• Drug Policy

    Chris Selley: Our indefensibly blood-soaked drug laws

    Jamaican gangster and drug kingpin Christopher “Dudus” Coke, subject of a violent month-long manhunt in the slums of West Kingston, surrendered to authorities on Wednesday without a shot being fired. He happened to be dressed as a woman at the time, police gleefully announced, providing photo evidence — a darkly comic anticlimax to a senseless battle that killed 73 people and wounded 35 more. It’s no exaggeration to say that drug consumers in the world’s leading nations have blood on their hands. Their presidents and prime ministers have more.

    Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/24/chris-selley-our-indefensibly-blood-soaked-drug-laws/#ixzz0rob7tI38

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

    Science News on Medicinal Cannabis

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 6-21-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 6-21-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2946

    Question of the Week: Is there any science news on medical marijuana?

    Those of you who follow medicinal cannabis likely know that this question represents a play on words, for the subject is the cover story of the current issue of the prestigious Science News magazine, published biweekly since 1922 by the non-profit Society for Science and the Public.

    This article, entitled “Not just a high: Scientists test medicinal marijuana against MS, inflammation and cancer” and available in full text on their website, provides a comprehensive overview of cannabis’ underlying biology, where it stands politically, and the studies that are defining new indications for it in the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn’s Disease, PTSD, cancer, and diabetes.

    What is particularly important about this Science News article are the 38 published studies that comprise its “Suggested Reading” and “Citations & References” sections. Several studies can be found in Drug War Facts.

    As a sample, two studies concerning diabetic neuropathy discuss positive uses for cannabidiol, a component of cannabis termed a cannabinoid and abbreviated as CBD. One study in Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science states,

    “CBD has been shown to block NMDA-, LPS-, or diabetes induced retinal damage.”

    The other study in the World Journal of Diabetes concluded,

    “Recent evidence suggests that local inflammation plays a major role in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. The function of CBD as an antioxidant to block oxidative stress and as an inhibitor of adenosine reuptake to enhance a self-defense mechanism against retinal inflammation represents a novel therapeutic approach to the treatment of ophthalmic complications associated with diabetes.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Medical Marijuana chapter of Drug War Facts. Be sure to look for the research section toward the bottom of the page. The website for Science News is www.sciencenews.org.

    Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected].

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Drug Policy

    US MI: Who’s Making Money Off Medical Marijuana?

    Newshawk: Please Write a LTE www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
    Pubdate: Mon, 21 Jun 2010
    Source: Detroit Free Press (MI)
    Page: 4A
    Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/ZU02YgTA
    Copyright: 2010 Detroit Free Press
    Contact: http://www.freep.com/article/99999999/opinion04/50926009
    Author: Katherine Yung, Free Press Business Writer
    Cited: Michigan Department of Community Health
    http://drugsense.org/url/nDFeNDPs
    Referenced: Michigan’s law http://drugsense.org/url/8mvr7sW8
    Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Michigan+medical+marijuana
    Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis – Medicinal – U.S.)

    WHO’S MAKING MONEY OFF MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

    It’s Not Who You’d Think; Growers Don’t Get Rich — Unless They Break the Law

    In a small second-story office on Main Street in Ann Arbor, Liberty
    Clinic is doing brisk business, selling medical marijuana for $360 to
    $400 an ounce. In just 3 1/2 months, 750 patients have come through its doors.

    In Lansing, Danny Trevino has expanded beyond his HydroWorld
    hydroponics store, adding two medical clinics, grow classes and a dispensary.

    And in Ypsilanti, Darrell Stavros and his partners have set up a
    medical marijuana service center, renting space to a support group,
    doctors and a bong shop. “This is creating an enormous amount of
    businesses that never existed,” he said.

    Medical marijuana, one of the state’s newest industries, is taking
    off. Dozens of hydroponics stores, medical clinics and grow schools
    are popping up. And at support groups, cafes and dispensaries,
    patients and growers are buying and selling the drug.

    As with any industry, there are challenges, such as crop failures and
    theft. And limits on the size of growers’ crops make it all but
    impossible for growers to get rich, though they can earn some decent money.

    “A few people will make a few bucks. Most people won’t make much,”
    said Adam Brook, organizer of the annual Ann Arbor Hash Bash.

    Entrepreneurs Cashing in on Services Tied to Growing

    [snip]

    Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n471.a09.html

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    Joe Califano: Just as stupid as ever; after all these years.

    June 19, 2010

    Joe Califano: Just as stupid as ever; after all these years.

    Joseph A. Califano, Jr., is a native New Yorker, Harvard educated lawyer, and career bureaucrat who entered federal service in 1961 after a stint in the Navy and soon became a behind-the-scenes power in the Johnson Administration after JFK’s assassination. He later served as Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Health Education and Welfare between 1977 and 1979.

    Unfortunately, a misguided interest in Medicine has apparently kept him enamored of the false notion that criminal prohibition can be rehabilitated into good public policy, thus he founded the Center for Addiction and Drug Abuse at Columbia University (CASA Columbia) which has since become entrenched as a drug war propaganda machine with a prestigious Ivy League address. While editing a low-budget drug policy newsletter between 1997 and 200I, I became very familiar with an unending stream of CASA “studies” that inevitably found evidence in favor of coerced “treatment” while decrying the money spent on criminal prosecution. In fact, one of the more pleasant consequences of my recent immersion in a study of cannabis users had been not having to deal with the conundrum represented by Mr. Califano and his ilk: are they evil or just stupid?

    Sadly, the latest evidence has me leaning more toward evil. Yesterday afternoon, during my return from Oakland after interviews with nine typical victims of cannabis prohibition had left me more convinced than ever of the policy’s stupidity, good old clueless NPR provided me with nearly ten minutes of teeth-gnashing evidence of its fecklessness: a report on the latest carnage in Mexico followed by a typical witless endorsement from Joe C.

    Now I get it. Like anything human it’s not all or none, but a combination of the two: thus anyone who takes Joe Califano seriously must be as evil AND stupid as he is.

    Doctor Tom

  • Drug Policy

    US: Justices Ease Deportation Rule in Minor Drug Cases

    Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jun 2010
    Source: New York Times (NY)
    Page: A20
    Webpage: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/us/15scotus.html
    Copyright: 2010 The New York Times Company
    Contact: [email protected]
    Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
    Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
    Author: Adam Liptak
    Referenced: the Supreme Court decision
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-60.pdf
    Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/deportation

    JUSTICES EASE DEPORTATION RULE IN MINOR DRUG CASES

    WASHINGTON — Immigrants who are legally in the United States need
    not be automatically deported for minor drug offenses, the Supreme
    Court ruled Monday in a unanimous decision.

    Lower courts had said that Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, a permanent
    resident of the United States who had lived here since 1983, when he
    was 5, was subject to mandatory deportation for a second drug
    offense, this one involving possession of single tablet of a prescription drug.

    The question in the case was whether that second offense amounted to
    an “aggravated felony.” If it did, the government had no choice but
    to deport him under the immigration laws. If it did not, the attorney
    general had the discretion to show leniency.

    In 2004, Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo was sentenced by a Texas state court
    judge to 20 days in jail for possession of less than two ounces of
    marijuana. The next year, he was sentenced to 10 days in jail for
    having a single tablet of Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, without a prescription.

    Those were both misdemeanors under state law. But federal authorities
    argued that a second drug offense counted as an aggravated felony
    under federal law, making Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo ineligible for
    discretionary relief from deportation.

    Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for seven justices, said the
    interactions of the various state and federal laws in the case
    required analysis of a “maze of statutory cross-references” and a
    2006 decision, Lopez v. Gonzales, that rooted the definition of
    “aggravated felony” in federal law even when state offenses were involved.

    At bottom, Justice Stevens wrote, “a 10-day sentence for the
    unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug”
    is at odds with the ordinary meaning of “aggravated felony,” even if
    federal prosecutors could, in theory, have sought a two-year sentence
    in federal court for the second drug offense.

    “Carachuri-Rosendo, and others in his position, may now seek
    cancellation of removal and thereby avoid the harsh consequence of
    mandatory removal,” Justice Stevens wrote. But “any relief he may
    obtain depends upon the discretion of the attorney general.”

    Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in separate
    concurrences, voted with the majority but declined to adopt its
    reasoning in the case, Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, No. 09-60.

    [snip]

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Can heroin be used to treat heroin addiction?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 6-9-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 6-6-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2930

    Question of the Week: Can heroin be used to treat heroin addiction?

    First, a look at the numbers finds that there were approximately 213,000 current users of heroin in the United States in 2008, with current users defined as those who had used the drug in the last month. This kind of use is medically defined as chronic.

    The two physicians looked into heroin addiction in the 2004 Archives of Internal Medicine article entitled, “Treating Opioid Dependence.” They pointed to a scientific basis for heroin addiction by postulating,

    “Chronic heroin abusers end up with an endogenous opioid deficiency because of down-regulation of opioid production. This creates an overwhelming craving.”

    Three synthetic opiates — Methadone, Levomethadyl, and Buprenorphine – have been developed as chronic maintenance therapies to overcome this down regulation and the consequent cravings.

    Very recently – in fact just last week – the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, contained an article and commentary concerning the

    “scientific evidence base [that] is emerging to support the effectiveness of maintenance treatment with directly supervised medicinal heroin as a secondline treatment for chronic heroin addiction.”

    Heroin maintenance is targeted toward the

    “5-10% of heroin addicts who fail to benefit from established conventional treatments.”

    Moreover, studies have shown that,

    “treatment with supervised injectable heroin leads to significantly lower use of street heroin than does supervised injectable methadone or optimised oral methadone.”

    Commenting on heroin maintenance, The Lancet concluded,

    “The existing interference and non-evidence-based opposition from politicians and care providers, who refuse to acknowledge the limitations of methadone maintenance and the superiority of prescribed heroin in selected populations, is arguably unethical. Denying effective second-line therapy to those in need ultimately serves to condemn many users of illicit heroin to the all too common outcomes of untreated heroin addiction, including HIV infection or death from overdose.”

    These facts and others like them come from the Heroin and Heroin Maintenance chapters of Drug War Facts.

    Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected].

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    What makes drug policy a human rights issue?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 6-6-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 6-6-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2927

    Question of the Week: What makes drug policy a human rights issue?

    Let’s first count the numbers. In its “Prisoners in 2008” report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that the number of inmates in federal, state, and local prisons or jails totaled 2.3 million in 2008. Of the 1.3 million inmates held solely under state jurisdiction, roughly 20% or 266,000 were incarcerated because of drug sentences, and of those prisoners, a remarkable two thirds or 173,000 were black or Hispanic.

    Despite the punishment of prison, those processed through the criminal justice system in the United States may also lose a fundamental right supposedly accorded to all citizens – the right to vote. A March 2010 report from the Sentencing Project estimated that,

    “5.3 million Americans, or one in forty-one adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction.”

    The Sentencing Project predicts,

    “Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote.”

    The 2010 report, “Death Penalty for Drug Offences,” from the International Harm Reduction Association examined another important human rights issue. The report placed the United States among the 58 countries worldwide that maintain laws prescribing the death penalty for drug offences. The IHRA stated that in some countries,

    “drug offenders make up a significant portion – if not the outright majority – of those executed each year.”

    The IHRA concluded,

    “The death penalty for drug offences is an issue of considerable human rights concern, one demanding the attention of abolitionists, harm reductionists and drug policy reformers alike.”

    These facts and others like them come from the Prisons and Jails and the Civil Rights chapters of Drug War Facts.

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

    The effectiveness of paramilitary drug law enforcement

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 5-25-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 5-25-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2912

    Question of the Week: Is the use of paramilitary SWAT raids in drug enforcement effective?

    First, let’s count the numbers. The Office of National Drug Control Policy noted in its fiscal year 2010 Budget Summary that,

    “For FY 2007,  … there were almost 620 HIDTA [High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas] initiatives.”

    The ONDCP said that these

    “HIDTA initiatives … seized $673 million in cash, and $203 million in noncash assets from drug traffickers.” And “These initiatives identified more than 7,300 DTOs [drug trafficking organizations] operating in their areas.”

    SWAT units are often integrated into HIDTA initiatives.

    Rodney Balko found in his 2006 Cato Institute analysis that

    “these increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.”

    Further, Balko countered that the seizure of cash and assets, called forfeiture, cause

    “police officials [to] feel increasing pressure to send SWAT teams out on drug assignments, where the assets seized come back to the department and can help offset the costs of having a SWAT team in the first place.”

    So, despite disrupting drug traffickers and seizing of hundreds of millions of assets, often needed to fund the SWAT teams themselves, HIDTA still identified over seven thousand drug trafficking organizations. Sound effective?

    Further, a new report by the International Center for Science in Drug Policy reviewed the scientific evidence concerning this approach to drug law enforcement and confirmed that it,

    “contributes to gun violence and high homicide rates and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting organizations involved in drug distribution could unintentionally increase violence.”

    Possibly, violence begets violence?

    These facts and others like them come from the Drug Interdiction Chapter of Drug War Facts.

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

    The federal government’s failure to find any positive use for marijuana

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 5-19-10

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 5-19-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2902

    Question of the Week: Why has the federal government failed to find any positive use for marijuana?

    Let’s say that it did, but it didn’t.

    In his 1998 ruling called “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition” the DEA’s Administrative Law Judge Francis Young recommended,

    “that the Administrator [of the DEA] conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II.”

    That ruling might suggest that the government found positive use for marijuana, but that was 20 years ago. Despite Judge Young’s ruling, marijuana still remains in the most restrictive Schedule I of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act along with heroin, LSD, and GHB.

    Flash forward almost 22 years to the column “Medical Marijuana and the Law,” that appeared in the April 22, 2010 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. This article revealed,

    “Restrictive federal law and, until recently, aggressive federal law enforcement have hamstrung research and medical practice involving marijuana.”

    Yet, despite federal policymakers having hamstrung research and medical practice involving marijuana, four patients continue to receive an ongoing supply of medical cannabis under the federal government’s Compassionate IND program established around the same time as Judge Young’s 1988 ruling. Further, a research review by Americans for Safe Access concluded that,

    “a privately funded study of these patients confirmed that they benefited from their use of medical cannabis.”

    To summarize, Judge Young appeared to find “positive use” for marijuana over 20 years ago, yet federal policymakers have “hamstrung research,” while at the same time provided an “ongoing supply” to four patients who have “benefitted from their use” of cannabis.

    And of course, you can also find facts concerning medical marijuana like these from the Congressional Research Service at Drug War Facts in the Medical Marijuana Chapter.