s pretty impressive. It works out to about 2.3 million people. In comparison, Russia comes in a distant second with only 611 per 100,000 of its population in prison. And England, for example, has only 148 per 100,000 of its population in prison.

But it seems to me that we are not doing enough, prison population-wise. If we aren’t careful, some of those prison population wannabes, like Russia or Cuba, are going to take our crown. Not that such a thing would be easy, but that doesn’t mean we can rest on our past achievements. We need to keep up our frenetic pace of arrests and convictions. And how better than by going after people using illegal drugs. They are, after all, pretty easy to catch. Especially in California where they operate in the open. Not like murderers or rapists. Sort of like if you’re in college and you’re worried about your GPA dropping, you sign up for some easy classes. The results look good on paper, and you don’t really have to put in a lot of effort.

So I’ve been looking at some numbers to see how much we can accomplish if we really set our minds to it. Currently, the U.S. population is approximately 305 million. Of those, approximately 66 percent are White, 15 percent are Hispanic, and 13 percent are Black. The reason such a breakdown is important is because you can’t just go around putting lots of White people in prison. We do need to maintain at least somewhat of the status quo, where the Black prison population is about 6 times that of the white prison population, and Hispanics are incarcerated at about twice the rate of Whites. Of course if we really want to excel we’re going to have to set aside some of our old ways, and start going after non-minority offenders a lot more than we have.

And where better to start than with marijuana users. Unlike other crimes, and even other drug-related crimes, marijuana smoking crosses all racial, ethnic, and geographic lines. The rich and poor alike, urban and rural, young and old, all like their weed. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population 12 years and older are regular marijuana smokers. If broken down by age group, that number goes up considerably. Of those aged 18-25 years, 16.6 percent smoke marijuana regularly, and 8.6 percent of those aged 26-34 are regular smokers. Now we’re talking some serious numbers. According to U.S. census information, somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 percent of the population falls into that 18-34 age group. That works out to about 67 million people, and of those about 8 million are regular marijuana smokers. That’s almost 3 percent of our total population.

I don’t know about you, but numbers like that tell me that our law enforcement officials are not coming anywhere close to doing their jobs. We have over 8 million criminals in this country, and fewer than one million of them are behind bars. That means that almost 90 percent of those dangerous marijuana-smoking criminals are walking around free, smoking their reefer and flouting the law. I don’t know much about how the law-enforcement business works, but in any other business a 12 percent success rate would be totally unacceptable. It would indicate total, absolute failure. Heads would role, people would be fired. Consultants would be brought in.

So what can we do? Almost 3 percent of our population are criminals, yet fewer than one in ten of those criminals are behind bars. Maybe it’s just me, but I find that pretty embarrassing. And scary. How can any of us feel safe and secure with so many criminals running around free? The only solution I can see is to ceaselessly go after all of these marijuana-smoking criminals. I mean, let’s get really serious about it. Not just the occasional bust of a kid smoking a joint or a raid on a medical marijuana dispensary. I think it would be more efficient to just assume that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Then, after we get that 3 percent of our population safely locked away, we can go after the rest. Remember, that 3 percent represents only the 18-32 age group. There are still millions of younger and older Americans who smoke marijuana regularly. And what about the occasional users? They’re breaking the law just like the rest; an occasional crime is still a crime. So with just marijuana smokers alone, we could increase our prison population to over 5 percent and quite possibly close to 10 percent of our total population. No other country would ever come close to a number like that. We would secure our number one position in the prison population game once and for all. And we would all certainly sleep better knowing that nearly one in ten of our friends and neighbors are securely locked away, no longer smoking their “devil’s weed.” I know I would.

Now if you would, please join me in a little patriotic chant: U – S – A… We’re number 1. U – S – A… We’re number 1. U – S – A… We’re number 1. U – S – A… We’re number 1.

R.I.P. U.S. Constitution

2009-01-20T08:50:00.000-05:00

It’s now official. The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, no longer applies to law enforcement officers. How could something like this possibly happen? Here, in the good ol’ U.S. of A.? Land of the “free.” Simple, the Supreme Court made a decision.

That’s right, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or arrest can still be used against a defendant. Of course this ruling applies only when officers make a “mistake.” Like serving an expired warrant in this case, for example. So much for the 4th Amendment.

Believe it or not, I don’t really have much to say about this turn of events. I think it speaks for itself. There is now nothing to stop the police from obtaining evidence illegally. All they have to do is say it was a simple mistake. I have a feeling that police “mistakes” in gathering evidence are about to go up dramatically. The police now have carte blanche when it comes to search and seizure. We can no longer feel “secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.” For once, our government has given us something to really be afraid of. And it’s not terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. It’s our government. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide

2009-01-13T08:28:00.001-05:00

Sometimes what the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t decide is as important as when it actually hands down a decision. But how, you might ask, can that be? If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t decide an issue, doesn’t that mean it’s still unresolved? The answer is, not necessarily.

It all started back in 2005 when local police arrested Felix Kha, a Garden Grove, CA citizen, for possession of marijuana and seized one-third of an ounce of the controlled substance from him. The charge was eventually dropped, since Mr. Kha was in compliance with California state medical marijuana laws. However the police refused to return his seized medicine. And that’s what got this judicial ball rolling.

You see the police, and the city which backed up the police’s position, believed that they would be in violation of federal law if they gave the seized marijuana back to its rightful owner. Or so they said. That’s in spite of a valid court order for the return of Mr. Kha’s marijuana. When Mr. Kha pressed for the return of his medicine, the city filed suit with the 4th District Court of Appeals. That appeal was unanimously rejected. You’d think that would have been the end of it, and the police would have just returned the seized property. But no. The city then asked the California Supreme Court to review the case. They also declined, so that definitely should have put an end to the matter once and for all.

But no. Not to be deterred by two decisions not to review their appeal, the city of Garden Grove took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Funny thing, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear the case. Fortunately for Mr. Kha, there are no more alternatives for the city of Garden Grove. Case closed. Period. End of discussion. The seized property must be returned. So now what?

Well, the city of Garden Grove spent $80,000 in their pursuit of this case. That amount may increase even more if they are ordered to pay Mr. Kha’s legal fees (as well they should). In the current economic climate, I bet the taxpayers of Garden Grove are just thrilled to death with the way their city is spending their hard-earned tax dollars.

But more significant are the ramifications of the highest court in the land refusing to review this case. It means that law enforcement officials in states with legalized medical marijuana must now respect patients’ rights (in theory). There will no longer be any question as to what to do with property seized from people in compliance with their state’s laws. That’s a great thing for sick people all across the country. But it gets even better. Not only does it mean that it is not the job of local law enforcement officials to enforce federal law, but it means that they cannot choose to uphold federal over state law. As if that wasn’t enough, it means that, contrary to what some have argued, federal law does not supercede state law. At least when it comes to medical marijuana. Whether or not local, state, and federal law enforcement officials abide by this ruling is another question. But at least a precedent has been set. It is, at the very least, one small victory over the U.S government in the war that it has been waging on its sick and dying citizens.

And who knows, maybe it will cause the local authorities to think twice before calling in the feds for a raid (yes, they do that all the time). They might even lose their jobs or be arrested themselves if they violate the state laws that they swore to uphold. And maybe the feds will think twice if they don’t have the cooperation of the local authorities. And maybe, just maybe, Mr. Kha will get his medicine back. Maybe not.

Because The Bible Tells Us So

2009-01-06T08:25:00.003-05:00

Believe it or not, I do have some intellectual interests other than the war on drugs. And one of those interests is creationism or, if you prefer, intelligent design. Now I’m not exactly what you would call a religious person, so I don’t actually believe in the “theory” of creationism. And it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with science. But you have to give the creationists credit for one thing: they have an answer for everything. Although the details vary depending on the issue, the bottom line of every one of their arguments is simply, “because the Bible tells us so.”

Don’t worry, I’m not going to go all preachy on you. Or try to justify the use of recreational drugs based on a tenuous interpretation of some obscure Bible verse (thank Jah). But whether or not you believe you can glean something about the meaning of life or the history of the universe from the Bible, I think you have to admit that the Bible can at the very least teach us something about human nature. Especially the Old Testament. And I think it is somewhat significant that the very first lesson in human nature that the Bible teaches us is fairly simple, straightforward, and not easily misinterpreted: Prohibition doesn’t work.

That’s right, the very first lesson we learn, after finding out about the creation of the universe, comes in chapter 3 of the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat the fruit of any tree in their garden except for one, the tree of knowledge. They were warned quite clearly that if they ate from that particular tree that they would die. Of course they did eat the forbidden fruit, and the rest is history (at least according to the Bible). So what does that teach us?

First, prohibition cannot be based on lies or misinformation. Eating the forbidden fruit turned out not to be fatal after all. When Adam and Eve realized that they had been lied to about the true nature of the fruit, what else could they do but eat it? They were, after all, only human.

Second, a powerful enforcer of the law is not enough. Even the creator of the universe, who knows all and sees all, could not stop Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. So how could a mere government and their police force hope to do any better?

Third, even the threat of the most severe punishment, death, is not an effective deterrent. Especially when the “crime” is something that goes against human nature. In this case, the law attempted to prevent people from gaining knowledge. As we all know, people are always asking questions and learning new things. That’s what people do. Such a behavior cannot be controlled with legislation.

Fourth, you can’t watch everybody all the time. Even with a population of only two and an omniscient enforcer, the law was still violated. That kind of makes what the DEA is trying accomplish seem pretty pointless (as if it didn’t already).

And finally this story teaches us a lesson that every parent has eventually learned. If you tell an adolescent not to do something, they often will, if for no other reason than to make a point (“you’re not the boss of me”). But if you give people some freedom, within some reasonable limitations and boundaries, more often than not they will come to the right decision on their own. In other words, given the opportunity to act like adults, most people will.

So I think there’s a lesson to be learned here, especially for those who justify the war on drugs on moral grounds. Regardless of how they might interpret the Bible with respect to what sort of recreation is acceptable or forbidden, there can be little doubt about the Bible’s position on prohibition as a solution: It has, since the beginning of time, never worked, and can’t possibly be expected to ever work, even under the most ideal of circumstances. Amen.

The DEA Has Their Say

2008-12-30T08:50:00.001-05:00

A while back I wrote a piece about a letter representative John Conyers (D-MI) sent to the DEA about the raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Well the DEA has responded (see their response here and here). To save you a little time, below is my brief summary of the original letter and the DEA’s response, in plain-English.

First, the original letter sent by Conyers on April 29, 2008:

Dear DEA,

I see you’ve been spending a lot of the taxpayers’ money out in California, what with all those raids on the medical marijuana dispensaries and all. What’s up with that? I want to see some receipts. I’d also like to know why you’re putting so much effort into going after all those sick people and their caregivers when there are all those really bad drug cartel guys south of the border. I think maybe your priorities are little screwed up. I want some answers, and I want them no later than July 1. Or else.

Yours truly,

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

And here’s the DEA’s response, dated July 25:

Dear Liberal Troublemaker,

How many times do we have to say it—we don’t make the laws, we just enforce them. But since you brought it up, they certainly are some mighty fine laws. Contrary to what all those hippie potheads out in California want you to believe. Heck, some of the more sensible ones out there have even been asking for our help in ridding their communities of these illegal drug distribution centers. So there. Oh, and you’re not the boss of us. So shut the f*ck up, stop rocking the boat, and let us get on with fighting the drug menace.

Cordially yours,

The DEA

Anyone surprised by the DEA’s response? Anyone think anything will change as a result of this little correspondence?

A Dangerous New Drug Menace

2008-12-23T09:46:00.001-05:00

I recently watched this documentary on TV about a dangerous new drug menace that is sweeping our nation. Although the show focused on a small town in Colorado, it would appear that kids across the country have found a new way to get “hopped up.” In case you weren’t aware, and I know I wasn’t, it seems that you can experience a hallucinogenic experience by snorting or sniffing cat urine. Not just any cat urine, mind you, but only the urine from a male cat marking his territory. Yes, it’s hard to believe, but I saw it on TV so it must be true. The kids refer to this ingesting of cat urine as “cheesing.” (Why? Because its “Fon to Due”.)

So how exactly do the kids go about getting cheesed? Well, it’s not as easy as you might think. It requires the male cat to be secured in a special harness, the so-called cheesing paraphernalia, and then a second male cat is introduced. This causes the harnessed cat to get all territorial and “spray.” These poor misguided kids then stick their face near the cat’s rear end and let the spray wash over their faces. The result is a psychedelic experience that approximates watching the movie Heavy Metal. Now I don’t know if it affects everyone the same, but the hallucinations seem to involve visions that include a lot of well-endowed women’s breasts. Just so you’re not too alarmed, it seems that the breasts are never completely exposed to the “cheeser.” Thank goodness for small favors.

Fortunately, our ever-vigilant government appears to be on top of the situation. The town that was the focus of the documentary quickly addressed the problem by making cats illegal. The DEA was even shown coming into the town and rounding up all the cats. As is to be expected, some people hid their cats away and a black market sprang up. But it appeared that the feds had the problem under control by the end of the show. I’m not sure exactly why all cats were outlawed, male and female alike, but I’m sure the government had its reasons. Better safe than sorry.

I wasn’t going to mention it, to avoid embarrassing the people involved, but in case you’re interested, the town that was the focus of this documentary was South Park, CO. Now that I think about it, that name sounds awfully familiar. But I can’t quite put my finger on it. And you know, I seem to recall that the documentary was done as an animated feature. You know, a cartoon. And a very crudely drawn one at that. Oh well, whatever it takes to get the message across to today’s MTV generation. My hat’s off to the makers of this documentary. They must really understand the kids to be able to speak to them in their own lingo. And now that this menace has been exposed, let’s just hope that the newly-instituted cat prohibition does what it’s supposed to do and puts an end to cheesing once and for all. After all, prohibition is the only proven way to stop people from doing what the government believes they should not be doing. I’m sure the innocent, non-cheesing cat owners who can no longer enjoy their favorite pet will understand. It’s for their own good.

Analyze This

2008-12-16T08:59:00.002-05:00

I recently ran across the following “Statement By The White House Drug Czar Regarding Food and Drug Administration Dismissal of Smoked Marijuana As Medicine.” What follows is that statement, presented sentence by sentence, with my commentary in italics following each sentence.

(Washington, D.C.)—John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and President Bush's “Drug Czar,” today issued the following statement regarding the Food and Drug Administration statement regarding smoking marijuana as medicine.

This is the only sentence in this statement about which I have nothing to say.

Director Walters said, “Our Nation has the highest standards and most sophisticated institutions in the world for determining the safety and effectiveness of medication.

The fact that FDA-approved medicines are released to the public all the time that end up killing people is irrelevant.

Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion.

Except when it comes to marijuana, where it relies on misinformation and the opinions of people who stand to profit most from the war on drugs.

To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective.

Safe compared to what? Aspirin? Celebrex? Vioxx? Phenylpropanolamine? And there is plenty of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that marijuana can be an effective treatment for a variety of disorders.

We have a responsibility as a civilized society to ensure that the medicine Americans receive from their doctors is effective, safe, and free from the pro-drug politics that are being promoted in America under the guise of medicine.

And to prevent those same Americans from administering home remedies if those remedies might take money out of the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. The only politics that should be involved, in a civilized society that is, are the anti-drug variety.

Too many of our citizens suffer from pain and chronic illnesses.

Agreed.

Smoking illegal drugs may make some people “feel better.”

And making sick people “feel better” is bad how?

However, civilized societies and modern day medical practices differentiate between inebriation and the safe, supervised delivery of proven medicine by legitimate doctors.

One is bad and the other isn’t. One is a moral issue, the other isn’t. I’m starting to think that “civilized society” might not be all that it’s cracked up to be.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a review of the available scientific evidence in an effort to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids.

So have many other reputable institutions, most of which don’t have a vested interest in their results.

The review concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for any long-term medical use, and a subsequent IOM report declared, “marijuana is not a modern medicine.”

The IOM is among a very small minority in their conclusion. See for example this NIH review of the medicinal applications of cannabinoids. Funny how the government seems to be unaware of the studies that disagree with their official position on marijuana.

For years, pro-drug groups seeking the legalization of marijuana and other drugs have preyed on the compassion of Americans to promote their political agenda and bypass F.D.A.'s rigorous standards which have safeguarded our medical supply for over 100 years.

There’s no place for compassion when it comes to caring for sick people. The most important thing is making sure the pharmaceutical companies make as much money as possible.

Marinol—the synthetic form of THC and the psychoactive ingredient contained in marijuana—is already legally available for prescription by physicians whose patients suffer from pain and chronic illness.”

THC is only one of several active compounds in marijuana. Pure THC has been shown to be much less effective than the natural substance. It has also been shown that taking pure THC can have some unpleasant side effects.

There you have it. That was a lot easier than I thought it would be. There isn’t a single unbiased statement of fact in the whole… uh… statement. Our government is nothing if not consistent.

22 Years for Selling Weed!!!!

2008-12-09T08:34:00.002-05:00

Now I’m as patriotic as the next fellow, but there are times when I am embarrassed by the American criminal justice system. The reason for my embarrassment can be found in an article I just read about a couple of Modesto, CA men who were recently sentenced for a federal marijuana-related conviction. One received a sentence of 21 years, 10 months and the other 20 years in a federal prison. Keep in mind that the average sentences in federal court for the crimes of murder, sexual abuse, and kidnapping are around 7 years.

Now I’m not claiming that these guys were in the right, or even that they were abiding by California state law. It would appear that they were not. It would appear that they were taking advantage of the system in order to make a lot of money. In fact, one of them even made a rap video practically daring the DEA to come after him. And of course the DEA did go after him. It’s one thing to keep a low profile and quietly go about your business. But once you become a public figure, you can rest assured that the DEA will do whatever it takes to make an example of you. Just ask Tommy Chong.

OK, so maybe these guys were not the altruistic caregivers they claimed to be. Maybe they were. Who really knows? That’s not the point. The point is that all they were doing was growing and selling marijuana. They were not accused nor convicted of any violent crime. And as far as I can tell, they had no prior criminal history. They were the victims of a “mandatory minimum sentence.” In case you haven’t heard that phrase before, it means that if you are convicted the judge has no flexibility in the sentence he passes. In this case, 20 years was the mandatory minimum sentence.

It just so happens that mandatory minimum sentences have become quite popular in recent years. Coincidentally their popularity, much like the so-called “three strikes” laws, has risen along with the increase in private prisons. And why not? If you’ve got a growing for-profit prison industry, you need to have prisoners. It would be pointless to be spending all those billions of dollars each year building new prisons if there weren’t any people to lock up in them. And our government is always willing to do what it can to help out private industry. Especially when that industry has lobbyists and donates millions of dollars to political candidates. It’s just one hand washing the other. That’s the American way.

But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that two people will be spending the next 20 years behind bars for selling marijuana!!!! In what universe is that not cruel and unusual punishment? Even if they were taking advantage of the system and using it for their own profit, the sentence in no way fits the crime. I know this excuse may be overused, but in this case I have to say that society’s to blame. If marijuana were legal, these guys would just be a couple of unknown wannabe rappers. Our society created a situation in which these two could get rich without putting in too much effort. Then when they took advantage of that situation, that very same society punished them. Severely.

The main problem with these two was that they weren’t quite smart enough to figure out the system. If they wanted some quick and easy money, they should have just gone out and robbed or killed somebody. That way, even if they got caught at least they wouldn’t have ended up spending the next 20 years behind bars. So let that be a lesson to anybody who thinks they can make easy some money selling weed. It’s just not worth the risk. Go out and get yourself a gun. All you have to do is point it at people and demand they give you their money. You’ll be happy you didn’t try to sell weed. And so will society.

Why Didn’t I Think Of That?

2008-12-02T08:45:00.002-05:00

I read this article recently that really put the war on drugs into perspective for me. The article is about a new tactic being employed by our valiant drug warriors. It’s an approach to stopping people from smoking marijuana that is so simple and so obvious, it’s almost unbelievable that no one ever thought of it before. It’s pure genius. Are you ready for this? It’s scary clever:

The people of Prince George County, MD recently decided to ban the sale of single cigars. See what I mean? It’s kind of like the paper clip. After it was invented it seemed the obvious solution; but the day before its invention, the world was full of people wishing they had something to temporarily hold pieces of paper together with.

So what, you might ask, do cigars (or paper clips) have to do with smoking marijuana? Well, as I understand it, “the kids” these days use cigar wrappers to roll their “reefer” in. Sometimes, I hear tell, they even leave some tobacco in their so-called “blunt.” Those crazy kids! They’re always coming up with some new way to take their grass. But the people of Prince George County are onto their little shenanigans. No cigars means no more blunt smoking. Drug problem solved.

Unless, that is, those crazy kids go ahead and buy a five-pack of cigars. Because the new law doesn’t apply to cigars sold in packages of five or more as long as each individual cigar costs at least $5. But those kids that don’t have a lot of money or don’t smoke a lot will definitely be thwarted. They’ll have to go out and buy rolling papers (which they probably sell in the same place they sell cigars). Or use a pipe. Or a bong. Or a hookah. Or a soda can, or a pen, or a plastic bottle, or an apple, or a piece of aluminum foil. In any event, a few people might be somewhat barely-perceptibly inconvenienced. And since the kids won’t have the tobacco handy from emptying out the cigar wrappers, maybe some will forgo their tobacco smoking entirely. It’s like two benefits in a single ban. See what I mean about this idea being scary clever?

I don’t know about you, but I’m cautiously optimistic. I think that the drug warriors have finally hit on a tactic that will work. Although I have to say it’s not really all that original of an idea. Selling drug-smoking “paraphernalia” has, after all, been illegal in this country for quite a while now. The federal government had the right idea with that ban, they just missed the mark. They didn’t realize that kids now smoke their pot in blunts, so the ban on bongs was too little too late. That and the fact that you can still buy drug paraphernalia just about anywhere. But that’s besides the point. No sir, it’s cigar wrappers that are the key. Though some may be skeptical about the effectiveness of the cigar ban—it’s true, there are some doubters—I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that marijuana smoking will be totally abolished in Prince George County in short order. Remember, you heard it here first.

Profiting From Crime

2008-11-25T09:05:00.002-05:00

I read a lot and I’ve written a bit on the economics of the war on drugs. But there’s something I just learned that surprised me, which is pretty hard to do. Did you know that there are privately-owned and operated prisons in the U.S.? Not just a few, but lots of them? I guess I had heard about private prisons before, but never realized how widespread they really are. In case you don’t know, a private prison is a for-profit business. Just like many other “services” provided to the government by private industry, companies bid on and receive contracts to build and operate prisons. And make money doing it.

Maybe it’s just me, but that seems a little not quite right. I have no problem with the government contracting with private companies for other kinds of services, like building fighter planes or running the Senate cafeteria. But isn’t the criminal justice system supposed to be, you know, part of the government? I thought that, at the very least, profiting from crime was frowned upon. Criminals certainly are not allowed this privilege. For example, a convicted murderer isn’t allowed to write a book about his crimes. Why is it that big business is allowed to make big bucks on the incarcerated?

So how about some cold, hard facts on prisons in the U.S. of A.? On any given day there are over 1.5 million Americans in prison, one of the few things we still lead the world in. Not that we didn’t have to put in a little effort to achieve that honor. Why back in 1980, before we had administrations that were so “tough on crime,” we had fewer than 400,000 people in prison. But with a little hard work we managed to more than triple that number in less than 30 years. Pretty impressive.

It makes you think that crime must be running rampant in this country. Well, that’s not exactly the case. For example between 1975 and 1985 the serious crime rate actually decreased slightly while the number of people in prison during that same period nearly doubled. So how does that work exactly, when crime rates go down and prison populations go up? I guess that’s what being tough on crime is all about.

Although I have to admit, there is one type of crime that has been on the rise. Can you guess which type? That’s right, drug-related violations. Over a 25-year period starting in 1980, state and local arrests for drug violations rose from around 600,000 annually to almost 2 million per year. Of course over that same period actual drug use stayed about the same. Again, that’s just more evidence that being tough on crime is actually accomplishing something.

But what about private prisons? After all, that’s what this is all about. Thirty U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC have a total of over 150 private prisons. Those private prisons house 7.4 percent of the nation’s prisoners which, if you do the math, works out to about 116,000 people. At an average cost of around $25,000 per year to house a prisoner, that’s just under $3 billion going to private prisons each year. And I’m sure they’re getting a lot more than that.

Right now we are spending an estimated $6 billion per year on construction alone just to keep up with the rapidly-growing prison population. No wonder these private companies want a piece of that pie. In fact, they want it so bad that during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles they gave $3.3 million to candidates and state political parties across 44 states. And experts estimate that prison populations in 10 states will increase by 25 percent between 2006 and 2011. So there’s lots more money to be made.

And it doesn’t hurt when someone like the soon-to-be former Vice President owns stock in one of the largest private prison companies. There’s no one tougher on crime than Mr. Cheney. Coincidence? Maybe. Conflict of interest? Definitely. Seems only fair that Mr. Cheney was recently indicted in a private prison case. Makes you wonder how many other tough-on-crime politicians also make money in one way or another from the private prison industry.

With all this money being made in the business of incarceration, and even more to be made in the future, how can we ever expect things to change? There’s absolutely no incentive to reduce our prison population. And the best incentive of them all, money, to keep that population growing. You know what they say about money talking.

I guess we’ll just have to look on the bright side. At least we still have something left that we can lead the world in. No one builds more prisons or puts more people in them than the good ol’ U.S. of A. Suck on that Japan, Finland, and Canada. They think they’re so great just because they’re so far ahead of us in student math and science test scores. Let’s see them even try to compete with us when it comes to locking people up behind bars. Then we’ll see who has the last laugh.

U.S. Government Admits to Supporting Terrorism

2008-11-18T09:08:00.002-05:00

You know how “they” say that telling the truth is easier than telling a lie? Well, they do say it. When you tell the truth you never have to worry about your story being the same every time you tell it. And when you tell the truth, you will never contradict yourself; your story will always be internally consistent. Unfortunately, it looks like our government never learned this valuable life lesson. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

In their never-ending struggle to keep marijuana out of the hands of the American people, the U.S. government has told a few lies. OK, more than a few. Not surprising. But you’d think that after all this time they’d be better at it. I mean, they’ve had plenty of practice. Yet they’ve consistently failed to get their story straight. This is either out of ignorance, or more likely a belief that no one will check out their story too carefully. If you do, you can come up with some very confusing conclusions regarding the government’s war on drugs. What follows are two facts I’ve discovered, and I didn’t have to look too hard or resort to making stuff up or taking anything out of context. I’ve even included references so you can verify the “facts” for yourself. The conclusion that follows from those facts should be obvious to anyone (outside the DEA).

Fact 1: Illegal drug money supports terrorists

The first part of the story involves the government’s assertion that drug money supports terrorism. A few years back the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy even ran a series of public service announcements, one during the Super Bowl, that claim that if you buy illicit drugs, you are supporting terrorists. Here’s an example of one of those ads. And a little time spent with Google will easily demonstrate to you that this “drugs support terrorism” message has been spread by the government for some time now. It’s not just a few isolated ads. It’s a big part of their “drugs are bad” platform.

Fact 2: The U.S. government supports illegal drug dealers.

The second part of the story involves the U.S. government’s use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as part of its justification of prohibition. Even when the use of a particular substance in no way involves interstate commerce, such as medical marijuana use within a given state, the effects of that use are national in scope. When you grow your own marijuana or buy it inexpensively from legal dispensaries, you are taking business away from the illegal importers, distributors, and dealers. And so the government is acting to protect those dealers with the Controlled Substances Act. Don’t believe me? Here it is from the horse’s own mouth, the case of Gonzales v. Raich. Just to be clear, here is a quote from the Court’s decision: “the regulation [of marijuana] is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.” (The “national market,” in this case, refers to the black market.)

Conclusion: The U.S. Government supports terrorists.

Now I’m no rocket scientist. But it doesn’t take one to connect the dots, especially when there are only two of them and they can be connected with a straight line. The government admits to supporting and protecting illegal drug dealers. The government claims that money from the sales of illegal drugs supports terrorism. Therefore simple logic tells us that the U.S. government is supporting terrorism. If we were doing math, that would be called the transitive property. But since we’re not, let’s just call it painfully obvious. I’ve heard it said that the war on drugs is really a war on the American people. It looks like that is very true, in more ways than one. So I say, let’s get our government out of the business of supporting those that hate America and our way of life. And let’s get our government out of the business of standing between sick people and their medicine.

The NIH On Cannabis

2008-11-11T09:14:00.000-05:00

In an earlier article I discussed the official government position on marijuana (i.e., it’s not medicine). According to the DEA, their position is in part based on studies conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since the NIH studies that I’ve been able to find don’t really support the government’s position, I thought I’d review one of those recent, major NIH studies on medical marijuana myself and see what they really have to say on the subject. This study, The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy, was published in Pharmacological Reviews in 2006 and summarizes recent findings on the medical uses of the various compounds found in marijuana. For fun, let’s compare and contrast the findings of this NIH study with the research cited by the DEA.

First, the official position of the DEA, as discussed in one of my previous pieces, is about as straight forward as you can get: the best available science tells them that marijuana has no medicinal value.

Now let’s take a look at what was actually found in numerous recent studies, as reviewed in the article cited above. The main conclusion of this review is likewise very unambiguous: the family of chemical compounds found in marijuana can be used to treat a wide variety of diseases and pathological conditions. Curious how the DEA fails to acknowledge the hundreds of studies reviewed in the NIH article, isn’t it? Could it be because much of that research was conducted outside the U.S.A.? Possibly. Of course that sort of research is frowned upon here, but that's beside the point. Could it be that it contradicts the official position of the government? Probably. But I think another reason they neglect to mention this overwhelming evidence is simply the fact that it exists. When you’re trying to scare people, the existence of facts can tend to confuse the issue. Any facts, pro or con, make it more difficult to maintain a mindless, irrational fear. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz. Once you know what’s behind the curtain, the wizard isn’t nearly as scary. Just knowing there’s something behind the curtain is enough to tell you that things probably aren’t what they seem. Your government would prefer you didn’t even know about the curtain.

And just so you don’t think I’m exaggerating, below is a summary of some of the medical uses of marijuana-based compounds discussed in the NIH article. You know, the ones the DEA says don't exist. There’s a lot more in the article, but I think this will give you a pretty good idea of what medical marijuana researchers really think.

Physiological Effect	Treatment Applications
control of appetite and energy metabolism	cancer and AIDS patients, as well as anorexia
relief of pain and inflammation	a wide variety of conditions
protection from neurotoxicity and neurotrauma	traumatic brain and spinal cord injury, stroke, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, to name a few
control of mental disorders	schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression
regulation of sleep	insomnia
regulation of addictive disorders	alcohol, cocaine, or opiate addiction
cardiovascular and respiratory effect	hypertension, atherosclerosis, and asthma
visual system effects	eye disorders such as glaucoma and retinopathy
inhibition of malignant tumor growth	several different types of cancer

Happy Day After Election Day

2008-11-05T10:49:00.001-05:00

I don’t have any insightful commentary or witty observations about yesterday’s election. Nor do I have anything to say about our country’s choice for a new president. If you want that sort of thing, check out the CNN web site (or Fox News, if you’re of that persuasion).

I just wanted to say congratulations to the people of Michigan! Their state has just become the 13th in the U.S. to have an active medical marijuana program. The measure passed with an overwhelming two-thirds majority. That means that nearly 25 percent of the American people now have safe access to their required medication. (Unless of course the DEA decides to go after them like they have in California and elsewhere.) It’s getting harder and harder for the federal government to claim that marijuana has no accepted medical use in the U.S. At least with a straight face.

I’d also like to acknowledge the state of Massachusetts, where the people just voted to decriminalize the possession of small amounts (1 ounce or less) of marijuana. It will save the state millions of dollars, not to mention all those otherwise law-abiding citizens who will no longer have their lives ruined by a criminal record. Way to go Massachusetts!

These are small steps, but definitely in the right direction. Who knows, maybe with a new president things will change for the better all over this country. I’m skeptical, but not as pessimistic as I once was. I mean I never, ever would have expected to see a black president in my lifetime. Ever. But here we are. So I guess anything is possible.

The Mother Of All Conspiracies

2008-11-04T09:00:00.002-05:00

I recently read a story about Steve Tucker, the so-called “forgotten man.” In case you’re not familiar with Mr. Tucker’s story, and there’s no reason you should be, it is very tragic, to say the least, and more than a little scary. You see, Mr. Tucker was recently released after serving a 10-year prison sentence. Yes, that’s right, 10 years! This Steve Tucker must have been one dangerous criminal to be held in a federal prison for so long, right? I mean the average time a convicted murderer spends in federal prison is only 7 years. So what could Mr. Tucker have possibly have done to deserve such a severe punishment? Simple—he was convicted of selling electric lights. Yes, you heard me right. But just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding, I’ll say it again. Mr. Tucker was sentenced to 10 years, without possibility of parole, in federal prison for selling electric lights.

Technically, the federal crime he was convicted of was “conspiracy to manufacture marijuana.” So, you might be thinking, marijuana was involved after all; that’s a different story. But wait. There was no actual marijuana directly involved in the crime Mr. Tucker was convicted of. He was not accused of, nor convicted for, buying, selling, growing, transporting, smoking, or even possessing marijuana. After a multi-million dollar, 18-month-long investigation, the DEA was not able to connect Mr. Tucker with even a single joint. But that’s where the conspiracy charge comes in so handy. You don’t have to commit a crime, or if you do, you don’t need to even be aware you did. When a prosecutor throws the word “conspiracy” in front of a charge, it’s just a matter of waiting for the fat lady to sing. It’s all over but the sentencing.

So what exactly did Mr. Tucker do to land himself in jail for 10 long years? He operated a hydroponics store in Atlanta. In case you don’t know, that means his business sold electric lights, fertilizers, and other gardening supplies. It was a legitimate business and Mr. Tucker was a law-abiding, tax-paying business owner, living the American dream. Or so he thought. As it turns out though, some of Mr. Tucker’s customers were using products purchased at his store to grow marijuana. Now Mr. Tucker didn’t promote the use of his hydroponics equipment for growing marijuana. He didn’t advertise products specifically made for growing marijuana, and in fact if anyone asked him about growing marijuana they were asked to leave his store. But beyond that, Mr. Tucker didn’t question his customers or try to insure they were only using his products for legal purposes. And that was his fatal mistake. Even though he was running a legal business, selling legal products, he was still responsible for what those products were used for after they left his store. And so he had to pay for his life of “crime.” Let that be a lesson to others committing crimes that they have no idea they are committing.

But I don’t think the DEA went far enough. I’ve been doing a little research and have discovered that marijuana growers don’t purchase all of their growing supplies at hydroponics stores. It’s true. The same lights sold at these specialty stores are also sold at home improvement stores, often at lower prices (very important when you’re in a for-profit business, like growing marijuana commercially). Not to mention plumbing and other gardening products. So why stop at shutting down a few mom-and-pop hydroponics stores when much bigger fish are just asking to be caught? National chains like Lowe’s, Home Depot, Central Hardware, Ace Hardware, to name a few, should also be investigated. I’d be willing to bet that they don’t routinely question people who purchase high-pressure sodium lights as to their intended use. And when it comes to gardening supplies like soil, fertilizer, and pots, there’s no better place to get them at a guaranteed low price than Wal-Mart. Or K-Mart. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve purchased potting soil at Wal-Mart and was not asked a single question about it. They were practically encouraging me to use that soil to grow marijuana. And, as I understand it, growing with hydroponics requires things like water pumps and air pumps. As someone who keeps tropical fish, I know that these items can easily be purchased at any pet shop. And I also know that pet shop owners could care less what you do with a pump after it leaves their store. How irresponsible can they be? They might as well have a big sign in their store that reads, “Our pumps work great in hydroponics marijuana-growing operations.”

So I think the DEA’s mission is clear. Any store anywhere any time that sells anything that could conceivably be used to grow marijuana needs to be shut down. Not only that, but their merchandise should be seized by the DEA. Isn’t that what the forfeiture laws are for? And their owners need to be held responsible for their actions—they need to be prosecuted and their assets seized. And here’s the really neat part about this: Most of these national chains are publicly traded companies. That’s right, they have thousands of owners—their stockholders. Each and every one of them must be held responsible. By owning even a small part of a business that sells to people who use their products to grow marijuana, they are all involved in a conspiracy as much as Mr. Tucker was. The mother of all conspiracies. And there’s no excuse for that. This is the U.S. of A. after all.

As if that wasn’t enough to make our government cream their jeans, it gets even better. Just think of all that “loot,” aka proceeds of crime, seized by the federal government. I bet when all is said and done, it would be the total assets of over half the population. Maybe three-quarters. That’d be enough to pay off the national debt, and then some. Of course a lot more prisons would need to be built. But since those are private businesses nowadays, it would be a great boost to our economy. It might be a little tricky to handle, what with more people being in prison than out, but since when has our government backed down from a challenge? And if that’s what it takes to finally, once and for all, rid our country of the scourge of marijuana, then so be it. If our government did anything less, what kind of message would it send to our children?

Drug Commercials Scare Me

2008-10-28T09:24:00.001-04:00

If you watch any TV at all, you’ve undoubtedly seen one or more commercials for drugs, the medicinal kind that is. If you’re like me, you probably either ignore these commercials or start flipping channels. Well, the other night I actually watched one from beginning to end. And I paid attention. If you’ve done the same yourself, you know that a typical pharmaceutical company’s drug commercial spends about 5-10 percent of its time telling you what the drug is good for and the rest telling you about its contraindications (i.e., when you shouldn’t take it) and/or its side effects.

A great example is a commercial I saw the other night for Humira. It can be used to treat certain types of arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis. An interesting combination, and a very short list, of uses. But what about the contraindications? Don’t take Humira if you have any kind of infection, including tuberculosis or hepatitis, or are around anyone with such infections, or even if you tend to get a lot of infections. You should also tell your doctor if you have any numbness or tingling, or have a disease that affects your nervous system such as multiple sclerosis or Guillian-Barré syndrome, have heart failure or other heart conditions, are scheduled for major surgery, are pregnant, become pregnant, plan to become pregnant or are breastfeeding. You should also be careful if you’ve recently received any vaccines or are planning to get a vaccination.

OK, so let’s say you are infection free, don’t have any of the listed conditions, and are not with child. What can you expect in the way of undesirable side effects? Let’s start with serious infections, including tuberculosis, and infections caused by viruses, fungi, and bacteria. You might also increase your risk for getting certain types of cancer such as lymphoma or skin cancer. (Don’t worry though, the kind of skin cancer caused by Humira is not life threatening if treated, or so they say.) Then there are the possible allergic reactions, which may cause rashes, swelling, and trouble breathing. From there we move on to the nervous system problems that may include numbness or tingling, problems with your vision, weakness in your arms or legs, and dizziness. And the blood problems with symptoms that include a fever that does not go away, bruising or bleeding very easily, or looking very pale. And let’s not forget heart failure and immune reactions, including a lupus-like syndrome. Symptoms you might expect include chest discomfort or pain that does not go away, shortness of breath, joint pain, or a rash on your cheeks or arms that gets worse in the sun.

So I think you can see what I’m talking about regarding the amount of time spent extolling the virtues of a drug versus the grave warnings about its dangers. Makes me wonder why anybody would willingly, or knowingly, take such a drug. As a contrast, I’d like to see a commercial for medicinal marijuana.

First of all, the effects of medical marijuana and the conditions it can be used to treat: the control of appetite and energy metabolism (useful in the treatment of cancer and AIDS patients, as well as anorexia), the relief of pain and inflammation (useful in the treatment of a wide variety of conditions), protection from neurotoxicity and neurotrauma (useful in the treatment of traumatic brain and spinal cord injury, stroke, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, to name a few), control of mental disorders (such as schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression), regulation of sleep (useful in the treatment of insomnia), the regulation of addictive disorders (such as the alcohol, cocaine, or opiate addiction), cardiovascular and respiratory effects (useful in the treatment of hypertension, atherosclerosis, and asthma), eye disorders such as glaucoma and retinopathy, and finally as an agent that can directly inhibit cancer growth. And this is only a partial list.

So we’ve already got a pretty long commercial. What about the dangers of cannabis and its side effects? Well, there is one possible side effect (singular): You may experience a sudden increase in appetite or a craving for a particular food (which is only a side effect if it is not being used as an appetite stimulant). If this condition persists for more than 4 minutes, have a snack, relax, maybe listen to some music. I’d suggest some Hendrix, The Doors, or maybe some Bob Marley. But don’t worry, you’re not going to find out 6 months or a year down the line that cannabis was suddenly pulled off the market because of fatalities or serious health problems caused by its use. Rest assured that cannabis has been in use therapeutically since the dawn of time, and in the approximately 20,000 – 30,000 years of its use no one has ever died from a cannabis overdose. How many other “medicines” can make that claim?

The Federal Government’s Medical Marijuana Program

2008-10-21T09:00:00.002-04:00

According to the U.S. government, marijuana currently has no accepted medical use in the U.S. If you visit the DEA’s web site, you will find numerous references to that effect. And if you read what the DEA tells you (and don’t check out their references too carefully), it would appear to be true. Obviously, they fail to mention the dozen states that currently accept the medical use of marijuana. After all, this is the federal government, and what the states do is not relevant. When they say “no,” as in “no accepted medical use,” they mean it in a federal, legal, legislative sort of way, clearly not in the way that you or I would mean it. But one little fact that never seems to get mentioned with respect to accepted medical use of marijuana is that the U.S. government currently has a medical marijuana program of its very own.

What, you didn’t know that the U.S. government has a medical marijuana program? It’s true. And notice I said “has,” not “had.” The Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Study program began in 1978 in response to a lawsuit brought against the FDA, DEA, and other federal agencies. The case, Randall v. U.S., sought to prevent the government from denying a patient legal medical marijuana that had been found by a federal judge in a previous case (U.S. v. Randall) to be a medical necessity. The program was originally intended to provide patients with legal marijuana and other non-FDA-approved drugs. Eventually AIDS was added to the list of marijuana-responsive ailments, and the program expanded in the 1980s. At that point, the number of patients trying to join the program got a little too large for the government’s comfort, and so the Bush administration closed it down in 1991. There were never more than 30 active patients in the program. When it was shut down, the current, active patients were grandfathered in and continued to receive their medicine legally. Today there are still seven surviving members who receive marijuana from the federal government under the IND program. The other thousands of medical marijuana users in the U.S. are subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment.

So I guess that begs the question, what exactly does the phrase “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” mean? And it is a very important phrase indeed, since it is one of the three criteria used to classify a drug as a Schedule I substance. To me, being a native English speaker and not a lawyer, “no” means “no.” And I would consider the 12 states that accept marijuana as a medical treatment to be “in the United States.” It therefore is quite obvious, to me anyway, that marijuana does have accepted medical uses, both at the federal and state level. So perhaps someone could explain to me how marijuana continues to be a Schedule I substance. Some might point out that the federal government ended its program 17 years ago because they discovered that marijuana should not be used medicinally after all. OK. But then why let those seven people continue to receive their medicine? If it has no medicinal value and in reality is causing those people grave harm, then why not cut them off when the program ended? After all, isn’t the war on drugs all about protecting people from themselves? You can’t have it both ways (unless of course you are the U.S. government).

But there’s another issue that the federal government’s medical marijuana program raises that may be of even greater importance in the long run. We have a population of federally-sanctioned medical marijuana users that have been taking their medication for 17 years or more. Talk about a great research opportunity. Why aren’t these people being studied? (Although they are willing, none have been involved in any medical marijuana research studies.) Although the sample is small, it is a rare population of patients that could have been participating in a longitudinal study that might have provided valuable information about the true potential for medical marijuana. But I think you know the answer to this question as well as I do. The war on drugs is in no way based on facts. Actual scientific knowledge of the medical value of marijuana would only confuse the issue. And that brings us back to the heart of the matter—what kind of message would legalizing a substance that could potentially help thousands, if not millions, of sick people send to our children?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

2008-10-14T09:00:00.001-04:00

I happened to run across some information that I found quite interesting. And pretty frightening. What I’m referring to is a table of sentences imposed on cases that were decided in U.S. District Courts. By crime, they list the percentage of convictions that were sentenced to incarceration (i.e., jail time) versus probation and/or fines. They also list the average length of the sentences. So I thought it would be interesting to see how drug offenses compare to other crimes with respect to sentencing. I figure that should give us an idea of how serious the criminal justice system thinks drug offenses are, relatively speaking. Because in a fair and just system, the punishment should fit the crime. Shouldn’t it?

First, let’s look at the number of people sentenced to incarceration: They classify drug offenses in two categories, trafficking and possession/other. Unfortunately, they do not separate these offenses by the controlled substance involved. And I can only assume that these are non-violent crimes, since the various violent crimes have their own categories. Of the offenders convicted of trafficking, 92% received jail time, and of the offenders convicted of possession/other, 90% received jail time. This statistic alone surprised me. But in comparison to other crimes, it is downright shocking. The only other crime that even comes close is sexual abuse, for which 90% of convicted offenders went to jail. After that, we have murder—89%, burglary—88%, arson—86%, kidnapping—79%, racketeering and extortion, 78%, assault—76%, perjury—66%, counterfeiting—61%, and tax fraud—56%. At the other extreme, only 17% of those convicted of misdemeanors and petty offenses went to jail.

Based on the proportion of convicted offenders that go to jail, it would appear that drug offenses are right up there with murder and sexual abuse. And of course it is clearly a more serious crime than burglary, arson, kidnapping, and even counterfeiting. I don’t know about you, but this is a bit hard for me to even comprehend. You’re as likely to go to jail for a victimless, non-violent crime as you are for murder! And more likely to go to jail for a drug offense than most other crimes of violence and theft.

Next, let’s look at the length of sentences: Of the offenders convicted of trafficking, the average jail sentence was 74 months, and of the offenders convicted of possession/other, the average sentence was 79 months. Not a big difference, and probably not statistically significant, but even so it would appear that possession is at least as serious as trafficking in the eyes of the criminal justice system. At least with this statistic, there are crimes which receive longer sentences. Those convicted of sexual abuse or kidnapping receive average sentences of 88 months. The average sentence for murder was 85 months, and for racketeering and extortion, 74 months. After that we have the sentences shorter than for drug offenses: assault—38 months, perjury—34 months, tax fraud—22 months, counterfeiting— 21 months, and embezzlement—16 months. Misdemeanors and petty offenses resulted in an average sentence of 10 months.

Based on this statistic, it would also appear that drug offenses are serious indeed. Drug offense sentences are less severe only than those of the most serious violent crimes. Again it must be concluded that you will spend more time in jail for a victimless, non-violent crime than you would for all but the most violent of offenses.

I’d like to believe that the severity of the punishments for drug offenses relative to other offenses that I, and I think most people, would consider much more serious is just a coincidence. I’d like to, but I can’t. These statistics strongly imply that our government views using drugs as the most serious of crimes. Its seriousness is equaled and/or exceeded only by murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault.

And I really hate to ask, but what kind of message is this sending to our children? I have a few ideas. For one, it’s telling them that their government really doesn’t want them to use drugs. And it’s telling them that if they are caught, they are viewed by their government as some of the worst, most violent, sociopathic criminals in our society. It also tells them that if they are going to commit a crime and get caught, they’d be better off if that crime involved cheating, stealing, or beating somebody up. Finally, it’s telling them that to the government, it is more important to protect people from themselves than it is to protect them from others. Don’t you just love our criminal justice system?

Applying the Government’s Logic

2008-10-07T09:00:00.000-04:00

Our government has its own sort of “logic” that it applies to the war on drugs. I’ve been analyzing it and trying to make sense of it in previous pieces. In case you haven’t read any of my earlier work, I’ll sum up my conclusion simply: It’s twisted.

So I started wondering, what if the government started applying that logic to other aspects of our lives? How insane would that be? OK, probably not as insane as the war on drugs. But still.

The other day I listened to a podcast featuring David Murray, senior policy analyst at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Dr. Murray made what I thought was a good analogy between medical marijuana and aspirin. Aspirin contains a synthesized version of a chemical found in willow bark. Since the stone age, people have been taking willow-bark potions to relieve pain. However we recently discovered the active chemical in willow bark and have been able to synthesize it. It’s a wonder of modern science that allows us to take this age-old remedy in pure form in controlled doses. Dr. Murray indicated that the only way the FDA would approve any cannabis-derived drugs would be if they too were isolated and synthesized like aspirin. (And that sounded like a big “if” to me.) OK, fair enough. If that’s possible, I’m sure patients would be happy to take their medicine in some form other than smoking it.

But it may not be that simple. Unlike willow bark, there are many active substances in cannabis that have a wide variety of beneficial effects. Isolating one or a few of these chemicals might not have the same effect as consuming the natural plant. In fact, this will probably turn out to be true, as some synthetic cannabis derivatives already in use are being shown to be much less effective than the real thing. To me, this is not surprising. Can you get the same benefits by taking your vitamins in pill form that you get by eating fruits and vegetables? Hardly. There are still a few things that mother nature does that humans still can’t really reproduce. (Ever hear of a thing called “artificial intelligence”?) Some may prefer taking pills, but many prefer to eat natural foods. Happily, at this point in time, we have that choice.

But I’m not a physician. And besides, what worries me more are the implications of this kind of logic. That’s right, you’re way ahead of me on this one. I’m anticipating that any day now willow trees will be added to the list of controlled substances. I mean, what if people started making their own willow bark tea whenever they had a headache. Even worse, what if willow bark proved to be more effective, and people stopped buying aspirin? It makes no difference that people have been using this remedy since the beginning of time. Today, in the good ol’ U.S. of A., people can’t be permitted to administer natural, home-made remedies to themselves. It would be chaos. Dogs and cats living together. And what kind of message would it send the kids?

The only reasonable and logical thing to do is to make it illegal to possess any part of a willow tree. If you are found with a willow tree on your property or some willow bark on your person, you need to be sent to jail as soon as possible for as long as it takes to teach you a good lesson. Of course if you’re found with a whole grove of willow trees (or whatever you call a group of them), that would probably take the rest of your life. Just think how much safer John Q. Public will feel knowing that people who think they have the unalienable right to use home remedies and harm no one by doing so are safely behind bars. I know I’ll sleep a lot better. Especially after I finish cutting down all my willow trees. And make myself a nice cup of tea.

Looking Out for the Drug Dealers

2008-09-30T09:00:00.001-04:00

Somebody has to, right? It’s not like they have a union, or unemployment insurance, or health benefits. So why not the federal government? Just because illegal drug dealers are often violent and dangerous criminals doesn’t mean they don’t deserve protection from economic hardship, does it? And who better to protect them than Uncle Sam?

In case you didn’t know it, the U.S. government, under the guise of enforcing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, is lending a helping hand to some of our society’s worst scum. And they are openly admitting it. The government uses the Commerce Clause as justification for the Controlled Substances Act and the war on drugs.

Article I, Section 8 (the Commerce Clause):

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

I’ve often wondered how regulating interstate commerce could, by any stretch of the imagination, have anything whatsoever to do with individuals who grow marijuana for their own personal consumption or for medical use within a state. How could interstate commerce possibly be involved in such circumstances?

Well, I’ve finally discovered the answer and, let me tell you, it has to be one of the most insane “loopholes” the government has ever come up with to justify their unconscionable behavior. Here’s the way their pretzel logic works: Even if you grow marijuana only for yourself with no other human being or exchange of money involved, you are still affecting “commerce” because when you grow and consume marijuana yourself, it’s that much less that you are buying from illegal drug dealers. The same applies to medical marijuana, because its price undercuts what the illegal dealers are charging and cuts into their profits. Why buy from a dealer when you can get it from a clean, safe, and relatively inexpensive dispensary? So what the government is saying is that you’re going to put illegal drug dealers out of business if you’re allowed to grow your own or buy it from a legal dispensary. And that, in a nutshell, is how regulation of interstate commerce fits into the picture. It doesn’t matter that the commerce being regulated is illegal, or that the government technically doesn’t want that commerce to even exist. If the government wants to do something, and a Constitutional amendment is too much trouble, they will always find a loophole in the Constitution. (For more information on the U.S. Supreme Court decision that justifies this position, check out Raich v. Ashcroft, which uses as a precedent Wickard v. Filburn.)

OK. In a twisted, perverted sort of way the government’s logic is, at least in this case, internally consistent. But it is definitely not consistently applied. A good example of the inconsistency would be the situation with homegrown versus mass-produced vegetables. I grow my own tomatoes and, as a result, rarely purchase supermarket or farm stand tomatoes. By the logic applied to marijuana, I should not be allowed to do this because none of my money goes to the commercial tomato industry. Yet the Commerce Clause is not applied to the tomato situation. Could it be that our government cares more about criminal drug dealers than the domestic tomato industry? Or could it be that homegrown tomatoes will soon be illegal? Either way, I wouldn’t be too surprised.

On The Job For Your Protection

2008-09-23T09:00:00.002-04:00

The DEA’s press release web page is kind of like a “brag book.” They get to show the world how their diligence, perseverance, and good old fashioned hard work is paying off (if high-profile arrests are any indicator). But more importantly, how all of their devotion is entirely in the name of protecting us from ourselves. Well, huzzah for them! I feel so much safer knowing they are getting this scourge, this assassin of youth, off our streets. Especially since I know (as the DEA informed me) that “more young people today are in drug treatment programs for marijuana dependency than any other drug.” So let’s just take a look at some of the things our DEA, defenders of truth and of those incapable of looking after themselves (i.e., everyone), have been up to.

Here’s a victory for public safety: California Marijuana Dispensary Owner Convicted. This is a fairly well-known, recent case that the DEA seems especially proud of. And why not? They put in lots of undercover hours and spent tons of money to prove that a medical marijuana dispensary open to the public and licensed by the state of California to distribute marijuana, was in fact distributing marijuana. Now that’s some police work they should all be darn proud of. Not to mention keeping all that evil weed from improving the quality of life for thousands of sick people.

Here’s a scary one: Marijuana Dispensaries Linked to Fatal Car Crash. Yes, it’s true. An individual who had recently purchased marijuana from a legal (under California law) dispensary admitted to “being under the influence of marijuana” at the time of a fatal accident. This is even worse than killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol because… Well, just because. And just like when a person under the influence of alcohol kills someone, the owners of the dispensary that sold him the intoxicating substance were also indicted. Oh, wait a second. They don’t prosecute the liquor store owner when a drunk driver kills someone. But this is different. How is that again? Oh yeah, because the medical dispensaries involved were “enterprises designed to generate profits for those who chose to ignore federal law and flout state law.” (Is “flout” even a word?) Ignoring and flouting will absolutely not be tolerated by the DEA.

And it’s not just the dispensaries that need to be taught a lesson about flouting laws: California Doctor-Lawyer Couple Get Five Years For Growing and Selling Marijuana. Even physicians need to be reminded that how they practice medicine is under the control of the DEA. And who better, since they have so much medical experience, not to mention all that experience with protecting people from themselves? And you know what really seemed to have pissed the DEA off? That the defendants made money from the sale of their medicine. I mean, who do they think they are? A big pharmaceutical company? But the DEA is, as always, not being judgmental. After all the good doctor’s “judgment got clouded” by his “passion for the drug.” Or maybe it was his passion for helping to ease people’s suffering. Either way, it just can’t be allowed.

But to be fair, not all of the DEA’s big busts are medical dispensaries licensed by the state and operating in the open. For example, Three California Marijuana Distribution Centers Shut Down. This 9 month investigation shut down three major marijuana “distribution centers” in San Mateo, California. They wanted to send a message that “illegal operations within San Mateo will be shut down and the property owners held accountable and liable.” See, these were some really bad people. And it really did take a lot of work to bust these distribution centers, since it would appear that they were clandestine operations. But wait a minute. An article from another source about these very same raids says that they were in fact medical dispensaries. And the DEA made no indication that these dispensaries violated any state law. I wonder why the DEA neglected to mention the medical connection in this article. I guess they felt it wasn’t relevant, just like that information was not relevant in the federal court these people were tried in.

And just one more to give you a fair sample of the kinds of things the DEA has been up to: Oakland Landlord Sentenced for Allowing Marijuana to be Grown on Multiple Commercial Properties. See, the clever DEA is using every trick in the book. Why limit yourself to doctors and dispensaries when you can go after the dispensary’s landlord. Make an example of a few landlords and pretty soon those law-flouting dispensaries will have no place to operate out of. That’ll hit ‘em where it hurts. And what an example. This 62-year-old man lost almost $400,000 in assets and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Why pretty soon it will get so all the DEA has to do is give a landlord a threatening call to put a dispensary out of business.

I think you get the idea. But I encourage you to check out the DEA’s press releases for yourself. You’re sure to be impressed by their investigative expertise. That and their heroic and highly successful efforts to rid our country of the scourge we call marijuana. And you’ll certainly feel more secure in your homes knowing all those sick people will no longer be receiving a medicine that the DEA says they should not be using. Unless of course these patients end up going to one of the few thousand other legal dispensaries still operating. Or buy their medicine illegally from one of countless black market dealers. Either way, they’ll be really inconvenienced. Sort of like when someone illegally parks in a handicapped parking space.

a/k/a Tommy Chong

2008-09-16T09:06:00.000-04:00

This is not exactly a movie review, but more about the significance of this film with respect to the war on drugs. In case you haven’t seen a/k/a Tommy Chong, it is a documentary that tells the story of the federal government’s investigation, arrest, prosecution, and subsequent imprisonment of Tommy Chong for selling glass pipes.

You see, there is a federal law that makes sales of “drug paraphernalia” a criminal offense in the U.S. There are also a few states that have similar laws. However until recently, that federal law had not been enforced. So a number of retailers, including Mr. Chong, had been selling a variety of so-called paraphernalia for many years with no legal repercussions. Unfortunately, what these pipe vendors didn’t anticipate was an ambitious young U.S. Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, who wanted to make a name for herself. Of course if the government really wanted to shut down these vendors, they could have simply sent them “cease and desist” letters letting them know that the federal law was going to be enforced once again (as is pointed out in the film). But that’s not how you make headlines. And when one of those vendors is a famous pro-marijuana celebrity, the headlines make you look even more impressive.

As part of the investigation (which cost taxpayers $12 million), undercover agents repeatedly called Mr. Chong’s company trying to get them to ship their products to Pennsylvania, one of the few states in which selling glass pipes is illegal. After being refused over and over again, the agents eventually came up with a way to “encourage” shipment, and that, as they say, was that. Several heavily-armed federal agents raided Mr. Chong’s home and place of business. For some strange reason though, only Tommy Chong was charged with a crime, and that was some time later. After a brief trial and some plea bargaining, Mr. Chong ended up serving 9 months in a federal prison, for his first criminal offense. Approximately 50 other retailers were targeted as part of this operation, but they served little or no prison time.

Interestingly enough, a conviction for a first-time DUI offense in California, which is a crime that endangers lives, will only get your license suspended for four months. Even three DUI convictions will not land you in jail. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Mr. Chong’s punishment fit his crime.

So, what was the point of “Operation Pipe Dreams” (cleverly, the government chose a name that sounds a lot like the title of a Cheech & Chong movie, which coincidentally was also the name of Mr. Chong’s business), other than advancing some careers? I think it’s safe to say that the government was trying to send a message. As the government is wont to do, they believed that the use of threats, intimidation, prosecution, and imprisonment would show people that they mean business. Surely after such a large-scale operation, no one would dare sell these items in the U.S. ever again. And by going after Mr. Chong in particular, they would show that no one, not even a stoner celebrity, is above the law. In fact, the prosecutors and judge made no secret of the fact that Mr. Chong was targeted because his career has been based on pro-marijuana entertainment.

So what were the results of this massive operation? Well, for one thing, drug paraphernalia is just as easy to buy in this country as it always has been. But the government doesn’t really care about that. The war on drugs has never been about showing results. A more significant result, also not intended by the government, is that Mr. Chong’s career has been revitalized. And that, more than anything, seems to have pissed them off. Won’t they ever learn that when you try to make an example of someone, especially someone who really isn’t a bad person, that you only end up making them a martyr? (Maybe those religious right-wingers should have spent some time reading their New Testament.) This 70-year-old hippie, who hasn’t been doing much lately other than selling glassware, is now a hero to a whole new generation of stoners. The film (from which Mr. Chong makes no money) has won awards at the HBO Comedy Arts Festival, the Toronto International Film Festival, the San Francisco Independent Film Festival, and of course, the High Times Stony Award, to name just a few. He’s back on the road again doing stand-up comedy and has even reunited with Cheech Marin, his old partner, for a tour. In fact, getting busted is the best thing to happen to Tommy Chong’s career in many years.

And that’s most certainly not a result the government was anticipating. I’d say they are completely mystified by this turn of events. How could Operation Pipe Dreams, which was motivated purely by the egotistical self-importance and career aspirations of a few government officials, have gone so wrong? Just because they targeted someone who exercised his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech to disagree with the government, surely no one would hold that against them. The government does that sort of thing all the time. No big deal. And surely no one could fault them for targeting an entertainer beloved by the last few generations of stoners. More importantly, since things did turn out this way, how can the government let Mr. Chong get away with profiting from their misguided ignorance and incompetence? Well, they can confiscate 10,000 of his DVDs for starters. I’m not sure why, since Mr. Chong is only the subject of the documentary and makes no profit from it. But I’m sure it makes somebody feel better that they are at least doing something to show that they are not taking the repercussions of their actions lying down. No one should be allowed to profit from the government’s stupidity and vindictiveness.

In retrospect, I’d have to say that things turned out pretty good for Tommy Chong and the American people in general. Mr. Chong’s career has been given new life. A whole new audience is now aware of his work. And the American people have had a chance to see what really motivates their government in the ongoing war on drugs. Ironically, the government is their own worst enemy when it comes to defending their war. A few more high-profile busts of harmless, beloved celebrities will do more to end this senseless war than all the protests and petitions of pro-pot groups combined. So my hat’s off to Ms. Buchanan and her crew. Don’t stop showing the people what the war on drugs is really all about. Keep up the good work!

Hey Kids, Let’s Learn The Truth About Smoking Weed

2008-09-09T08:43:00.001-04:00

Imagine, if you will, a web site that’s a cross between the movie Reefer Madness and the children’s magazine Highlights. That should give you a pretty good idea of what the DEA’s web site for kids is like. That’s right, those hep cats at the DEA are down with the drug scene. Much like The Fonz, they are cool in a far out, happening sort of way. Such a groovy web site surely must be chock full of accurate and totally truthful information in a format the kids will say is really rad. Nome sayin’? How could it not be? Isn’t it the DEA’s mission to inform and warn people about the dangers of (certain) recreational drugs? (That, and arresting them when they don’t heed the warnings.) In keeping with that objective, this site debunks the common myth that marijuana is relatively harmless (maybe that should be an episode on Mythbusters). And it does so in a kid-friendly way. Come on kids, how could you not trust kindly old Uncle DEA?

So let’s take a little look-see at what marijuana myths your friendly neighborhood DEA is debunking. First of all, some headlines: it’s just a plant—how could it be bad 4 me. Using a “4” like that makes it easier for the kids to relate to—it’s modern and edgy. And the use of all lower-case letters makes it very informal and downright friendly to kids of all ages. And then there’s totally lame (and dangerous and illegal) things to do on pot and the frightening extreme grades: from A to D in six months. Using words like “totally” and “extreme” will surely catch the kids attention because it’s speaking their “lingo.” I don’t know about you, but with titles like those I just can’t wait to hear the facts and have those nasty old myths debunked. And if I have anything to say about it, they will be good and rebunked before I’m through.

Did you know that the AMA (that’s the American Medical Association to you and me) has rejected marijuana as medicine? The always-helpful DEA even provides a link to the AMA web site that further explains their position on medical marijuana. But I guess you’re not really supposed to click that link, because if you do you’ll see that the DEA ever-so-slightly misinterpreted the AMA’s position on medical marijuana. What the AMA actually says is that more research is needed, and they go on to recommend how that research should be carried out. They further state that “The AMA believes that effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives and that discussion of these alternatives between physicians and patients should not subject either party to criminal sanctions.” Oops! Sounds like the DEA didn’t read the article they used as a reference. But who can blame them? After all, arresting medical marijuana users and their caregivers does occupy a fair amount of their time.

And I’ll bet you didn’t know that the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the legalization of marijuana. If you follow the link provided you will see that this is indeed true. But if you read a little bit further you’ll find that, “The American Academy of Pediatrics supports rigorous scientific research regarding the use of cannabinoids for the relief of symptoms not currently ameliorated by existing legal drug formulations.” Golly, it seems that they too think medical marijuana research is important. Is mentioning that little detail something else that was overlooked by the DEA? Surely this oversight was not intentional.

Then there’s the U.S. Supreme Court, who the DEA tells us “rejected medical marijuana.” This too is true, although the court has not been very consistent in its decisions. Even so, I guess I didn’t realize that the Supreme Court was qualified to make medical recommendations. What’s that you say? They’re not? Could it be that they were just interpreting the current federal law and not really making a statement about the medicinal value of marijuana? Perhaps the DEA could explain that a little better. When they get the time.

And my personal favorite—Smoking marijuana not only makes you a criminal, but makes you violent as well. This is according to statistics provided by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health report from January, 2004. And their data do indeed show that the more marijuana kids in their survey smoked, the more likely they were to commit a variety of nonviolent and violent crimes. One possible conclusion that someone (i.e., someone who doesn’t understand statistics or who wants to intentionally misinterpret their meaning) might come to based on these statistics might indeed be that marijuana causes crime. But as we all know, a correlation between two variables does not imply a cause and effect relation. Either of the variables could be the cause or the effect, or neither of them could be either. The correlation statistic can’t tell you which is true. Based on my personal experience, I’d guess that it’s the other way around, that being a criminal is what makes you more likely to smoke, rather than smoking makes you more likely to be a criminal. And that perhaps people with violent tendencies may smoke to mellow themselves out a bit. Equally valid conclusions based on these statistics. And I’d further guess that you’d find the same correlation between crime and smoking cigarettes. (Or between crime and being a member of a minority.) But I don’t think anyone would suggest that smoking cigarettes makes you a criminal. But they could, which is what makes playing with statistics so much fun. See kids, we’re having fun! And learning that a good science and math education is important because it helps prevent people from playing those hilarious statistics tricks on you.

There you have it boys and girls, some myths badly in need of debunking finally having the bunk kicked out of them once and for all. And in a fun, far out, and solid kind of way. See, the truth doesn’t always hurt.

A Unique and Solitary Crime

2008-09-02T17:32:00.001-04:00

If you ask someone to define the concept of crime, they might give you a definition involving a behavior that violates a law. Technically, that is correct. But what is it that makes our legislators decide one type of behavior is criminal while another isn’t? What is it that all criminal behavior has in common and distinguishes it from non-criminal behavior?

I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of crimes involve one person doing harm or causing injury to another. Most actions that you can think of that involve one person intentionally harming another are illegal. And for most crimes, that harm involves either violence or theft. For the violent crimes—murder, rape, assault—the harm is physical. Someone is injured or killed. For the crimes of theft—robbery, burglary, embezzlement, fraud—the harm involves property. Someone’s property is damaged or destroyed or taken away from them.

But what about the so-called “victimless” crimes? For the most part, they don’t result in anyone being harmed. Does that make them an exception to my definition of crime? Indeed it does. Which means I need a new, broader definition. While most crimes involve one person harming another, virtually all crimes require the involvement of two or more people. Regardless of whether those people are perpetrator and victim or willing participants, it is nearly impossible to commit a crime alone. You can’t gamble or engage in prostitution alone in your home any more than you can commit a murder. As they say, it takes two to tango.

In fact, some behaviors are criminal solely because they involve others. Drinking alcohol is perfectly legal, but driving under the influence isn’t because it endangers others. Speeding is another crime you can commit alone, but it potentially endangers other as well. Whether the harm is actual or potential makes no difference.

It therefore seems to me that it is virtually impossible to commit a crime without involving someone else. I say “virtually” because there is one crime I can think of that you can commit entirely on your own. Can you guess what that crime is? It’s not all that hard to figure out, given the nature of this blog. Possession of marijuana is the only crime that does not require the involvement of another individual. (I consider growing for personal use essentially the same thing, even though the government doesn’t. The same would apply to other “natural” drugs that you can grow and consume yourself without involving others.) If you think about it for a second, you’ll see that it’s true. You could be all alone, in the privacy of your remote mountain cabin, miles from civilization, causing no actual or potential harm to a single other living thing, yet still be committing a crime. Is that crazy or what? (Don’t bother answering, as that was a rhetorical question.)

For the sake of completeness, there is one other “crime” you can commit that could potentially endanger just you and no one else. That would be driving without wearing a seatbelt. Of course you’re not going to go to federal prison for that violation, nor lose your job or be denied a variety of government services. At least not yet.

Uncle Sam on Pot—Part 3

2008-08-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, there are still more reasons for us to fear marijuana. I promise this is the last of them. At least until the DEA makes up some new ones. Below are a few more statements from the DEA web site followed by my analyses of them.

Consider also that drug use, including marijuana, contributes to crime. A large percentage of those arrested for crimes test positive for marijuana. Nationwide, 40 percent of adult males tested positive for marijuana at the time of their arrest.

Really? I know a lot of people that smoke pot, but I don’t know any that are criminals (besides the fact that they smoke pot, that is). Granted, that’s just an anecdotal observation based on a small sample. But still. If it was that likely to turn people into criminals, I’d surely know at least one person that it happened to. And besides, marijuana shows up in a test for up to 2 weeks. Just because someone tests positive, doesn’t mean they had smoked recently. And I’d be interested to know what percentage of people test positive for alcohol at the time of their arrest.

Or maybe they’re referring to people arrested for possession. In that case, I guess maybe they have a point. If it is a crime to possess marijuana, then I wouldn’t be surprised that a fairly high percentage of people arrested for possession would test positive for marijuana. Although I think it might be a little more accurate to say that it’s the drug laws, as much if not more than the drugs, that are contributing to crime.

Is marijuana a gateway drug? Yes. Among marijuana's most harmful consequences is its role in leading to the use of other illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine.

OK, now they’re just flat-out lying. There is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim, and overwhelming evidence to refute it. I don’t think anybody’s seriously believed the “gateway” phenomenon since the LaGuardia Report in 1944, if not long before. Surely the DEA must know by now that nobody believes that marijuana is a gateway drug. Blatant lies are not doing anybody any good, and just serving to further erode the government’s credibility.

In Summary:

Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to its users.
Marijuana has no medical value that can't be met more effectively by legal drugs.
Marijuana users are far more likely to use other drugs like cocaine and heroin than non-marijuana users.
Drug legalizers use “medical marijuana” as red herring in an effort to advocate broader legalization of drug use.

There you have it. The official marijuana doctrine of your federal government. It’s entirely based on twisted facts, gross exaggerations, and outright lies. So what are you going to think when they try to convince you of something else that may sound a little far fetched? Like weapons of mass destruction. Or why warrantless wiretapping is such a good thing. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Keep trying to fool me over and over again with the same old story, and you could only be the shameful U.S. government.

As for me, I think I’m going to go out and commit some random crimes, do a little driving under the influence, maybe stop by the emergency room and mention marijuana, then when I get back home, start using heroin.*

* This is what is known as “sarcasm” (i.e., remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride). I’m not really admitting to nor planning to commit any crimes.

Uncle Sam on Pot—Part 2

2008-08-19T09:04:00.003-04:00

Did you seriously think the previous piece covered all the reasons the DEA has for keeping marijuana illegal? Well, think again. Below are some more statements from the DEA web site followed by my analyses of them.

Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. [emphasis not added]

I talked about this statement and its source in a previous article, so I just want to say that I wonder what made them pick this particular study to base their position on medical marijuana on. Could it be that it’s the only one they could find that supports their position?

The DEA supports research into the safety and efficacy of THC (the major psychoactive component of marijuana), and such studies are ongoing, supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Not really. It is virtually impossible to get permission to do real medical marijuana research in the U.S. Europe is currently the hot bed of leading-edge medical marijuana research.

Furthermore, the DEA recently approved the University of California San Diego to undertake rigorous scientific studies to assess the safety and efficacy of cannabis compounds for treating certain debilitating medical conditions.

As far as I can tell, that study began in 1999 and was not exactly what this statement makes it sound like. It was a study of the neurobiological effects of long-term, chronic cannabis “addiction.” That doesn’t sound too much like medical marijuana research. Perhaps there was another recent major federally-funded project in San Diego that I failed to find anything about. Maybe it didn’t turn out they way they wanted and it got buried. More likely, it never existed.

It's also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs.

Maybe. That might be true for marijuana; I don’t know about all drugs. But that doesn’t in any way affect its medicinal value. If people started using aspirin recreationally, that wouldn’t make it any less effective for treating headaches. But that’s beside the point. The government uses even more lame, more transparent excuses to keep marijuana illegal. So what’s wrong with the other side doing the same to try to get it legalized?

Or maybe it’s just a strategy of the pro-marijuana folks to allow the government to change their mind and not look like idiots for the past 70 years. So the government can say, “We let them use it medicinally and it’s not so bad, so let’s mellow out a bit and let them smoke it recreationally. See, we can be reasonable. Your government isn’t all bad.” I wouldn’t put it past those fun-loving legalization people to give their government a chance to keep their dignity and at the same time do the right thing.

Does marijuana harm anyone besides the individual who smokes it? Consider the public safety of others when confronted with intoxicated drug users. Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana.

I covered this issue in the previous piece. Nobody’s suggesting that stoned people be allowed to do things that endanger others. That’s just silly. And I sure would like to get a hold of some of that stuff that gets you high for 24 hours.

To be continued…

Uncle Sam on Pot—Part 1

2008-08-12T08:24:00.001-04:00

The DEA has some pretty good reasons for keeping marijuana illegal. Unfortunately, those reasons have no connection whatsoever to reality. Below are some of the reasons the U.S. government would like us to believe justify the war on drugs. They are taken directly from the DEA web site, and each is followed by my analysis.

Smoking marijuana weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections. A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness.

But what about the federal government’s patent (see the previous article)? It is for compounds in marijuana that act as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. That sounds like something that strengthens not weakens the immune system. Oddly enough, the reference they give for this “Columbia study” is an article in the Washington Times. I couldn’t find any reference anywhere to an actual study done at Columbia that fits with the findings the DEA describes.

But, you might say, maybe it’s the smoking they have a problem with when it comes to medicinal uses, not the drug itself. If that were true, I bet most medical users would not object to ingesting their medicine another way. If they were only given the opportunity.

Marijuana is an addictive drug with significant health consequences to its users and others. Many harmful short-term and long-term problems have been documented with its use.

That’s funny. That’s just the opposite of what every major federally-funded study in the past 70 years has found. I wonder what “documentation” they are referring to. The references they give for this statement are articles in Foreign Affairs Magazine and the Washington Times. Sound like some pretty solid sources to me. I know I base all my medical decisions on what some obscure news magazine says.

The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety.

Wow! There’s one they got right, at least to a certain extent. I guess that means that you shouldn’t drive or operate heavy machinery when stoned. Fair enough. But then again, I don’t think anyone is advocating the legalization of driving under the influence.

In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled.

Mentions? What does that mean? Was it mentioned in casual conversation. Like a guy in the waiting room is telling his friend that he smoked marijuana once? Or did somebody specifically ask about it? Perhaps the admitting nurse asked if the patient ever smoked pot and they replied yes. Notice how they carefully avoid saying marijuana was the cause of any ER visits? I’m not sure why they would be so careful to avoid misstating facts in this case when they flat out lie in others. Makes me suspicious.

There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

I have to say I’m a bit skeptical about this one too. Of course when you inhale the smoke from any burning plant you’re bound to inhale some nasty stuff. But there has been no evidence that smoking marijuana increases the probability of getting lung cancer anywhere near what smoking cigarettes does. In fact, recent research has shown that compounds in marijuana can actually reduce the likelihood of getting certain kinds of cancers. (A future piece will look at the findings from a recent NIH study. It’s obviously not the one the DEA is referencing.)

To be continued…

U.S. Government Patents Pot

2008-08-05T09:39:00.002-04:00

Just so we’re all clear on the U.S. government’s position on medical marijuana, here it is from the horse’s very own mouth. Their position, taken from the DEA web site, is based on a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine*:

Smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons… there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication. [emphasis not added]

I’d say that statement is about as clear as it could possibly be. According to the DEA, representing the federal government when it comes to drugs, there is currently no such thing as medical marijuana.

Why then does the federal government hold a patent on medical marijuana? Yes it’s true. It’s US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. The assignee of that patent is The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services. Just go to the US Patent and Trademark Office web site and do a search on that number if you think I’m making this up. Because it does seem, to me anyway, a bit far fetched, to say the least.

First of all, I didn’t realize the federal government could even hold patents. I thought work funded by tax dollars was in the public domain. Guess I was way off on that one.

But more importantly, I didn’t realize you could hold a patent on something that doesn’t exist. I mean if the government says something doesn’t exist, how can it grant itself a patent on it. Next thing you know, they’ll be patenting weapons of mass destruction. Or unicorns.

I don’t have anything more to say about this patent in particular, or its mythical nature, but I do have a lot more to say regarding the DEA and their position on all things pot. Stay tuned.

* The Institute of Medicine is an advisory group established in 1970 to give advice on medical issues to the government. As far as I can tell, they don’t appear to do much, if any, actual research. They appear to mostly review material and prepare reports.

What Do You Say, DEA?

2008-07-30T14:59:00.001-04:00

On April 29, 2008 representative John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to DEA administrator Michele Leonhart asking a number of questions about the DEA’s raids of California medical marijuana dispensaries and threats directed against their owners.

Conyers’ questions included:

Is asset forfeiture an appropriate tactic to use against the sick and their caregivers?
Is the DEA making the best use of its limited resources by raiding medical dispensaries when violent drug cartels in Mexico and South America are out of control?
How are the DEA’s raids impacting the state of California’s ability to collect taxes?
What role, if any, does recent research on the medicinal value of marijuana play in the DEA’s decision to target medical marijuana users and dispensaries?
Would the DEA agree to forming an outside commission to review policy and make recommendations to help bring federal and state laws into agreement?
Conyers also asked for an accounting of the costs and legal status of 60 specific cases resulting from the recent raids of California dispensaries (a list of those raids is attached to the letter).

The deadline for Leonhart's response was July 1. So what happened? Did Leonhart actually respond to Conyer's questions? If so, I have not been able to find anything about it. If you know about a DEA response, please post a comment and let me know where I can find the response.

My guess is that Conyer’s request for information has been and will be ignored. And why not? The DEA does not answer to Congress. They are under the direction of the attorney general who answers only to the president. There are no checks and balances for any of those involved with the classification of drugs or the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. That’s why the DEA is able to get away with such deplorable behavior in the name of enforcing the law. Only in America.

An Oxymoron? Or Is It Sarcasm?

2008-07-29T09:21:00.000-04:00

What exactly does “controlled substance” mean? It’s in the name of the federal legislation (The Controlled Substances Act) that declares certain recreational drugs illegal. But it seems to me that the government throws this term around willy nilly without really thinking about its meaning. In what way are controlled substances controlled? In particular, I’m talking about the Schedule I substances. How in their wildest imaginations can the folks in our government refer to these drugs as controlled? You’d think they’d always be cracking up about it. Like during speeches. At the very least, snickering whenever they said it. But I digress.

Substances classified in lower schedules which have medicinal uses are controlled by requiring a prescription for their possession and use. Their manufacture and distribution are fairly strictly controlled by the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and physicians. But because Schedule I substances have no medical uses, none of those groups have any involvement in their manufacture or distribution. Schedule I substances are grown/manufactured and processed under unknown conditions by unknown, and often unskilled, people. Their quality and purity are not guaranteed nor consistent. They are imported freely. They are sold anywhere, anytime to anyone regardless of age and with no concern for possible health risks. And of course “control” for the government must include a tax. Any commodity that is not taxed in one way or another by the government cannot be considered controlled.

So maybe Schedule I substances should have their own separate legislation. Why lump them in with the other substances that really are controlled? Something like the “Substances We Don’t Want You To Use, But Can’t Stop You If You Really Want To” Act. Or possibly the “We Could Be Collecting Taxes, But Instead We’ll Spend Lots Of Money Trying To Stop You From Using These Substances” Act. Or maybe the “Hey Kids, These Substances Are Much Easier To Get Than Alcohol” Act. I could go on.

On the other hand, if we keep the legislation as is, including it’s name, perhaps we should come up with some equally fanciful job descriptions for the people and institutions who derive their livelihood from it. For example, although the title “Drug Czar” does conjure up images of oppression and brutality, which is an appropriate metaphor in this case, it’s too reality-based. How about Exalted Grand Poobah of Altered Consciousness? The DEA could be called the Mystical Order of the Holy Truth. That would make DEA agents Defenders of The Truth. And of course prisons would be called Labyrinths of Lost Souls. And then when the EGPAC and the DTTs got together (wearing long robes with stars and moons on them and pointy hats) they’d talk about controlled substances while trying to keep a straight face. And maybe play some D & D or cast a spell or two.

Sorry, I seem to have drifted off into a fantasy world where the government actually calls things what they really are. (I think in that world, the Patriot Act had another name too, but I can’t remember it.) But I’m back now. Back to the real world where, fortunately, controlled substances are not.

Super High Me

2008-07-22T09:05:00.004-04:00

No, I’m not doing an impression of Yoda describing my current state of consciousness. I’m referring to a major motion picture, Super High Me, which stars stoner comedian Doug Benson. The title and concept are a spoof of the documentary film Super Size Me, in which Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but food from McDonald’s for 30 days. Benson thought it would be funny (or interesting or something) to do the same sort of thing, but substituting marijuana for fast food. One twist he adds is that prior to smoking pot non-stop day and night for 30 days, he goes entirely without for 30 days first. Throughout the 60 days over which the film was shot, Benson was under the care of a physician who periodically ran him through a battery of physical and psychological tests (and psychic too, just in case), just like Spurlock did. Interspersed with Benson’s visits to his doctor are clips of his stand-up act, visits to various California dispensaries, and even some footage of DEA raids on a few of those dispensaries.

Now this is not what I’d call a great movie. The concept is pretty clever, and Benson is reasonably funny at times, although the pot jokes do get a little old after a while. Not being familiar with his work, I’m not sure if that’s his entire act or if they selected just his dope humor bits for this film and left out his other material. Either way, I did get a few chuckles out of the film and would recommend it as a must see for any stoner. Non-stoners will probably not be amused and/or really very interested.

What did stand out for me in this movie though were the results of his little experiment. All of the various tests administered to Benson during his 30 days of abstinence and 30 days of non-stop smoking showed no significant differences between the two periods. His health did not deteriorate dramatically (or at all), nor did his mental abilities during the month of constant smoking. He didn’t become stupid, or lazy, or psychotic. In fact, some of his psychological test scores improved slightly after he started smoking again. I was a bit disappointed that the film didn’t make more of these results. They did comparisons of the two period’s results along the way, but a summary of all the various results at the end would have been nice. Not only between the two 30-day periods covered in the film, but with the results of the film Super Size Me. In that film, Spurlock’s doctor recommend he quit living on fast food before the 30 days were even up. A constant diet of McDonald’s had caused his health to deteriorate to such a degree that his doctor was getting worried. I think that is a big deal. Fast food is more hazardous to your health than smoking marijuana. I believe that is the single most important thing about this film and should have been stated more explicitly.

Coincidentally, a few weeks earlier I wrote a little satire piece about declaring war on fast food. Little did I know how close to home I was hitting with my attempt at humor. Maybe we really should be more concerned with real, as opposed to imaginary, threats to the public health when passing legislation designed to protect people from themselves. Or maybe we should just let adults decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. Or maybe that’s just crazy talk, and we should just let things go on the way they have been. After all, we can’t go around putting people in jail just because they consume something that some people think they shouldn’t. Oh wait. Of course we can. This is America after all.

Show Me The Money

2008-07-15T12:51:00.000-04:00

One of the major factors contributing to the continuation of the war on drugs is money. (There are a few others, but I’ll save those for another day.) No matter what else you might think or say about the war on drugs, you would have to admit that it supports a pretty significant chunk of our economy. This year alone, the federal government will spend over $20 billion on it in this country and almost that much in other countries. You can add to that the $30 billion that will be spent by individual states. Much of that goes to law enforcement, making it possible to arrest about a million people this year for marijuana alone. And another significant portion goes to building prisons and housing all of those drug offenders. And let’s not forget the “aid” we give to foreign countries to help them combat drug trafficking. No matter how you look at it, $70 billion is a pretty good chunk of change. No doubt, a lot of people’s lives would be impacted financially by an end to the war on drugs. Of course a lot of people’s lives are being impacted now, but in a way much worse than the loss of a job. So I believe a change is needed. And the only way something so big will ever change is if it is economically feasible. I think it can be.

Consider the fact that marijuana is currently the fourth largest cash crop in the U.S. It is the number one cash crop in 10 states, and among the top 5 in 29 others. That’s in spite of all the money that’s been spent over the last 70 years trying to eradicate it. Just imagine the economic potential of legal marijuana. And then there’s hemp, which also has the potential to be a major cash crop in this country. Lots of jobs would be created just in agriculture alone. There would also be a number of related industries created to process the crops. Hemp in particular would require a variety of manufacturing capabilities, creating more jobs.

Some argue that the pharmaceutical companies don’t want marijuana legalized because they would lose business to an easy-to-grow medicine. That may be true to some extent, but they are not making any money on marijuana now, so the only real loss would be if it became preferred over current drugs. I don’t really see this as a problem though, since nothing would prevent the pharmaceutical companies from producing and selling marijuana themselves. They’re already developing synthetic marijuana-based drugs, so why not include the real (i.e., natural) thing? I think the vast majority of people would prefer to get their medicine from a “reputable” company that assures quality control, rather than going to the trouble of growing it themselves or buying it “on the street”. That is, if the price from these reputable dealers is reasonable. After all, the ease with which tomatoes can be grown at home has not wiped out the commercial tomato industry. So it seems to me that pharmaceutical companies would be the most logical manufacturers and distributors of medical marijuana, and that there should be a fair amount of money to be made from that business.

As far as recreational marijuana, it seems to me the logical choice is the tobacco industry. In fact I can’t understand why, with all the concern about the health hazards of tobacco these days, that the tobacco industry isn’t lobbying hard for the legalization of marijuana (I’m assuming they’re not since they have a way of getting what they want). They already have a lot of the expertise and infrastructure in place. Growing and distributing recreational marijuana should be a no-brainer for the tobacco industry. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up making them more money than tobacco. And just think of all the great advertising we’d get to see. Something like this maybe?

And finally, there’s the government’s cash flow problems. Perhaps you’ve heard of a little thing called the national debt? (Don’t get me started on that.) Rather than spending money, the government would be making money in the form of new taxes. I don’t think you have to be an economist to know that spending less and taking in more is the only way to reduce a debt. And I think a net annual gain for the government of a few hundred billion would make a significant difference.

So you see, money doesn’t have to be an issue when it comes to ending the war on drugs. Yes, some jobs would be lost, most of those in the law enforcement field. And of course the black market would be impacted, putting a lot of drug dealers and smugglers out of business. But I believe in the long run, far more jobs would be created. And there would be a net gain in government revenue as well. More importantly, the people running our government would also come out ahead. They may lose some “income” from a few special interest groups, but that would quickly be replaced by money from others. So the pockets of our leaders would still be just as stuffed as ever. And when you get right down to it, isn’t that what our government is all about?

Tony Who?

2008-07-08T10:31:00.001-04:00

I’m often asked where the name Tony Aroma came from (and by “often,” I mean at least twice). For the answer to that question you’ll have to ask my parents, Estelle and Sergio Aroma. Just kidding. And before you ask, the name is in no way related to the similar-sounding name of a popular chain of rib joints.

Actually, it came from an old friend who used to use that term to refer to a certain medicinal herb. It’s just one of those countless code names that I’ve heard over the years. But it’s always been my favorite and also, coincidentally, one of the few that I thought sounded good as a pseudonym. And just so you don’t think I made a hasty decision, I did consider a number of alternative code names that I’ve used or heard.

I thought using Mary Jane might be a little trite, not to mention the fact that I’m not a girl (as far as you know). And of course referring to myself as Bob Marley might cause some confusion and possibly litigation. I was afraid that calling myself the Assassin of Youth, although kind of cool sounding, might send the wrong message to younger or more sensitive viewers. Other terms I found equally inappropriate for various reasons. I also considered and rejected the following: Reefer Man, Muggles, Wacky Tobacky, Alice B. Toklas, Aunt Mary, Doobie Brother, Bogart, Acapulco Gold, Don Juana, Fatty, Green Goddess, Smokey McPott, Jolly Green, Juan Valdez, Lubage and/or Doobage, Mighty Mezz, Panama Red, Puff the Magic Dragon, Square Mackerel, Sweet Lucy, and the White-Haired Lady. What do you think? Did I make the right decision?

Oh, and if you’re wondering if you might be that “old friend” from whom I appropriated my name, you very well may be. In fact, you probably are. He (or she) has to be somebody, so why not you? If not you, then who? And if it is you, I hope you don’t mind me using your code name for my pen name.

Hemp ≠ Marijuana, Alcohol = Drugs

2008-07-01T09:23:00.002-04:00

I ran across a clip on You Tube the other day while looking for information on the candidates’ views on the war on drugs. It showed a portion of a town hall meeting in New Hampshire recorded on July 14, 2007 in which Senator John McCain, Republican candidate for the presidency, said the following:

“When first I came to New Hampshire in 1999, a young woman stood up and said, ‘What do you think about the use of hemp?’ Being an old Navy man I said, ‘It’s great. It’s wonderful. You make ropes out of it.’ It was only later that I learned that there’s other uses for hemp besides making rope.” [at which point the conservative crowd chuckles knowingly]

I don’t think he was talking about using hemp as a petroleum substitute or in the manufacture of paper or cloth. To me, this is a little bit scary. How can an individual that I believe is reasonably well educated and intelligent not know the difference between one of the most valuable industrial crops known to mankind and a popular recreational drug? (Yes, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he’s just plain ignorant.) If that’s what he really believes, how many other legislators (and citizens) also don’t know the difference? And if such ignorance is as pervasive as I fear it to be, how are we ever going to make any progress toward a more sensible system of legislation and control of either crop?

Just so we’re clear, hemp and marijuana are related. They do share a lot of DNA. But so do humans and chimpanzees. Granted we don’t physically resemble our great ape relatives as much as hemp resembles marijuana (you can’t really tell them apart based on the plant’s physical appearance), but that’s no excuse. Marijuana contains a number of psychoactive substances and is, and always has been, a popular recreational drug. Hemp on the other hand, by definition, has no psychoactive properties and therefore cannot be used recreationally. Unless of course you consider the recreational uses of rope, cloth, fuel, and plastics. The two crops may look alike, but they have no overlap whatsoever in how they are used.

And speaking of psychoactive substances, Mr. McCain made another statement that (I hope) further illustrates his ignorance. He made a clear distinction between drugs and alcohol. Sadly, I know from personal experience that many others make this same distinction. For some reason that I don’t fully understand, many people today do not consider alcohol a “drug.” It probably has something to do with the fact that it’s legal, while recreational drugs are illegal. Or because it doesn’t come in small, plastic pill bottles with child-proof caps and is never prescribed. Maybe it’s because it’s a liquid while most drugs people use on a regular basis are in pill form. Whatever the reason, there’s simply no excuse in this day and age for so many people to be consuming a recreational drug and not even knowing they are doing so.

Again, just to be clear, ethyl alcohol is a psychoactive (i.e., having a significant effect on mood or behavior) substance, aka a recreational drug. If you want to get technical about it, so are caffeine and nicotine. But unlike marijuana, alcohol is highly toxic. It is essentially a poison that if you don’t consume enough to kill you, will temporarily alter your consciousness. It has no medicinal value (other than as an antiseptic—a benefit of its toxicity) and is used purely recreationally, often with disastrous consequences. Using the phrase “alcohol and drugs” is like saying “apples and fruit.” If you want to make some kind of distinction between the two, at least insert the word “other” after “and.”

It’s not just Mr. McCain either. Even scarier, the DEA appears equally ignorant, or so they’d like us to believe. In an official news release , the DEA states that “many Americans do not know that hemp and marijuana are both parts of the same plant and that hemp cannot be produced without producing marijuana.” I guess DEA administrator, Asa Hutchinson, would be one of those “many Americans” who is confused. You can produce hemp without producing marijuana. I think it would be kind of a good thing if the people responsible for enforcing the laws, knew what substances the laws referred to. It would also be a good thing if our government got their facts straight and stopped lying to the public. Perhaps someone should sit Mr. Hutchinson down and tell him the story about the boy who cried wolf.

So, Mr. McCain and everyone else holding or aspiring to public office, please get your facts straight. Marijuana and hemp are not the same thing. As they say, you can’t judge a house by its front door. And, regardless of what you call it, alcohol is most definitely a recreational drug. A rose by any other name...

What About Hemp?

2008-06-24T09:14:00.002-04:00

Hemp: A strain of Cannabis sativa that contains less than 0.3 % THC by weight. Its fibers and oil can be used in a wide variety of products.

Did you know that growing hemp is legal in the United States? Yes, it’s true, sort of. Kind of. In theory. Federal law and the laws of eight states currently permit the growing of industrial hemp. There’s only one little catch: You are required to get a license from the DEA in order to be allowed to grow hemp, and the DEA does not grant licenses (the last hemp license was issued in the 1950s). Until recently, the DEA justified their denial of license requests by saying that growing hemp was illegal in the state from which the request came. Since that’s no longer a valid justification, they now just ignore requests. See for example this recent case where two North Dakota farmers (the first state to legalize hemp) played by all the rules and were still ignored and eventually refused a license. They sued the DEA, but of course their case was dismissed.

So why is the United States the only industrialized nation in the world that does not allow industrial hemp, which is not a recreational drug, to be grown. I mean really, not the crazy, nonsensical reasons given by the DEA. Doesn’t anyone here realize that hemp is arguably the most valuable non-food crop known to mankind? I’m not exaggerating. From the beginning of time through the 1950s, hemp was grown pretty much everywhere by pretty much everybody. It still is, except of course in the U.S. And at one time it was even required to be grown by farmers here. Why? What makes it so valuable? What can it be used for? The following is nowhere near an exhaustive overview, but I think is more than enough to answer these questions.

How about using hemp seed oil as a substitute for petroleum products? That’s right, virtually anywhere petroleum is used, hemp oil can be substituted. Hemp provides a biodegradable, renewable source of clean fuel that could reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And let’s not forget another major use of petroleum products, plastics. Just imagine the positive effects on the environment that would result from the use of biodegradable plastics. Oh, did I mention paints and varnishes, which up until the 1930s were made with hemp oil?

What about textiles? Anything that can be made from cotton can be made from hemp fibers, and has been until recently. Not only are hemp fabrics more durable than those made from cotton, but hemp is easier to grow, requires fewer polluting fertilizers, and is much less labor-intensive to harvest and process. And let’s not forget the ever-popular rope.

And then there’s paper. Paper made from hemp costs about half of what it costs to make paper from trees. Part of the reason is because it grows so much faster than trees—a hemp plant’s growth in one season is equivalent to a tree’s growth in 20 years. It also requires the use of fewer fertilizers, and the paper produced is more durable and more flexible than paper made from trees.

Last but not least is hemp as a source of nutrition. Hemp seeds contain 25 percent protein, second only to soybeans. And they are high in essential fatty acids (whatever those are), such as omega-3. A variety of hemp-based food products—such as snack bars, milk, oil, and protein powder—are already legal and available in the U.S. However the hemp used to produce these products must be imported.

So, just let me make sure I understand this correctly: Hemp can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help reduce our trade deficit, boost our agricultural economy, provide a renewable and clean alternative to fossil fuels, reduce the use of chemical fertilizers thus helping clean up the environment, save trees, save labor, and save money. And it’s good for you. So please explain to me one more time why it’s not permitted in the U.S.

This brief little overview just barely scratches the surface of all the uses and benefits of hemp. For more information, check out the North American Industrial Hemp Council’s web site.

Getting Two Birds Stoned At Once

2008-06-17T15:07:00.000-04:00

The typical approach to decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana is through legislation. That means either modifying existing laws or introducing new laws. By modifying a law I mean something like changing marijuana’s classification under the Controlled Substances Act, from a Schedule I substance to a Schedule II or III substance. Introducing a new law is exactly what it sounds like, a new bill that would change the legal status of marijuana. Two such bills were recently introduced. One, introduced by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), would require federal authorities to respect state’s laws on medical marijuana. The other, introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), would eliminate all federal penalties for personal use and possession. It’s doubtful either of these bills will pass, but even if they do I don’t believe that this is the best approach and here’s why.

Laws change all the time. One day something is legal and the next day it’s not. Or vice versa. Just look at all the legislation passed during the 20th century relating to recreational drugs. All were at one time legal and at other times illegal. The status of recreational drugs is something that is totally dependent on the whims of the current administration.

What I’m suggesting is a more permanent and general solution: a Constitutional amendment. But I’m not talking about something like the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition) in reverse; something that would specifically decriminalize marijuana. I’m talking about something much more general and more fundamental: an amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy; a right that is conspicuously missing from our Bill of Rights. Granted, the Bill of Rights does refer to certain aspects of privacy, but very indirectly (Amendments 1, 4 and 9).

To me, a constitutional amendment that specifically protects our privacy seems like an obvious solution. But no where have I seen such an approach mentioned with respect to current decriminalization efforts. And it’s certainly not my original idea, since Alaska’s Constitution includes such a right in its Declaration of Rights. It simply states:

The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.
(Alaska State Constitution, Article 1, Section 22)

When this section was later implemented by the legislature, additional clarification and safeguards were added, but its meaning remains the same: The government cannot interfere with what people do in private. Simple and to the point. Such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would not only affect the growing and/or consumption of medicinal herbs of any kind, but a number of other human behaviors that have at one time or another been the subject of legislation as well. Hence the title of this essay. For example, all laws relating to sexual behavior would also become void. People (and by that I mean consenting adults) would be free to do what they want in their own homes without fear of prosecution (or should I say persecution). It sounds to me a lot like that unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness that we were told we have.

So this idea seems right and just, and makes a lot of sense to me. And I think that’s why it will never happen. Regardless of what rights were promised to us by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, there will always be people in power who will want to tell others how to live their lives. If there weren’t, then we’d have peace on Earth and everyone would be living together in harmony. And we all know that ain’t never going to happen.

A New Anti-Drug Commercial

2008-06-10T09:42:00.000-04:00

I’m getting pretty tired of all this recent government anti-drug propaganda. You’d think they’d have learned by now that this stuff doesn’t work. Of course, the main reason for its failure is that it’s full of lies and gross exaggerations. Anybody that actually smokes marijuana knows this stuff isn’t true. Granted, what we are seeing today is a little more subtle than what was being produced in the Reefer Madness days, but still no more truthful. And, I don’t know about you, but if I catch somebody in a lie I’m going to be very skeptical about anything they tell me after that. In effect, this propaganda is essentially destroying the government’s credibility when it comes to informing people about drugs.

So I think the government needs to come clean and be honest about why they want to keep recreational drugs (other than alcohol, that is) and homegrown medicines illegal. Rather than talking about the devastating effects of drugs, they should be talking about the devastating effects of the war on drugs. So here’s my idea for an honest public service announcement:

The scene opens in front of a prison. A warden, who looks and sounds like a stereotypical small-town Southern sheriff (kind of like Jackie Gleason in Smokey and the Bandit), says:

“See this prison here? It’s chock full of what you call your ‘drug offenders.’ So what do you want to go and legalize dope for? If it ain’t a problem, then why are all those people locked up in there? Besides, what are we all supposed to do if they shut this place down. Become night watchmen?”

Cut to a corporate executive type in a very expensive-looking office:

“Where do you want to get your drugs? From a big company that spends billions on R and D and hardly ever hurts or kills anybody with their products, or from your own back yard. Who are you going to trust for your medicine? Yourself? We think it’s irresponsible and just plain crazy to get your medicine from anyone but us. Trust us, we pretty much know what we’re doing. It’s for your own good.”

Cut to a sleazy-looking minority gang member drug dealer standing on a corner in a seedy neighborhood. A couple of white teenagers are walking away:

“I’m all for the war on drugs. That’s how I make my living. If I can’t sell dope, how’m I suppose to pay for all my flashy jewelry and new cars? I got an image to maintain. And if you don’t care about me, think about the kids. Where they suppose to get they dope from if I’m out of business.”

Cut to a 15-year-old white suburban kid:

“Yeah, think about us. If I’m lucky, I can steal some liquor from my parents or get somebody to buy me some every once in a while. But I can always get weed. If it’s legal, what am I supposed to do? Think about us kids next time you want to go and legalize something.”

Fade to black.

Maybe this could even be turned into a whole series of PSAs, where each one features a different individual or group that benefits from the war on drugs. At least the government might gain some credibility for future propaganda. So NORML or anybody else, if you want to go ahead and produce these television spots you have my permission. I’d even be willing to serve as executive producer, or technical advisor, or even property master.

Catch 22, Or 23, Or Whatever It Takes

2008-06-03T09:31:00.000-04:00

If you follow the news at all, you may have heard that Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was recently diagnosed with brain cancer (specifically, glioma). So what, you may be asking yourself, does that have to do with anything, let alone the war on drugs? The answer is simple: It has long been known that cannabis may have anti-cancer properties. I say “may have,” because at this point there just hasn’t been enough serious research done to make any definitive claims about the medicinal properties of marijuana with respect to cancer treatment.

And when I say that marijuana’s potential as a cancer treatment has been known for a long time, I mean over 30 years. Maybe not so long relative to the age of the universe, but an eternity when it comes to cancer research. In fact, the first modern study that showed cannabis may have potential as an anti-cancer treatment was commissioned by none other than the U.S. government in 1974. One of the major findings of this reputable study was that THC, one of the psychoactive compounds in marijuana, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.” Unfortunately, just like they did with other government-funded studies of marijuana that reported results in conflict with the “official government position,” our government buried the study and would not fund additional research. In fact, they did such a good job that these results were not known until 1997, and it is virtually impossible to find a copy of the original report.

Just so you don’t get the wrong idea about the U.S. government, they later funded another major study in the mid-1990s (it only took them 20 years). The results were similar, showing THC provided protection from malignant tumors. And the response of the government was similar; virtually no one heard about these results either. Got the right idea about the government now?

And therein lies the Catch 22: Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, which by definition means that it has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” And since it has no medicinal value, the government is well within its “rights” to restrict medical research into its therapeutic uses. Because there are none. Because it’s a Schedule I substance.

Of course reclassifying marijuana requires scientific evidence of its medicinal value. Which becomes a tad difficult when research is not allowed. Apparently the fact that a major medical group, the American College of Physicians, endorses the medicinal use of marijuana is not relevant. Nor are the testimonies of thousands of legal medical marijuana users and their prescribing physicians. More research is clearly needed, but research is not allowed. This sort of circular reasoning just gives me a headache. Maybe I should move to California and get a prescription.

So once again we see that our government, in claiming to protect us from ourselves, will do anything it takes to keep marijuana out of our hands. But what about protecting us from cancer? Granted, that is not mandated in our Constitution any more than protecting us from ourselves is, but the government has to have its priorities. It can only do so many unconstitutional things at one time. Allowing people to be treated with a medicinal herb that anybody can grow only benefits those particular individuals who are treated. It doesn’t make anybody (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) tons of money. And I think it’s obvious where our government’s priorities lie.

Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that marijuana is some kind of miracle drug. I’m no physician, and I have no idea what role, if any, marijuana should play in the treatment of cancer. Or any other disease for that matter. But then neither does anybody else. And that’s my point. Marijuana very well could be a miracle drug with a wide variety of therapeutic uses. But with the situation as it is in the United States today, with a government that cares more about money and special interests than about the health and liberty of its citizens, we can never really know for sure.

Oh well, at least I can appreciate the irony of a proponent of the war on drugs dying from a disease for which a cure might already exist, if not for the war on drugs. (Maybe someone could put the senator in touch with Rick Simpson—I think there would also be some irony in the senator having to go to a foreign country for his treatment.)

So as not to end this piece on such a negative note, not all countries have followed our lead in banning medical marijuana research. Over the last ten years, researchers in Spain, Italy, and Germany have shown that cannabis can stop or slow the growth of a variety of cancers, including cancers of the prostate, breast, lung, pancreas, and brain. In fact a human clinical trial recently showed some very positive results with gliomas. Irony indeed.