• Drug Policy

    Insight on Insite

    It has been interesting to observe the fallout from the recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision which allows Insite, Vancouver’s largest supervised injection facility (SIF), to remain in operation.

    In essence, the SCC found that the rights of the clients and staff of Insite to Insite outweigh any salutory effects arresting them for drug possession at Insite might have.

    As the SCC put it:

    … the effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

    The court rejected the argument that Insite is a health facility under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction, but they agreed that, in this case, the Controlled Drugs and Subtances Act (CDSA) infringes on Charter rights.

  • Drug Policy

    Insite victory an embarrassment for Harper

    Denial of health services and increased risk of death among drug users outweighs any benefit from absolute prohibition on drug possession

    By Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun

    If nothing else, Friday’s unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision on the future of Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site, reveals the federal government’s striking ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And in spectacular fashion.

    The plaintiffs, after all, lost on both of their primary grounds of appeal, yet still managed to win the case. The plaintiffs’ first argument, which previously persuaded the B.C. Court of Appeal, concerned the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, while the second argument, which previously convinced the B.C. Supreme Court, concerned section 7 of the Charter. Yet, while these two arguments swayed lower courts, the Supreme Court of Canada wasn’t having any of either.

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    War on Terror

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 9-19-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 9-19-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3554

    Question of the Week: Are the “War on Drugs” and “War on Terror” the same?

    An article in the University of Pittsburgh Law Review states,

    “Well before the twenty-first century, the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the resulting War on Terror, the country and Supreme Court already had been fighting another war for thirty years—the so-called “War on Drugs”—and it was every bit as devastating to civil liberties, although slower and more methodical, than our new “War on Terror” promises to be.”

    The link between the two is described rhetorically by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation,

    “Like the war on terror, the war on drugs is framed as a response to an exceptional, existential threat to our health, our security, and indeed the very fabric of society. …. The “Addiction to narcotic drugs” is portrayed as an “evil” the international community has a moral duty to “combat” because it is a “danger of incalculable gravity” that warrants a series of (otherwise publicly unacceptable) extraordinary measures.”

    The results of this rhetoric were outlined in a Drexel Law Review article concerning the U.S. Patriot Act,

    “the Passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act [shortly after 9/11] substantially increased the authority of the government in surveillance, border security, terrorism policing, money laundering policing, and intelligence gathering.”

    The University of Pittsburgh Law Review concludes,

    “methodically and largely unnoticed in the name of the War on Drugs, and now more rapidly and apparent in the War on Terrorism, our free, open society is casually losing its grip.”

    These facts and others like them can be found on the Drugs and Terrorism subchapter of the Drug War Facts Interdiction chapter at www.drugwarfacts.org

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Mycoherbicides

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 9-18-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 9-18-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3552

    Question of the Week: What are mycoherbicides?

    According to the 2011 Global Commission on Drug Policies report,

    “Biological methods of eradication, known as mycoherbicides, have been researched for coca and opium poppy …”

    A 2007 Drug Policy Alliance report overviewed two kinds of mycoherbicides, stating,

    “One of these is Fusarium oxysporum and the other is Pleospora papaveracea. Both are toxic molds that attack their targets through the secretion of cell-dissolving chemicals called mycotoxins,”

    According to the Sunshine Project mycotoxins can

    “have serious impact on human and animal health.”

    The Project defines Fusarium oxysporum as a,

    “well-known plant pathogen causing damage and large losses in food and industrial crops worldwide. Researchers of the US Department of Agriculture have developed highly virulent strains that attack cannabis and coca plants, the source of cocaine.”

    The Sunshine Project defines Pleospora papaveracea as,

    “a fungal pathogen that attacks opium poppy. Candidate strains for use in crop eradication were … part of the [former] Soviet Union’s offensive biological weapons program.”

    A United Nations Special Rapporteur raised concerns about the use of mycoherbacides, citing Colombia’s Office of the Ombudsman, which is,

    “gathering information on the serious risks to life, human health and the environment that could result from experimentation with … the Fusarium oxysporum fungus in the open in the Colombian Amazon, one of the richest habitats in terms of biodiversity in the world.”

    The Drug Policy Alliance echoed these concerns, noting that,

    “While mycoherbicides contain chemical toxins, they are actually covered under the [United Nations] Biological Weapons Convention …. Given that mycoherbicides are biological agents it has been argued that their use, especially in foreign countries, would be illegal under [this United Nations treaty].”

    These facts and others like them can be found on the Mycoherbacides subchapter of the Environment Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Drug Policy - International - Law Enforcement & Prisons - Question of the Week

    What was the Rainbow Farm?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 9-11-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network in loving memory of all victims of the tragic events that converged on 9-11-01. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3534

    Question of the Week: What was the Rainbow Farm?

    Paraphrasing a January 2002 Washington Post article entitled “Was Rainbow Farm another Waco?”, the Rainbow Farm was a …

    “34-acre farm and an adjoining 20-acre wood near Vandalia, [Michigan]. [Tom] Crosslin bought the farm … as a place where he and [Rollie] Rohm could escape their urban life. … He turned Rainbow Farm into a campground and began holding pro-pot festivals every Labor Day and Memorial Day weekend.”

    On Friday, August 31, 2001,

    “the building where bands waited to go onstage — was burning. … A helicopter from WNDU-TV in South Bend, Indiana shooting fire footage for the evening news [was told to] leave because the cops said somebody was shooting at them. … On Sunday, the FBI arrived, more than 50 strong, summoned to the scene because the helicopter shooting was a federal crime … John Bell, head of the FBI’s Detroit office … sent three FBI SWAT teams, each composed of three sharpshooters …

    in the woods … at a campsite … two agents fired, one of them shooting Crosslin through the forehead, killing him instantly.”

    Early the next day,

    “two state police snipers fired from 150 yards away.  One missed.  The other shot through the stock of Rohm’s rifle and into his chest, killing him.”

    The Rainbow Farm might have simply been counted among estimated 40,000 paramilitary SWAT raids that occurred in 2001, but in the context of history, it was no ordinary raid.

    It was the harbinger of what was to come.

    Eight days later on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four airliners, flying two of them into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvania cornfield, killing a total of 2,977 people.

    The 9/11 Commission Report released in 2004 found that FBI priorities were

    “driven at the local level by the field offices, whose concerns centered on traditional crimes such as white-collar offenses and those pertaining to drugs and gangs. … In 2000, there were still twice as many agents devoted to drug enforcement as to counterterrorism.”

    The report concluded,

    “In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. … The terrorists exploited deep institutional failings.”

    Perhaps one failing was the drug war.

    These facts and others like them can be found on the Interdiction Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net - International

    Drug Policy in Portugal

    The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use

    By Artur Domoslawski

    In 2000, the Portuguese government responded to widespread public concern over drugs by rejecting a “war on drugs” approach and instead decriminalized drug possession and use. It further rebuffed convention by placing the responsibility for decreasing drug demand as well as managing dependence under the Ministry of Health, rather than the Ministry of Justice. With this, the official response toward drug dependent persons shifted from viewing them as criminals, to treating them as patients.

    Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use is the second in a series of reports by the Open Society Foundations’ Global Drug Policy Program that documents positive examples of drug policy reform around the world (the first being From the Mountaintops: What the World Can Learn from Drug Policy Change in Switzerland). Drug Policy in Portugal describes the process, context, ideas, and values that enabled Portugal to make the transition to a public health response to drug use and possession. Now, with a decade of experience, Portugal provides a valuable case study of how decriminalization coupled with evidence-based strategies can reduce drug consumption, dependence, recidivism, and HIV infection, and create safer communities for all.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Parents Using Pot

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 8-20-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 8-20-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3512

    Question of the Week: How many parents use marijuana?

    The U.S. Census estimates that families in households with minor children – married and single parent male or female – comprised roughly 62 million persons in 2010. An average of the percentage use figures in the 2010 Monitoring the Future study indicate that around 15% of those within the childbearing years of age 20-35 consume cannabis monthly, with about 5% being daily users. Daily use likely equates to medical use. Simple multiplication of these two percentages times the estimated 62 million persons heading family households places the number of marijuana using parents in the United States at least as high as 9.5 million and patient parents near 3 million.

    The U.S. Census also estimates the number of children ages 12-17 at 24.8 million. Monitoring the Future projects the percentage of adolescents who currently use cannabis at 13.8%. The result of multiplying the two figures is roughly 3.4 million young people who use cannabis at least monthly.

    Ironically, the aforementioned Monitoring the Future percentages indicate a steep decline in cannabis consumption during childbearing years. The prevalence of those using it within the last 30 days drops from 20.6% of 18 year-olds to 12% of 29-39 year-olds.

    “The Social Epidemiology of Substance Use” report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health confirms this trend, finding that, “in the context of family relations, it is primarily the assumption of greater family responsibilities that has been associated with cessation of use. For example, becoming a parent for the first time has been associated with cessation of marijuana use.”

    These facts and others like them can be found on the Families and Youth chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Coca Leaf vs. Cocaine

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 8-3-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 8-3-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3488

    Question of the Week: What is the difference between coca leaf and cocaine?

    According to a paper from Yale University,

    “Coca leaves are grown from bushes native to the Andes. The leaves contain alkaloids that can be extracted to produce commercial cocaine.”

    The Transnational Institute says,

    “Coca leaf consumption is an integral part of Andean cultural tradition and world view. The principle uses are [as an] energizer, medicinal, sacred, and social.”

    And goes on to describe,

    “One of the main properties of the coca leaf, which has been and continues to be used industrially, is its medical potential as an anaesthetic and analgesic.”

    Accion Andina recounted that,

    “A new use for the leaf was discovered between 1855 and 1860. Two German scientists …are given credit for having first extracted the pure cocaine alkaloid from coca leaves.”

    A Fordham University Law Review article describes the leaf’s conversion to cocaine hydrochloride.

    “After pulverizing [the leaves] into a coarse powder, alcohol is added and distilled off in order to extract the most pure form of cocaine alkaloid.” Cocaine anesthetizes and stimulates the central nervous system.”

    However, according to Accion Annida,

    “The prophetic “Legend of the Coca Leaf” presages us of the difference between the way the leaf is used traditionally in the Andes, and the corrupted form used by Western conquerors. As the Sun God said to the Andean wise man Kjana Chuyma: “[coca] for you shall be strength and life, for your masters it shall be a loathsome and degenerating vice; while for you, natives, it will be an almost spiritual food, for them it shall cause idiocy and madness”

    These facts and others like them can be found on the new Coca Leaf subchapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.