• 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.

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

    Teen use in states that have medical marijuana laws

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

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 5-10-10.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/2890

    Question of the Week: Is teen use of marijuana is higher in states with medical marijuana laws than in states without them?

    The Congressional Research Service took a look at this issue in its April 2010 report entitled, “Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies.”

    The report stated,

    “A statistical analysis of marijuana use by emergency room patients and arrestees in four states with medical marijuana programs—California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington—found no statistically significant increase in recreational marijuana use … after medical marijuana was approved.”

    The CRS report referred to

    “Another study [that] looked at adolescent marijuana use and found decreases in youth usage in every state with a medical marijuana law. Declines in usage exceeding 50% were found in some age groups,”

    The CRS report added,

    “California, the state with the largest and longest-running medical marijuana program, ranked 34th in the percentage of persons age 12-17 reporting marijuana use in the past month.”

    Finally, the CRS report concluded that,

    “No clear patterns [concerning teen use] are apparent … “ state-to-state and that “more important factors are at work in determining a state’s prevalence of recreational marijuana use than whether the state has a medical marijuana program.”

    The Federation of American Scientists maintains a collection of Congressional Research Service reports on its website at www.fas.org. You can find this extensive 51-page overview of medical marijuana there by searching on the key word ‘marijuana.’

    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.