If you have ever expressed any doubt about the War on Drugs, no matter how small, you are a “legalizer.” Whether we like it or not, that’s where the bar has been set by the opposition – thus, even though we are failing to recognize it, the true measure of our argument (and thus also our probability of success) is entirely dependent upon clearing that bar. While the drug reform “movement” remains disjointed and broken into a thousand little threads, there will be no mass involvement among the general public in altering the status quo. Thus, to truly benefit from (and more intelligently utilize) the efforts of those engaging in the attempt, my appeal to all of you is simply this: let’s clear the bar.
There is absolutely no defensible reason to continue prohibition. If you have one, bring it on – I will convince you of the error of your ways. Or, failing at the task, consign you to the “do not resuscitate” pile. There is indeed some number of our fellow citizens who can only be described as “fanatical” people who will never be swayed from their position. The good news, though, is that they tally up to a rather small (though loud and certainly insufferable) portion of the populace. Interestingly, the “standard curve” applies, and it is likely that this minority of extremists is probably in balanced proportion to those they wish to bully – that is, the number of problem drug using people is likely quite similar to the number of vehement prohibitionists. It’s just a hunch. But, if it is anywhere close to true, it is certainly something that works to our advantage. Just as drug abuse is the exception, so is utter intolerance. The American people as a whole tend toward being quite a bit more tolerant than would be required for achieving a “zero tolerance, drug-free” America. The problem we face is not convincing them that we are correct – it is getting them to pay attention in the first place. And then there’s that little knee jerk: “You’re just trying to make it legal to use drugs.” That is ultimately their last line of defense … and their first.
Trying to change marijuana laws may be the “easiest” thing politically, but I’m sorry, there are two HUGE reasons why that one is going nowhere: 1) pot smokers are afraid to speak up for themselves and 2) passing a pot law in one state leaves the pot smokers in the other 49 screwed. Let’s say the MPP was “successful” (in the true sense of the word, not in their self-aggrandizing definition of the word) in passing the recreational marijuana use law proposed in Nevada this past fall – what would that really mean? If you lived in Arizona and went to Vegas for a weekend of boozing, gambling, whoring and pot smoking, when you returned to work Monday morning, your piss test would still put you out of a job. Some "success" that would be.
The worst impact of trying the "go slowly" approach is that even full-blown wide open legal availability of marijuana will do absolutely nothing to address the entirely heinous aspects of the drug war. Innocent people will still be killed during SWAT raids on the wrong house, there will still be plenty of "drug-related" crime, plenty of accidental deaths from stuff like "heroin" that is laced with fentanyl, and (worst of all) the "let's pee for freedom" train will be charging full steam ahead training our youth to be obedient little neo-fascists.
Let’s not forget too, how quickly the British and Swiss addiction experiments were (and continue to be) dubbed as “failures” (despite abundant evidence to the contrary). You see, the basic problem with the piecemeal approach is that it actually does nothing to help. It merely allows the existing system to remain largely intact while allowing the emergence of a new chorus of voices protesting things like “drug tourism” and demanding even more stupidity like increasing the use of drug testing. It’s a completely dumbass idea to try to kill the beast by trimming its toenails.
“Legalizing Drugs,” is thus the big scary boogeyman that serves as the foundation of the status quo. I am convinced, however, that the average citizen is quite capable of comprehending why we need to end the War on Drugs – and that by ending the war it will indeed mean that we do have to legalize the sales, possession, and use of the wide variety of available intoxicants. Does that mean we all turn into heroin addicts the day after? HELL NO!!! But the actual goal should not and indeed is not to legalize drugs – it is to end the tyrannous practices that have resulted from our society having adopted intolerance as part of its creed. In essence, we need to gather the courage to play for the fence, and make this a core issue at every level in the next general election.
We must stop splintering the far too limited resources we possess into so many misdirected attempts at eating the poo one swallow at a time. We have nothing, ask for next to nothing, and consistently lose to the trump card of “you’re just trying to make drugs legal.” Enough! If we want to gather the numbers we require to accomplish the task, we first need to focus our attention on the fact that the core reason to end the drug war is simply because it is completely un-American to turn in your neighbor for doing things directly to only himself. Period. We need to demand (and practice) equality for all.
We need to be bold, we need to have courage. We know we are correct, and we know we will prevail -- we just need the balls to actually swing for the fence.
Bases loaded, bottom of the ninth, two outs, down by three.
Batter up!
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Fatal Distraction(s)
Americans are being constantly reminded that there are fanatical people in the world hell bent on killing them. They are also being reminded that since that fateful day in 2001 there has been no additional successful terror attack on US soil. Thus, the average American goes to sleep every night content that every possible thing is being done to protect them against waking up one day to the “mushroom cloud” thought to be the penultimate goal of the aforementioned bad guys. But what if our government actually isn’t doing every possible thing that it can, and isn’t devoting every possible dollar, computer and brain to preventing such a calamity? Worse yet, what if a large chunk of the required assets already existed, but rather than being devoted to guarding us against terrorism were being used to protect us from pot? What if, in our zeal to find grow ops and “meth labs,” we fail to detect the people next door assembling a weapon of mass destruction? And, really, who would you rather be protected from: a guy with a bong, or a guy with a bomb?
These are some of the issues addressed in the latest book by Arnold S. Trebach, “Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror.” Trebach has argued for more than the past two decades that America’s so-called “war on drugs” is a misguided and ill-conceived public policy that has led to disastrous consequences that exceed by far those actually caused by drug abuse. He is trying to sound the alarm as loudly as possible this time around, given the apparent gravity of the current situation with the “Global War on Terror.” What needs to be done is blindingly obvious to him: we need to end the drug war, legalize all the drugs, and take the vast resources being squandered on the drug war and put them on the job of protecting us from Islamic fanatics. While, at first glance, that may seem like a radical idea, as he puts it: “Intolerable situations demand radical reforms.”
Certainly, there won’t be many people who would argue that terrorism is not a real threat (though perhaps not as grave a threat as is claimed, given that the claims about that threat are being made by the very same government waging the drug war), but there is still a bit of a hard sell involved in getting the public at large to take the “radical” move of ending the drug war. Trebach has been down that particular road before, and as expected does an outstanding job of presenting the academic arguments that readily disprove all of the claims surrounding drug use and its impacts on society. What is most impressive in this effort, however, is how he is able to succinctly weave together an incredible array of the various facets of the drug war into a single, coherent, and easy to read whole. His central focus is to demonstrate how much more damage our drug policies have created than the drug use itself does, while the war on terror aspects are woven into the framework of the book as a bit of a “no-brainer.”
Trebach brings to this effort the academic rigor one would expect from a university professor, and indeed declares that he himself only came to the conclusions he has reached after expending the great deal of effort required to track down and assess all of the available data and information. He didn’t do the work as part of a quest to legalize drugs – he ended at that destination simply because of the overwhelming evidence that doing so was the only logical, practical and proper response to the facts at hand. He posits that what drives the drug war is not factual information and logical decision processes, rather, that the whole mess is the result of clinging to what he terms the “cherished myths” that have caused most citizens (not to mention the government itself) to blindly ignore all the available evidence to the contrary.
Those myths have fueled what has been termed “the drugs exception to the Constitution,” and as can be expected from a legal scholar, Trebach devotes a part of the book to exposing and decrying some of the more heinous aspects of allowing fear of drugs and drug users to form the foundation of public policy. Mandatory prison sentences for even low-level first time offenders, asset forfeitures in which a person is never even charged with a crime, and most horrifying, the practice of sending young people to military-style camps to “protect” them from drug use are just a few of the abuses taking place in the name of “fighting drugs.” Each of those abuses considered separately should be enough to increase public outcry, and when combined they would seem an absolutely impregnable indictment of the “war.” However, the most significant (and most fatal) aspect of how much impact Trebach’s book will make or not make is entirely dependent on an ironic twist in his title: distraction.
The real problem involved in drug law reform remains getting people’s attention. The reality is that, especially in America, people do not care to invest the time and attention required to actually become sufficiently indignant about the current state of affairs. The issue is compounded greatly by the (to me inexplicable) hesitancy of those involved in drug law reform to reach the conclusion that Trebach so elegantly builds the case for: complete elimination of the entire scheme. This is not an issue that we can slowly dig our way out of – not the least due to the fact that those involved in drug law reform are too cautious (I would say frightened) to say the words out loud: “legalize the drugs.”
Trebach devotes a good bit of the text calling to task the pitiful “leadership” of the self-proclaimed deacons of drug war deconstruction for failing to exhibit the necessary levels of courage and comprehension that are the clear way forward out of the morass. One notable exception is the recently formed organization LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), which is composed of the very people who were once charged with waging the war. Rather than dissembling about how “the American public isn’t ready for legalizing drugs,” or that “we can’t bite the whole thing at once, so we should try to get something like medical marijuana legal first, then we can work on recreational use,” Trebach calls a spade a spade: the bit by bit approach not only won’t lead us to where we need to go, but as he puts it – “It is the equivalent of the Abolitionist movement of the 1800s having worked not to free the slaves but to provide better housing and health care for them.”
After several decades of drug war, the time has certainly arrived for “radical” change. Perhaps the most radical of which is simply getting all of the various organizations and individuals involved in drug law reform to start working together on common goals. Bringing about the radical change of ending prohibition, however, will require gaining the attention of, and successfully motivating millions of American citizens. But the drug war isn’t exactly something that most Americans think about on a day-to-day basis. They simply have too many other things to worry about in life – which, ironically enough, is the most fatal of the many distractions keeping people from learning about, and working to destroy the nightmare we call the “War on Drugs.” Trebach has done the heavy lifting, and put it all together in an entirely readable volume. This book should enrage American citizens and propel them to demand the “radical” reforms required – but first, they’ll have to care enough to actually read it.
These are some of the issues addressed in the latest book by Arnold S. Trebach, “Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror.” Trebach has argued for more than the past two decades that America’s so-called “war on drugs” is a misguided and ill-conceived public policy that has led to disastrous consequences that exceed by far those actually caused by drug abuse. He is trying to sound the alarm as loudly as possible this time around, given the apparent gravity of the current situation with the “Global War on Terror.” What needs to be done is blindingly obvious to him: we need to end the drug war, legalize all the drugs, and take the vast resources being squandered on the drug war and put them on the job of protecting us from Islamic fanatics. While, at first glance, that may seem like a radical idea, as he puts it: “Intolerable situations demand radical reforms.”
Certainly, there won’t be many people who would argue that terrorism is not a real threat (though perhaps not as grave a threat as is claimed, given that the claims about that threat are being made by the very same government waging the drug war), but there is still a bit of a hard sell involved in getting the public at large to take the “radical” move of ending the drug war. Trebach has been down that particular road before, and as expected does an outstanding job of presenting the academic arguments that readily disprove all of the claims surrounding drug use and its impacts on society. What is most impressive in this effort, however, is how he is able to succinctly weave together an incredible array of the various facets of the drug war into a single, coherent, and easy to read whole. His central focus is to demonstrate how much more damage our drug policies have created than the drug use itself does, while the war on terror aspects are woven into the framework of the book as a bit of a “no-brainer.”
Trebach brings to this effort the academic rigor one would expect from a university professor, and indeed declares that he himself only came to the conclusions he has reached after expending the great deal of effort required to track down and assess all of the available data and information. He didn’t do the work as part of a quest to legalize drugs – he ended at that destination simply because of the overwhelming evidence that doing so was the only logical, practical and proper response to the facts at hand. He posits that what drives the drug war is not factual information and logical decision processes, rather, that the whole mess is the result of clinging to what he terms the “cherished myths” that have caused most citizens (not to mention the government itself) to blindly ignore all the available evidence to the contrary.
Those myths have fueled what has been termed “the drugs exception to the Constitution,” and as can be expected from a legal scholar, Trebach devotes a part of the book to exposing and decrying some of the more heinous aspects of allowing fear of drugs and drug users to form the foundation of public policy. Mandatory prison sentences for even low-level first time offenders, asset forfeitures in which a person is never even charged with a crime, and most horrifying, the practice of sending young people to military-style camps to “protect” them from drug use are just a few of the abuses taking place in the name of “fighting drugs.” Each of those abuses considered separately should be enough to increase public outcry, and when combined they would seem an absolutely impregnable indictment of the “war.” However, the most significant (and most fatal) aspect of how much impact Trebach’s book will make or not make is entirely dependent on an ironic twist in his title: distraction.
The real problem involved in drug law reform remains getting people’s attention. The reality is that, especially in America, people do not care to invest the time and attention required to actually become sufficiently indignant about the current state of affairs. The issue is compounded greatly by the (to me inexplicable) hesitancy of those involved in drug law reform to reach the conclusion that Trebach so elegantly builds the case for: complete elimination of the entire scheme. This is not an issue that we can slowly dig our way out of – not the least due to the fact that those involved in drug law reform are too cautious (I would say frightened) to say the words out loud: “legalize the drugs.”
Trebach devotes a good bit of the text calling to task the pitiful “leadership” of the self-proclaimed deacons of drug war deconstruction for failing to exhibit the necessary levels of courage and comprehension that are the clear way forward out of the morass. One notable exception is the recently formed organization LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), which is composed of the very people who were once charged with waging the war. Rather than dissembling about how “the American public isn’t ready for legalizing drugs,” or that “we can’t bite the whole thing at once, so we should try to get something like medical marijuana legal first, then we can work on recreational use,” Trebach calls a spade a spade: the bit by bit approach not only won’t lead us to where we need to go, but as he puts it – “It is the equivalent of the Abolitionist movement of the 1800s having worked not to free the slaves but to provide better housing and health care for them.”
After several decades of drug war, the time has certainly arrived for “radical” change. Perhaps the most radical of which is simply getting all of the various organizations and individuals involved in drug law reform to start working together on common goals. Bringing about the radical change of ending prohibition, however, will require gaining the attention of, and successfully motivating millions of American citizens. But the drug war isn’t exactly something that most Americans think about on a day-to-day basis. They simply have too many other things to worry about in life – which, ironically enough, is the most fatal of the many distractions keeping people from learning about, and working to destroy the nightmare we call the “War on Drugs.” Trebach has done the heavy lifting, and put it all together in an entirely readable volume. This book should enrage American citizens and propel them to demand the “radical” reforms required – but first, they’ll have to care enough to actually read it.
Monday, October 23, 2006
To the Politicians:
If you want my vote, then you are going to have to demonstrate that you have at least a basic understanding of the principles upon which our nation was founded. If you can’t understand why you don’t get to veto what people do of their own free will to themselves or with willing others, then you certainly can’t be trusted with power over others. If your marriage or sexuality is in any way threatened by anonymous people, freely engaging with each other as they wish, hundreds and even thousands of miles away from you, then you can’t be trusted with power over others.
If you think you have a “right” in deciding whether one person you do not even know may freely enter into a lifetime bond with another whom you do not know, then you clearly do not understand the nature of minding your own business, and thus, cannot be trusted with power over others. If you want my vote, you have to address the fundamental question of our day: why in the world are we allowing our government to deny and withold the most fundamental of our rights as equal citizens? Most importantly: what are you going to do to bring it to a halt?
The question is not whether or not one has the right to smoke a joint, or have sex with another person of the same gender. The question is whether or not the government has the proper legitimate power to hold accountable and punish those who act upon themselves. It doesn't matter if the act in question is inhaling smoke from a plant or shoving a burning hot knitting needle into your own eye -- you cannot be legitimately punished by the rest of us for doing so.
The core principle that people fail to realize when they insist that you don't have the "right" to smoke pot, is that in saying so, they are agreeing with the supposition that the decisions you make about what you do to yourself can be voted against by the collective citizenry. In other words, your will toward yourself is subject to being voided by others claiming a superior power to do so based on outnumbering you.
The argument that what you do to yourself "affects others," and is therefore properly subject to inspection and revocation by a group of your fellow citizens, is easily dismissed with actual data. Getting a sunburn may lead to skin cancer -- should we make getting a sunburn illegal? If the criteria we apply to drugs are used to make the determination, then we certainly need to start no-knock raids to see if people are in possession of sunscreen. Those who have young children but do not have sunscreen should be arrested immediately and their children carted off and placed in foster homes to "protect" them.
Think it's absurd? According to the mortality data in the CDC's on-line mortality database, from 1979 through 1998 inclusive, all illegal drugs combined were the underlying cause of death for 44,727 people (out of 42,868,083 total deaths over the span). Meanwhile, over that same time, there were 121,001 deaths attributed to malignant melanoma of the skin.
So, if we need to punish people for using drugs because they might die, then we need to punish people who get sunburns for the same reason. Skin cancer is killing people at a rate nearly triple that of illegal drugs. And think for a moment: if the possibility of immediate death is not deterring people from using the drugs, then what good is *any* law you may dream up?
People dying "too young" from skin cancer "has affects on others." but then again, everything can be said to "affect" others -- that's what makes it such a crappy criteria for outlawing what one does to oneself.
Most people have heard of the theory that "if a butterfly flaps it's wings" off the coast of Africa, that the cumulative "effects" of having moved the air can eventually add up to a typhoon in Madagascar. Which could of course kill and otherwise "affect" lots of people. Bad butterflies!
What happens when you fart? Did fart power lead to hurricane Katrina?
And if every person is only six people away from any other person on earth -- then what is your link to bin Laden?
Drug use costs society money? Oops, fat people cost society over twice as much as those using illegal drugs. Obviously, it should be illegal to be fat. The really obese have all sorts of negative effects on those around them. Let’s round 'em up and lock 'em up -- then we can force them to exercise and control what they eat.
The issue is not whether or not you have the right to smoke pot -- the issue is that no one has the right to punish you for what you choose to do to yourself. Whether that involves smoking pot, shooting heroin, having sex with a cucumber, chopping your own hand from your body, leaping from airplanes, or merely laying around on the beach somewhere baking in the sun, the issue remains the same: no one has the right to punish you for doing something to yourself.
Any criteria you may wish to apply to support the drug war can be used against every person in the nation for some other equally specious "reason." The republic is in very grave danger. It is time to once again rise to the defense of individual liberty.
You have the right to do what ever the hell you want to yourself. No one has the right to punish you for it. It is the fundamental right, without which, there is no other right possible. After all, how can you even vote for the politicians who are taking away these rights, if you don't have the right to make your own decisions in the first place? If I am not allowed to choose what to do to myself, then how am I "allowed" to vote?
It's time to get our nation back on the path of ensuring that all of us are treated as equals. I won't vote for someone who votes to deny rights to the citizens. I will only vote for people who understand that the government is charged with protecting those rights.
If you think you have a “right” in deciding whether one person you do not even know may freely enter into a lifetime bond with another whom you do not know, then you clearly do not understand the nature of minding your own business, and thus, cannot be trusted with power over others. If you want my vote, you have to address the fundamental question of our day: why in the world are we allowing our government to deny and withold the most fundamental of our rights as equal citizens? Most importantly: what are you going to do to bring it to a halt?
The question is not whether or not one has the right to smoke a joint, or have sex with another person of the same gender. The question is whether or not the government has the proper legitimate power to hold accountable and punish those who act upon themselves. It doesn't matter if the act in question is inhaling smoke from a plant or shoving a burning hot knitting needle into your own eye -- you cannot be legitimately punished by the rest of us for doing so.
The core principle that people fail to realize when they insist that you don't have the "right" to smoke pot, is that in saying so, they are agreeing with the supposition that the decisions you make about what you do to yourself can be voted against by the collective citizenry. In other words, your will toward yourself is subject to being voided by others claiming a superior power to do so based on outnumbering you.
The argument that what you do to yourself "affects others," and is therefore properly subject to inspection and revocation by a group of your fellow citizens, is easily dismissed with actual data. Getting a sunburn may lead to skin cancer -- should we make getting a sunburn illegal? If the criteria we apply to drugs are used to make the determination, then we certainly need to start no-knock raids to see if people are in possession of sunscreen. Those who have young children but do not have sunscreen should be arrested immediately and their children carted off and placed in foster homes to "protect" them.
Think it's absurd? According to the mortality data in the CDC's on-line mortality database, from 1979 through 1998 inclusive, all illegal drugs combined were the underlying cause of death for 44,727 people (out of 42,868,083 total deaths over the span). Meanwhile, over that same time, there were 121,001 deaths attributed to malignant melanoma of the skin.
So, if we need to punish people for using drugs because they might die, then we need to punish people who get sunburns for the same reason. Skin cancer is killing people at a rate nearly triple that of illegal drugs. And think for a moment: if the possibility of immediate death is not deterring people from using the drugs, then what good is *any* law you may dream up?
People dying "too young" from skin cancer "has affects on others." but then again, everything can be said to "affect" others -- that's what makes it such a crappy criteria for outlawing what one does to oneself.
Most people have heard of the theory that "if a butterfly flaps it's wings" off the coast of Africa, that the cumulative "effects" of having moved the air can eventually add up to a typhoon in Madagascar. Which could of course kill and otherwise "affect" lots of people. Bad butterflies!
What happens when you fart? Did fart power lead to hurricane Katrina?
And if every person is only six people away from any other person on earth -- then what is your link to bin Laden?
Drug use costs society money? Oops, fat people cost society over twice as much as those using illegal drugs. Obviously, it should be illegal to be fat. The really obese have all sorts of negative effects on those around them. Let’s round 'em up and lock 'em up -- then we can force them to exercise and control what they eat.
The issue is not whether or not you have the right to smoke pot -- the issue is that no one has the right to punish you for what you choose to do to yourself. Whether that involves smoking pot, shooting heroin, having sex with a cucumber, chopping your own hand from your body, leaping from airplanes, or merely laying around on the beach somewhere baking in the sun, the issue remains the same: no one has the right to punish you for doing something to yourself.
Any criteria you may wish to apply to support the drug war can be used against every person in the nation for some other equally specious "reason." The republic is in very grave danger. It is time to once again rise to the defense of individual liberty.
You have the right to do what ever the hell you want to yourself. No one has the right to punish you for it. It is the fundamental right, without which, there is no other right possible. After all, how can you even vote for the politicians who are taking away these rights, if you don't have the right to make your own decisions in the first place? If I am not allowed to choose what to do to myself, then how am I "allowed" to vote?
It's time to get our nation back on the path of ensuring that all of us are treated as equals. I won't vote for someone who votes to deny rights to the citizens. I will only vote for people who understand that the government is charged with protecting those rights.
Friday, July 21, 2006
MPP: YGBSM!!!
While everyone involved in drug law reform generally recognizes that the war on drugs is a tremendous waste of resources, I think it's time for some of the reform organizations to be raked over the same coals too. The bottom line on some of these organizations is that they are squandering huge amounts of money every year and getting absolutely nowhere. A huge case in point is the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).
I have actually been a dues paying member of MPP in the past and have been able to help some of the individuals from the organization with various things over the years. I still am willing to assist any and all who seek my aid -- but there is no way in hell I am ever going to send the MPP another dime.
That attitude has been developing over the past three years in particular as I observe from afar the tendency of the MPP to claim that every minor piddly-assed change in some aspect of marijuana laws is a huge "victory" for which they themselves deserve all the credit. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and the MPP deserves nothing more than a good solid kick in the ass.
Why do they deserve a kick in the ass? Because they are pissing away the millions of dollars they get in donations (primarily from one very wealthy individual). I'm not too worried about them pissing away these funds on things like their recent two-part 10-year anniversary galas. That's right, while many deserving and hard working grass-roots organizations are dying from lack of even a small amount of funding, these idiots are indulging in self-congratulatory back slapping. And for what?
They claim to be one of the "leading" organizations in drug law reform, and that they are out there fighting the battles and achieving many wonderful victories -- but to borrow a phrase from a recent GAO report on the drug czar's office (ONDCP): "Results Not Demonstrated." Sorry, but an ever escalating number of marijuana arrests year after year for several decades (including over the entire 10 year lifespan of the MPP), and the continuation of federal raids against medical marijuana operations in states that have "legal" medical marijuana, is not even close to something that can be described as a "victory."
Those factors, in and of themselves have caused me to view the MPP with a jaundiced eye for quite some time, but the capper came in the form of their latest (and I might add UNENDING) appeals for money. This time around their "anonymous" philanthropist has pledged to donate $3.5 million in matching funds, if the MPP manages to raise that much this year. That's exciting news, and certainly I do not fault the generosity of the donor. But I do fault the way that money is going to be pissed away by the MPP. Sorry guys, but all you ever actually do is piss away money. I saw the exact same thing going on during my 24 years of working for the federal government. I know fraud, waste and abuse when I see it.
The MPP says that if it can raise these funds it will be able to cover the complete costs of several of their "initiatives" planned for this year. Two of those initiatives are the focus of this little rant: one involves a ballot initiative in Nevada to "end marijuana prohibition entirely" (oops, that's just in Nevada, and only for pot -- the drug war in general is of no concern to MPP), and a medical marijuana initiative in South Dakota.
The South Dakota thing is what really got me wondering -- and given my nature as a person who digs down to find out what's really going on, I simply had to investigate. The whole thing just wasn't passing the smell test for me -- I could certainly understand trying to get the nations' bastion of immoral behavior to act as a launching platform for legalizing weed, but the South Dakota angle just baffled me. I mean, sure trying to get more medical marijuana initiatives seems like it may be a good idea -- but South Dakota!?!?!? They're the people who came up with this idea.
So I decided to find out a few crucial things about the states of Nevada and South Dakota to build a better framework of understanding as to exactly how many pot smokers could stand to benefit if the wonderful folks at MPP were to emerge "victorious" over these two initiatives. I tracked down the data for how many people actually live in those two states, how many past year marijuana smokers there are in those two states, and how many people are arrested for marijuana in those two states. All I can say about what I found is that I am completely shocked and disgusted that so much money, time and human resources are about to be wasted for such a paltry potential benefit.
Here's the Lowdown:
South Dakota ranks 46th in the nation in terms of overall population. They have been in 46th place for quite some time, including at the time of the last census (2000). In 2005, the estimated population for the entire state of South Dakota was (hold on to your hats) 775,933 people. In 2004, there were approximately 60,000 past year, and 31,000 past month South Dakota marijuana users. I don't know how many of them are seeking to use marijuana medically, but I do know that in 2004, there were 771,605 people arrested nationwide for marijuana offenses. The numbers aren't out yet for 2005, but I think it's a safe bet that when they are, the number of people arrested in the country annually for violating marijuana laws will exceed the entire population of South Dakota!
[Edit: 9/30/06 -- now they are, and would you look at that! Wow, a new record!!!! Who'da thunk it?]
For the sake of further putting this information in perspective, those 60,000 pot smokers in South Dakota (even if every one of them is a medical user) represent a mere two-tenths of one percent (0.236) of past year American pot smokers. I have nothing against the people of South Dakota, especially those who smoke pot or wish to use it medically, but good God almighty! I didn't bother to find out exactly how much of their multi-million piss fund is going to waste (literally) on this initiative, but I'm sure the other 25 million pot smokers out there in America should be similarly unimpressed with the mighty MPP as I am.
I couldn't find accurate data about how many (who am i kidding -- how few) people in South Dakota were arrested for marijuana in 2004, but I did find that there were 1,542 arrests for all drug related charges. Obviously, there is no reason in the world to believe that all of them were for marijuana, but even if they were, it still casts the MPP in a rather bad light, don't you think? Maybe they need more money to host "award galas" to celebrate their continued track record of "successes" in the drug war. Frankly, I'm not really sure whose side they are actually on if this is what they do to "advance" the cause of ending the persecution of pot smokers.
Moving on to Nevada, the numbers aren't that much better. Nevada ranks 35th in population with a 2005 count of 2,414,807 (at least that's more than the total national arrests for marijuana), and in 2004 there were 196,000 past year, and 114,000 past month marijuana users in Nevada. That works out to about 8.1 percent of the population being past year users and 4.7 percent being past month users. For the record, the national tallies are 10.6 percent for past year and 6.1 percent for past month use.
When it comes to arrests in Nevada, the waters are quite murky. The FBI tally for 2004 says there were 9,832 arrests for drug law violations in Nevada, but the state documentation says the tally was 10,708 in one of the tables in the document, but says there were 11,190 drug arrests in another part. The tally for marijuana offenses in Nevada during 2004: 97 (33 for sales, 64 for possession). Frankly, I don't buy it -- the numbers are surely much higher, but I'll be damned if I can find anything accurate anywhere.
In summary, the MPP has big plans this year to spend money fighting for the pot smokers in Nevada and South Dakota -- all 256,000 of them. For the other 25,195,000 pot smokers in the rest of the country (99 percent of the total) the MPP doesn't seem to have much to offer. So, for those 25 million people, I have two pieces of advice: don't get caught, and don't send money to the MPP.
Truly there are many, many, organizations that deserve to be getting donations from pot smokers, but the MPP isn't one of them. May I suggest that you send a donation to LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), or accept my challenge and send $1 to me.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Drug Czar Announces New Idiocy
On June 1, 2006 the ONDCP made its latest pronouncement concerning methamphetamines. Actually, it's worse than that -- they actually created yet another "strategy" document detailing their plans to continue to "combat meth" along with other synthetic drugs.
The main goal outlined by this "strategy" is to reduce past month use of methamphetamines by 15% over the next three years. Even on the surface, that hardly sounds ambitious -- especially given that such "goals" in the past have been as high as a 25 percent reduction for overall drug use (albeit over a five year span). So, in general, there is already a standing drug use reduction goal of 5% per year. But to truly appreciate exactly how asinine this latest pronouncement actually is requires that we first look at some additional data that will give us some perspective on the magnitude (actually lack thereof) of the issues. Then we can skewer the drug czar with the very information supplied to lay out the plan for this next big achievement in the battle against meth.
For starters, you will be hard pressed to find too many drugs that are used by fewer people than methamphetamines. If you pay attention to the mainstream media, you've certainly heard about how meth use is "epidemic" and that meth labs are exploding across the land. But the data about meth use indicate that it is nowhere near as dire as claimed. Indeed, 99.4 percent of all Americans have not used meth in the past year. The primary source of drug use data among the general population is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (latest version) and some really handy information about the use of various drugs and timeframes of use is in the very first table in Appendix H.
Right there, in that table, we can see that there were a mere 583,000 past month meth users in 2004. The population of American people 12 or older in 2004 was 240,515,000 according to Table G.2 in appendix G of the NSDUH. That means that a mere one-quarter of one percent (0.24) of the US population aged 12 or older was a past month meth user in 2004. In the year prior to that there were 607,000 past month meth users (0.256% of the population). That is a drop of 3.95% in the number of past month meth users in one year -- which happened two years before the "strategy" to reduce such use by 15 percent over three years. So meth use decreased all by itself without any special focus by the drug czar. If you set the bar low enough you actually do not have to accomplish anything to get the "desired" result and declare victory.
Even more interesting is the fact that the number of people who try methamphetamine for the first time is similarly low: in 2003 (latest figures available) there were 323,000 Americans who tried meth for the first time. That is one-tenth of one percent (0.136) of the population over age 12. Yep, 99.864 percent of Americans did not try meth for the first time in 2003. And only six-tenths of one-percent of Americans were past year meth users in 2004.
Indeed, the "fact sheet" in the report actually contains a chart depicting the steady decline in meth use from 2001 through 2005 which is even labeled to indicate that the number of past month users has declined by 36 percent over the past four years, past year use has declined 30% and the number who have ever used meth has declined by 34%. Wow, and that was before the problem became so immense that it required its own separate battle plan! Frankly, I'd be embarassed to publish a plan to decrease the use of meth by 5% per year given that all by itself it has declined an average of 9% per year in the case of past month use. But maybe that's why I'm the Anti-Drugwar Czar, instead of the "Drug Czar." And I'm completely baffled that the Drug Czar is bragging about how he got Mexico, China, Thailand, and India involved in his new amazing plan. How in the world are those countries going to help slow down the rate of decline in meth use to 5 percent per year instead of the natural 9 percent per year it has been declining? Perhaps they will import more meth to the US, or somehow get more people to use it next year.
So our drug czar is trumpeting a new campaign to accomplish very little in the name of combatting an issue that involves an extraordinarily small portion of the population. For the record, the number of new meth users actually peaked in 1979 at 465,000 first time users out of a total 180,343,000 Americans 12 or older (0.26%) in the population. Thus, even at it's "most popular" methamphetamine use is simply not very appealing to most people who use various drugs. Sabre rattling over meth use, is of course, demonstratably a popular activity for the drug czar. I guess he's hurting for "victories."
Saturday, May 06, 2006
The Medical Marijuana Morass
For the record, I personally don't care if marijuana is or is not medically efficacious. My basic take on the issue from the political standpoint is that it has always been a red herring and tremendous waste of resources. But from the medical standpoint, I say if it works for you, then great, go for it! After all, if we can have people having themselves stung by bees to treat pain, MS and various other ailments (which cannabis also seems to be effective for) -- while still others have bio toxins injected into their faces so they can pretend they aren't getting older -- then, surely, we can have people inhaling cannabinoids for their own purposes (medical or otherwise). Bottom line: if it works for you, then by all means, go ahead. Chronic pain is a horrible thing to deal with, and people in pain will literally try anything to make it go away (I know this personally, as I have been living in pain for the past 12 years). But make no mistake: our government doesn't want people to use marijuana for any reason. And they are prepared to go to great lengths and exercise great power against those who do.
The writing is on the wall, and it's time to pay attention: the FDA's recent announcement that smoked marijuana has no accepted medical use is going to result in some very ugly ramifications. The ugliest being that the DEA has just been given carte blanche to continue their campaigns against California's medical marijuana operations. All of you people are in very grave danger. The reason you are in so much danger is the confluence of several factors, among them: federal law trumps state law (otherwise known as abuse of the "commerce clause"), the DEA was petitioned long ago to re-schedule marijuana and deferred the issue to the FDA, and last -- the FDA just passed a death sentence on medical marijuana.
Add to the mix the fact that pharmaceutical preparations of natural cannabinoids extracted from marijuana are undergoing clinical trials in which they are being found medically efficacious, and it should be quite clear to the most thick-headed among us that California medical marijuana operations are in for a rash of raids from the DEA.
Yes, anyone studying the issue seriously will have no choice but to conclude that cannabinoids have medical utility. How else can it be explained that artificial THC is already an approved safe and effective medicine? However, the issue has been being debated since the 1970's, and all "progress" made by advocates of medical marijuana has been derailed by two factors: marijuana is irrevocably connected in the public mind to recreational substance use, and more importantly, there simply are not enough legitimate medical marijuana users to bring about the changes required.
The government won the propaganda war over medical marijuana long ago -- go back and read how they've adapted their language over the years. Once cannabinoids did prove themselves as medicine, the language of the propagandists adapted to it. They stopped saying that marijuana had no accepted medical use at all and started saying that smoked marijuana had no accepted medical use. They also went to great lengths to ensure that medical marijuana was viewed as a "backdoor to full legalization." Then they started adding in a little "science" by saying (rightly) that the actual dose received through smoking marijuana (or vaporizing it) could not be controlled with scientific rigor. It doesn't matter that a user can self-titrate based on the immediate feedback of inhaled cannabinoids. In the simplistic (and regrettably, entirely effective) jargon of drug war propaganda, marijuana as medicine is completely unscientific. Oh yeah, and "those people just want to get high."
By divorcing itself from the recreational movement, advocates of medical marijuana have dug themsleves into an untenable position, and they should literally start running for the hills -- 'cause there's a big assed target on your backs, and there simply are not enough of you to make a stand. Stop holding the recreational users at arms length and embrace the fact that their cause can include yours, but you have not allowed theirs to be part of yours. If you could just buy marijuana like beer, then you wouldn't have to go through all the political bullshit to use it for whatever ails you. Wake up already -- and, oh yeah, take cover! You're about to be under heavy fire.
Medical marijuana is dead. Sadly, it is likely that there will also be some humans dying along with it. We need a bigger army -- so it's time to unite for the one cause that makes sense: ending the war on drug users. Then people can use marijuana for whatever the hell they find it useful for -- as "God" intended.
The writing is on the wall, and it's time to pay attention: the FDA's recent announcement that smoked marijuana has no accepted medical use is going to result in some very ugly ramifications. The ugliest being that the DEA has just been given carte blanche to continue their campaigns against California's medical marijuana operations. All of you people are in very grave danger. The reason you are in so much danger is the confluence of several factors, among them: federal law trumps state law (otherwise known as abuse of the "commerce clause"), the DEA was petitioned long ago to re-schedule marijuana and deferred the issue to the FDA, and last -- the FDA just passed a death sentence on medical marijuana.
Add to the mix the fact that pharmaceutical preparations of natural cannabinoids extracted from marijuana are undergoing clinical trials in which they are being found medically efficacious, and it should be quite clear to the most thick-headed among us that California medical marijuana operations are in for a rash of raids from the DEA.
Yes, anyone studying the issue seriously will have no choice but to conclude that cannabinoids have medical utility. How else can it be explained that artificial THC is already an approved safe and effective medicine? However, the issue has been being debated since the 1970's, and all "progress" made by advocates of medical marijuana has been derailed by two factors: marijuana is irrevocably connected in the public mind to recreational substance use, and more importantly, there simply are not enough legitimate medical marijuana users to bring about the changes required.
The government won the propaganda war over medical marijuana long ago -- go back and read how they've adapted their language over the years. Once cannabinoids did prove themselves as medicine, the language of the propagandists adapted to it. They stopped saying that marijuana had no accepted medical use at all and started saying that smoked marijuana had no accepted medical use. They also went to great lengths to ensure that medical marijuana was viewed as a "backdoor to full legalization." Then they started adding in a little "science" by saying (rightly) that the actual dose received through smoking marijuana (or vaporizing it) could not be controlled with scientific rigor. It doesn't matter that a user can self-titrate based on the immediate feedback of inhaled cannabinoids. In the simplistic (and regrettably, entirely effective) jargon of drug war propaganda, marijuana as medicine is completely unscientific. Oh yeah, and "those people just want to get high."
By divorcing itself from the recreational movement, advocates of medical marijuana have dug themsleves into an untenable position, and they should literally start running for the hills -- 'cause there's a big assed target on your backs, and there simply are not enough of you to make a stand. Stop holding the recreational users at arms length and embrace the fact that their cause can include yours, but you have not allowed theirs to be part of yours. If you could just buy marijuana like beer, then you wouldn't have to go through all the political bullshit to use it for whatever ails you. Wake up already -- and, oh yeah, take cover! You're about to be under heavy fire.
Medical marijuana is dead. Sadly, it is likely that there will also be some humans dying along with it. We need a bigger army -- so it's time to unite for the one cause that makes sense: ending the war on drug users. Then people can use marijuana for whatever the hell they find it useful for -- as "God" intended.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Myths & Madness: the Meth Monster
First, let's be clear: Methamphetamine is a truly shitty drug. It really can cause a host of physical problems for those who use it excessively, it really is dangerous to make on your own, and it really can cause mental instability. However, the number of fools who suffer such a fate is mercifully very small, and it will always be a drug that is not widely abused simply because it really is "dangerous."
On the other hand, as usual, the "dangers" of meth are blown wildly out of proportion and nowhere near as dire as our government would have us believe. Meth use really isn't an "epidemic" running rampant in our society, and making us sign for our cold pills will do absolutely nothing to alter the fact that some small number of people will use methamphetamines for the fun of it.
By now, you should be more than familiar with the litany of government claims about the "threat" that meth poses to our society, but if not, go visit this page on the drug czar's site to refresh your memory. And then continue reading this so you can see how stupid and useless it really is to make believe that any of us are "threatened" by methamphetamines.
Would You Use It?
I don't know what the magic number is that qualifies something as an "epidemic," but if meth use qualifies for that attribute, then the number is incredibly small. You see, the number of people who use methamphetamines is in reality quite low. According to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2005), there were only 1.4 million past year users, and 600,000 past month users of methamphetamine in 2004. And only 318,000 were said to have used it for the first time within the 12 month period prior to the survey. That's out of a total potential customer base of 240,515,000 people aged 12 or older. Meth use is on par with adult use of ADHD drugs -- an estimated 1.5 million adults use them along with with 2.5 million children aged 4 (FOUR!!????) to 17. I haven't heard about the "ADHD drug epidemic" have you?
And for the record, initiation of meth use peaked in 1979 (at 465,000 new users) and it's certainly not a new "menace" -- merely one of a recurring merry-go-round of several. So let's do the math. Approximately one-tenth of one percent (0.1) of Americans tried meth for the first time, some one-quarter of one percent (0.25) of Americans are past month users, and some sixth-tenths (0.6) of one percent of Americans used it in the past year (verify). Epidemic? That's not even enough people to keep a crappy television show on the air.
Even People Who Like Drugs Don't Like Meth!
While the numbers above may strike some as a reason to continue the madness of drug war, I have to wonder why we don't hear about the "epidemic of hallucinogen use." Afterall, if meth qualifies, then hallucinogen use must be nearing "pandemic" proportion, since nearly three times as many people (934,000) tried them for the first time in 2004, and nearly 4 million used them in the past year. And marijuana use must surely be some kind of super-cosmic mega-pandemic given its popularity among Americans. For the record, in 2004 there were 34.8 million users of illicit drugs, 1.4 million of whom used methamphetamine, and 25.4 million of whom used marijuana. So even among people who like to use "illicit" drugs, only four percent were involved in the meth epidemic. Hmmmm, so 96 percent of the people who use illicit intoxicants did not use meth. So why am I standing in line and signing for the cold pills I could freely buy over the counter just last year? I say we make the meth users stand in line!
What About Addiction and Various Other Forms of Mayhem?
Given the general air of hysteria surrounding meth, it seems prudent to assess the actual measures of the havoc meth is said to wreak. Especially since mere use, in and of itself, is certainly not a measure of anything other than its (lack of) popularity. But the drug czar tells us that "mentions" of meth in hospital emergency rooms tallied up to 14,696 in 2002 (latest complete data available). Is that an "epidemic" measure? To answer the question we need to do some more simple math.
If every "mention" came from a different meth user then that means that just under one percent (0.95 percent) of past year meth users (2002 past year users: 1,541,000) made a "mention" of it in a hospital somewhere. Huh? That means that 99 percent of past year meth users didn't mention it in a hospital. Hmmmmm. Okay, what about drug rehab?
In 2002, there were 104,481 admissions for methamphetamine out of a user base of 1,541,000 past year users. That works out to about 6.8 percent of the past year users. So once again, an extremely large majority of meth users (93.2 percent) seem to be able to use the drug without ending up in rehab. These numbers simply can't qualify meth use, addiction, etc as anything other than a minor public health problem.
So Now Let's Look At A Real Public Health "Epidemic"
While the numbers above are the fuel for the government inspired and media-hyped boogeyman of the "meth-epidemic," another evil spectre goes largely unremarked. This particular disease afflicts nearly 21 million Americans, some 6 million of whom don't even realize they are "infected." This particular epidemic is said to have cost the United States $132 billion (yes Billion) in 2002, $40 billion of which was "indirect" costs (like lost worker productivity, premature death, etc) and a whopping $92 billion in direct medical costs. In addition, this particular epidemic was the underlying cause of death for 73,249 Americans in 2002, and implicated in the deaths of a total of 224,092 Americans that year.
The epidemic in question? Diabetes. If our nation is willing to engage in the war on drugs to address the "meth epidemic" to what extent will it act to curb the diabetes epidemic? Some 95 percent of all new diabetes cases are "Type 2" diabetes -- which is caused primarily by eating too much and exercising too little. If we win the war against meth, will we next fight a war on diabetes? Will we tolerate pre-dawn no-knock raids in which SWAT teams trash your house looking for sugar? Will there be mandatory exercise and dietary laws passed? Why not? On what grounds do we challenge the government's power to dictate our lives and our health?
If we are willing to accept what is done to combat the "meth epidemic" then we certainly ought to accept the same to combat the "diabetes epidemic" -- shouldn't we? One final note: do a couple of google searches -- one for meth epidemic and one for diabetes epidemic. Meth epidemic returns 883,000 hits, while diabetes epidemic returns 5,320,000 hits. Better drop that donut!
You've been warned.
On the other hand, as usual, the "dangers" of meth are blown wildly out of proportion and nowhere near as dire as our government would have us believe. Meth use really isn't an "epidemic" running rampant in our society, and making us sign for our cold pills will do absolutely nothing to alter the fact that some small number of people will use methamphetamines for the fun of it.
By now, you should be more than familiar with the litany of government claims about the "threat" that meth poses to our society, but if not, go visit this page on the drug czar's site to refresh your memory. And then continue reading this so you can see how stupid and useless it really is to make believe that any of us are "threatened" by methamphetamines.
Would You Use It?
I don't know what the magic number is that qualifies something as an "epidemic," but if meth use qualifies for that attribute, then the number is incredibly small. You see, the number of people who use methamphetamines is in reality quite low. According to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2005), there were only 1.4 million past year users, and 600,000 past month users of methamphetamine in 2004. And only 318,000 were said to have used it for the first time within the 12 month period prior to the survey. That's out of a total potential customer base of 240,515,000 people aged 12 or older. Meth use is on par with adult use of ADHD drugs -- an estimated 1.5 million adults use them along with with 2.5 million children aged 4 (FOUR!!????) to 17. I haven't heard about the "ADHD drug epidemic" have you?
And for the record, initiation of meth use peaked in 1979 (at 465,000 new users) and it's certainly not a new "menace" -- merely one of a recurring merry-go-round of several. So let's do the math. Approximately one-tenth of one percent (0.1) of Americans tried meth for the first time, some one-quarter of one percent (0.25) of Americans are past month users, and some sixth-tenths (0.6) of one percent of Americans used it in the past year (verify). Epidemic? That's not even enough people to keep a crappy television show on the air.
Even People Who Like Drugs Don't Like Meth!
While the numbers above may strike some as a reason to continue the madness of drug war, I have to wonder why we don't hear about the "epidemic of hallucinogen use." Afterall, if meth qualifies, then hallucinogen use must be nearing "pandemic" proportion, since nearly three times as many people (934,000) tried them for the first time in 2004, and nearly 4 million used them in the past year. And marijuana use must surely be some kind of super-cosmic mega-pandemic given its popularity among Americans. For the record, in 2004 there were 34.8 million users of illicit drugs, 1.4 million of whom used methamphetamine, and 25.4 million of whom used marijuana. So even among people who like to use "illicit" drugs, only four percent were involved in the meth epidemic. Hmmmm, so 96 percent of the people who use illicit intoxicants did not use meth. So why am I standing in line and signing for the cold pills I could freely buy over the counter just last year? I say we make the meth users stand in line!
What About Addiction and Various Other Forms of Mayhem?
Given the general air of hysteria surrounding meth, it seems prudent to assess the actual measures of the havoc meth is said to wreak. Especially since mere use, in and of itself, is certainly not a measure of anything other than its (lack of) popularity. But the drug czar tells us that "mentions" of meth in hospital emergency rooms tallied up to 14,696 in 2002 (latest complete data available). Is that an "epidemic" measure? To answer the question we need to do some more simple math.
If every "mention" came from a different meth user then that means that just under one percent (0.95 percent) of past year meth users (2002 past year users: 1,541,000) made a "mention" of it in a hospital somewhere. Huh? That means that 99 percent of past year meth users didn't mention it in a hospital. Hmmmmm. Okay, what about drug rehab?
In 2002, there were 104,481 admissions for methamphetamine out of a user base of 1,541,000 past year users. That works out to about 6.8 percent of the past year users. So once again, an extremely large majority of meth users (93.2 percent) seem to be able to use the drug without ending up in rehab. These numbers simply can't qualify meth use, addiction, etc as anything other than a minor public health problem.
So Now Let's Look At A Real Public Health "Epidemic"
While the numbers above are the fuel for the government inspired and media-hyped boogeyman of the "meth-epidemic," another evil spectre goes largely unremarked. This particular disease afflicts nearly 21 million Americans, some 6 million of whom don't even realize they are "infected." This particular epidemic is said to have cost the United States $132 billion (yes Billion) in 2002, $40 billion of which was "indirect" costs (like lost worker productivity, premature death, etc) and a whopping $92 billion in direct medical costs. In addition, this particular epidemic was the underlying cause of death for 73,249 Americans in 2002, and implicated in the deaths of a total of 224,092 Americans that year.
The epidemic in question? Diabetes. If our nation is willing to engage in the war on drugs to address the "meth epidemic" to what extent will it act to curb the diabetes epidemic? Some 95 percent of all new diabetes cases are "Type 2" diabetes -- which is caused primarily by eating too much and exercising too little. If we win the war against meth, will we next fight a war on diabetes? Will we tolerate pre-dawn no-knock raids in which SWAT teams trash your house looking for sugar? Will there be mandatory exercise and dietary laws passed? Why not? On what grounds do we challenge the government's power to dictate our lives and our health?
If we are willing to accept what is done to combat the "meth epidemic" then we certainly ought to accept the same to combat the "diabetes epidemic" -- shouldn't we? One final note: do a couple of google searches -- one for meth epidemic and one for diabetes epidemic. Meth epidemic returns 883,000 hits, while diabetes epidemic returns 5,320,000 hits. Better drop that donut!
Thursday, September 08, 2005
It's Time For Another Tea Party
Among the more comical aspects of the drug war is the government's proclivity for creating what they no doubt feel are pretty snappy sounding names for the big operations being regularly undertaken and proclaimed as glorious "victories" in the war on drugs. The inanity of some of those operations (like the dragnet directed against internet glass vendors) deserves to be ridiculed in its own spotlight, so I'll take care of it in due course. For right now, I want to focus on a little operation of my own -- Operation Orange Pekoe.
Operation Orange Pekoe
What I hope to do is create a new "Boston Tea Party." Orange Pekoe is a kind of tea (it's the stuff you find in any common tea bag) -- which when burned, just happens to smell a whole lot like the fake marijuana tablets that are used to teach people what burning marijuana smells like. Frankly, to me it just smells like burning leaves, but it fits the bill for getting attention in two big ways: it is tea, and you can roll it in a joint and smoke it in public where people will assume that it is the real deal. In some places, doing that can get you arrested -- good! When people get arrested for smoking tea, that is called "news" -- and getting attention is the name of the game.
One of the more important missing elements in the anti-drugwar movement is the use of coordinated publicity stunts. At the grass roots level, some good stuff is going on -- for example, Howard Wooldridge of LEAP is doing a coast to coast horseback ride spreading the message that "Cops say legalize drugs." Then there is Ed Forchion, the NJ Weedman -- a guy who has sadly enough had to pack it in due to a lack of support. Ed is simply an amazing guy and true American patriot -- unfortunately, he also publicly admits that he likes to use marijuana. Ed defends himself in court -- and wins! Ed has the courage of his convictions to the extent that he actually blazed up at the Liberty Bell one Fourth of July.
Unfortunately, there just aren't enough Ed Forchion's in the world, brave enough to take that kind of stand. But what if we could come up with a stunt that would be relatively "safe" to participate in, and was something that is almost guaranteed to get attention?
What I hope to do is create a new "Boston Tea Party." Orange Pekoe is a kind of tea (it's the stuff you find in any common tea bag) -- which when burned, just happens to smell a whole lot like the fake marijuana tablets that are used to teach people what burning marijuana smells like. Frankly, to me it just smells like burning leaves, but it fits the bill for getting attention in two big ways: it is tea, and you can roll it in a joint and smoke it in public where people will assume that it is the real deal. In some places, doing that can get you arrested -- good! When people get arrested for smoking tea, that is called "news" -- and getting attention is the name of the game.
Any large gathering of people will be a great opportunity to pull off Operation Orange Pekoe. So the Million Marijuana March at first glance seems like it would be a great place to do it. There is a minor problem with that idea, though: when people are marching specifically for marijuana legalization, it just doesn't get much attention (google for it yourself -- the media has no interest). Worse yet, people expect people to be arrested for pot at such events, so it may not be as effective as a neutral celebratory event where the focus is not on drugs and where there are a large number of people: something like the 4th of July.
I think the 4th of July is a perfect time to do this for two reasons: the symbolic value, and the fact that there will be a lot of people at such events -- and a lot of potential attention. Imagine being arrested on Independence Day by smoking tea in public in the name of your independence! If we pull it off, it will absolutely make the history books. I'll be doing it -- and I hope I get arrested for it.
Obviously, the more people who participate (and the more who face society's misplaced wrath for doing so), the better off we are. And the more publicity we get in advance, the better too. So start spreading the word, Operation Orange Pekoe has been officially launched as of Sep 8, 2005. Target date Jul 4, 2006 -- it's time for another tea party!
Monday, May 16, 2005
There's A Monster On The Loose
Whether or not you've actually been paying attention, the time has come for every American to open his or her eyes and, rather than recoiling in fear at the sight, muster the courage to join those allying in the interest of slaying the beast once and for all.
This particular monster lives on fear and becomes ever more powerful simply because those in a positon to know better have taken to feeding the damn thing on a steady diet of the minds of our young people. Unwitting or not, as it turns out, most people don't ever see it until it's too late.
The monster has three heads, each of which is capable of inflicting incredible pain and violence in its own right. When they work together as a single unit, however, the heads are nearly invincible. Those three heads are: ignorance, intolerance, and injustice, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Ignorance: uses the tools of deception and fear. It mesmerizes its prey through a constant flow of hypnotic pronouncements, most frequently in the guise of protecting the young. The best defense against this head is the shield of truth. But defending against this head alone will not slay the monster -- remember that there are still two other heads to deal with.
Intolerance: is a particularly difficult enemy. Its weapons of choice are denigration and subjugation. It whispers a message gently and constantly in the ears of its prey: "they are different ... different is strange ... strange is bad ... bad is evil ... destroy the evil." The best defense against this head is the ability to recognize the basic humanity of each of us. Religion is supposed to imbue one with this characteristic, but simple observation of the world around us indicates that the lesson is yet to be learned.
Injustice: is the weakest of the heads -- but while the other two heads still exist it simply cannot be defeated. Injustice uses the color of law to cloak itself, hiding behind the self-righteousness provided by intolerance, and the misdirections of ignorance. This head may be merely parried until the other two heads are cleaved from the monster's body when the final death blow may be delivered against the beast.
America where are you now
Don't you care about your sons and daughters
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster
-- from "Monster," by Steppenwolf
In light of the above, I have adopted "Monster" as the official song of the anti-drugwar czar. Read the complete song lyrics on my site, and start arming yourself for battle. This thing must be slain.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Why I Call It "Drugwar" Instead of Drug War
04/18/05 Note: While I thought I was quite clever using the term "drugwar" as a single word, it turns out that I was actually beaten to the punch by Arnold Trebach in his book "The Great Drug War," originally published in 1987 (page 353). It is no surprise that Arnold got there first -- he's been paving this road ahead of many of the rest of us for quite some time, and in reality is the original "anti-drugwar czar." Arnold is of course, prescient enough to have also coined at the same time the corollary term "drugpeace," which is ultimately the goal of those involved in reforming our drug laws. Visit his site: http://www.trebach.org
While doing the research on what most people call the War on Drugs or "Drug War," two things quickly became evident to me: there are actually a wide variety of wars on drugs that have been declared throughout the past century; and more importantly, that the whole sordid mess is an endless cycle of repetitive and largely fruitless activity.
Given that a common folk definition of "insanity" is repeating the same act continuously with the expectations of a differing result, I believe that the Drug War fits within the scope of that definition. Thus, I decided to differentiate the term "Drug War" -- which is best understood in terms of the traditional activities of hunting down and capturing those who grow, manufacture, transport and or use the drugs -- and I began using the term "drugwar" to describe what I regard as a type of societal psychosis.
It is thus my contention that the following symptoms of Drug War indicate the presence of the mental illness I am calling "drugwar." The list of symptoms is adapted from the diagnostic criteria for "substance abuse disorders." Here then, is a brief review of the symptoms, and the verifiable evidence that the symptom is present:
- A. Pattern of pathological activity
- must be done daily to feel "normal" -- can anyone imagine the government letting a day go by without fighting the Drug War? Hell, they had cease fires and truces in just about every other war in history -- except this one.
- inability to cut down or stop -- arguments to put a stop to the Drug War have indeed been being made over the past four decades of the Drug War, but they are met with vociferous and violent opposition from the patient. Threats to cut the Drug War budget or in any way let up on it are met with howls of protest, in which the patient claims dire consequences of almost biblical proportion.
- repeated efforts to control or reduce excess -- there is plenty of available evidence of excess in the form of wrongful arrests, "oops, wrong house" raids, and corruption of officials. Attempts are made by the patient to correct these problems, but the patient always relapses back into the undesired behaviors.
- binges -- every several years, those infected with drugwar go to great lengths to conduct largescale "operations" that yield quantities of drugs, an occasional dead person, and multiple arrests. The next morning, it is back to business as usual ... because the aforementioned did nothing to alter the status quo.
- must be done daily to feel "normal" -- can anyone imagine the government letting a day go by without fighting the Drug War? Hell, they had cease fires and truces in just about every other war in history -- except this one.
- B. Impairment in social or occupational functioning
- violence -- this is the ugliest side of drugwar. The violence inflicted by those suffering from drugwar runs the gamut from a simple wrestling match to keep a suspect from swallowing a crack rock, all the way to low-intensity conflict involving automatic weapons and military hardware.
- legal difficulties -- arresting users sounds like a great idea ... until the courts get overwhelmed. Forcing people to choose between incarceration and treatment sounds like a great idea ... until the prisons are overcrowded and the waiting list for "treatment" is three years long.
- arguments or difficulties with family or friends -- our closest neighbors are the targets of some of the harshest attacks by those infected with drugwar.
- tolerance -- how many more senseles deaths and trillions of dollars need to be wasted in the name of "saving just one life?"
- withdrawal symptoms -- listen to the pronouncements of the "drug czar" and the lawmakers when you ask them to cut their budgets.
- violence -- this is the ugliest side of drugwar. The violence inflicted by those suffering from drugwar runs the gamut from a simple wrestling match to keep a suspect from swallowing a crack rock, all the way to low-intensity conflict involving automatic weapons and military hardware.
- C. Duration of disturbance of at least one month
As it turns out, the patient has been ill for nearly 100 years.
In light of these facts, there can be no serious argument against my claim that our society is suffering from a chronic epidemic of a form of societal psychosis I call "drugwar."
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Meth, Hillbilly Heroin & Drinking Shoe Polish
If there is a single lesson that should have been learned over the past century of drug war, it is this: people will do just about anything to get high. Boredom can do nothing but amplify this tendency, and thus we have the recipe for rural America's latest drug crisis (or, if you prefer, epidemic) "meth" use. Alcohol has a great reputation in the same parts of America where meth use is rampant. It isn’t the drugs, when you think about it -- some people are just assholes. As usual, the media and various prohibitionists are doing their best to alarm the public over this latest "threat" to society. Of course, none of this would be happening in the first place had we learned anything at all from alcohol prohibition.
The factors cited by those who set the fires usually include (but are not limited to, of course): the dangers presented to the public by such things as "meth labs," and the endless drone of how "drugs are dangerous and destroy people's lives." While the name of the particular drug involved changes with the frequency of fashion vogues, the "danger" is always blown wildly out of proportion from what the government's own data already tells us.
What makes things worse is that meth has been the whipping boy of the moment on several different occasions over the past three decades (and the same for amphetamines in pill form for the past five decades). Proving once again that the drugwar is an endless cycle of social psychosis. I can't emphasize the following enough: it is a sign of intelligence to learn from experience. The usual argument is that: "We learned how bad alcohol and tobacco were, but it was already too late. Why make the same mistake again?"
That almost sounds reasonable. At least until you consider that alcohol causes way more problems in society than all illegal drugs combined. Clearly, especially given the biological drive behind getting high, our society needs alternatives to alcohol when our citizens succumb to the urge to twiddle themselves. Clearly, drug use itself can not and never will be "stamped out." Research the animal kingdom and the use of intoxicants. The only way to "stamp out" the human desire to intoxicate, is to remove the sense of self -- otherwise known as a lobotomy. No brain, no pleasure, no drug use. Problem solved. Get in line.
Given that we stand no chance against biology then, how can we make the use of drugs "safer" both for those so inclined, and for society at large? Now, I know this is going to sound a bit extremist, but the most sure-fire way to stop the havoc being wreaked on society by home made meth-labs, is to leave the manufacturing process to the professionals. No, not the underground chemists who do it the best, but the pharmaceutical companies already in the drug making business. Whoda thunkit? Hell, then you could even buy more than one pack of cold pills at a time.
Then too, the pharmaceutical companies can legally sell the product to people who wish to use it. Where would it be sold? How about a drug store? Alongside all the other "dangerous" chemical preparations -- like cough syrups. What about the children? Your job dummy!
What about all the extra addicts caused by the "message" that drug use is okay? Here's a thought: try a message worth a crap. How about: "Hey this is really dangerous and stupid, and you are a fool for doing it, but we'd rather not see you drinking shoe polish just to catch a buzz." Why would people who don't use drugs suddenly start doing drugs? Simply because it became legal to do so? Ultimately, it doesn't matter who uses what drugs: it's nobody's business. The best way to not send messages about drug use is to mind your own business -- and other people's drug use really is none of your business.
Now back to boredom in America's heartland. You may not have noticed, but there is no "cure" for boredom. Different people like to do different things to amuse themselves. We're all different, and none of us wants to be like you. So the secret to really 'solving' the drug use issue is to let the users decide for themselves what drugs they want to use. An open market would ensure a variety of drugs were available, and thus minimize the use of the more dangerous ones -- including alcohol. If the Bush admin's Social Security plan for "letting" people make decisions is a good thing, then clearly, a person should be "allowed" to decide for themselves what they do to their body or mind.
People will do almost anything to get high. We simply will not stop that, so let's try making it safer. For all of us.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
BC Bud: Collateral Damage
Note: The original reports linking the raid to a marijuana grow operation were in error. Although a grow operation was found, it was not the original impetus of the raid. 3/22/05
Today's irksome news is a story of how 4 members of Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police have lost their lives after doing a raid on a marijuana grow operation. This was no home grower working to maintain his own habit however, but instead a man running a major criminal enterprise, made possible by the refusal of some people to understand that you can't prevent human beings from playing with themselves.
It is incomprehensible and unconscionable that these four people lost their lives following orders to do something supremely stupid, ineffective, and inherently illogical, but we can only expect more of the same as long as people buy into the nonsense over the "dangers" of intoxicant use. The flames of that particular exercise in futility are constantly fanned by the news media, which is the real target of today's screed.
I read the report of this incident in the New York Times , which in keeping with a long-standing media tradition to pass along government bullshit without question, had a sidebar article about the horrifying increase of marijuana mentions in US emergency treatment centers. For at least the past two years the US drug czar has been busy trying to scare Americans over the "super-powerful" marijuana grown in BC and smuggled to the US. According to the drug czar, the reason so many people are going to the emergency room over marijuana is fueled largely by more potent weed than people had back in the day. (That, in and of itself, is simply not true, but I know there will be plenty of opportunity to enlighten others over that in the future.)
As usual, the problem is not so much with what the drug czar says, as it is with what he doesn't say -- and the news media doesn't bother checking into. The key thing to know about these emergency room visits over marijuana is that it simply doesn't matter that the number of such visits has tripled over a ten year period. The reason that the number of these visits doesn't add up to much is simply this: out of all the people who actually use marijuana, less than one-half of one percent of them end up in the emergency room over it.
One can rightly expect that the American drug czar would be reluctant to call attention to the fact that his entire operation is useless and unnecessary, but when the "newspaper of record" fails to do its job, we all end up paying the price for it. To help set the record straight over marijuana take a look at this: http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nutshell-marijuana.
Marijuana is nowhere near as scary as they want us to think.
How do you ask someone to be the last person to die over something so incredibly stupid? Worse, how many more have to die before we wake up and put an end to this nonsense once and for all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)