What have they spent a majority of this money on? Ineffectual advertisements to somehow diminish the rates of marijuana consumption in the U.S. The two items in the headline are examples of this ineffectual advertisement, posted to their blog.

Why anyone would spend so much money to combat a chemical that has never induced an overdose, and is of questionable harm, is itself a separate topic. What is not a separate topic is that these media buys, a large portion of the ONDCP budget, have no indication of doing anything outside of funneling money into media stations. That money could be much better used, say, in funding needle exchanges, which save lives daily.

Or, 130 million towards training for the use of and distributing Narcan could probably stop up to half of the yearly overdoses in the United States.

The opposition to Narcan and needle exchanges often decry helping out “junkies.” I have no problem with people opposing the helping out of junkies – but only respect consistency. It is because of a perceived need to “help” the public welfare that drugs are (ostensibly) illegal in the first place. If you’re against Narcan distribution and needle exchanges because they “help junkies,” you’re a hypocrite to support the drug war.

Don’t think the opposite is true though – those of us that support needle exchanges are most often against the drug war, precisely because it fails to protect anyone from anything, and instead punishes people who either 1) don’t really have problems outside of ones created by prohibition, 2) have problems not related to prohibition and need help, not punishment, or 3) are merely around someone in situation #1 or #2.

So while people are outraged by multi-billion dollar bailouts with no consequences or demands to multi-billion dollar financial firms, keep in mind that since 1988, the federal government has been in effect bailing out the media by handing free money over to publish, print, transmit, and send ineffectual propaganda to the American public. All without much outrage by the U.S. public. Recently, that propaganda has focused on marijuana, which has never caused one overdose on record, despite propaganda from another federally-funded agency: the D.E.A. I’m outraged.

Up Next: The D.E.A. and Public Support for Non-Sequitur Arguments Against Marijuana

Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek

‘The legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. The mortal danger of thinking that marijuana is “medicine” was graphically illustrated by a story from California. In the spring of 2004, Irma Perez was “in the throes of her first experience with the drug ecstasy” when, after taking one ecstasy tablet, she became ill and told friends that she felt like she was “going to die.” Two teenage acquaintances did not seek medical care and instead tried to get Perez to smoke marijuana. When that failed due to her seizures, the friends tried to force-feed marijuana leaves to her, “apparently because [they] knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients.” Irma Perez lost consciousness and died a few days later when she was taken off life support. She was 14 years old.’

So, because some kids tried to use marijuana as medicine to treat someone for an ecstasy overdose, that’s a danger of thinking of marijuana as medicine? I’m pretty sure that no matter what medicine was used, outside of a charcoal tablet or something to that effect, Irma was not going to be “helped” by any medicine. Does that mean it’s dangerous to think of cough syrup as medicine? Because she would probably have died if her friends made her drink cough medicine as well. That’s the danger of guifeisen for sure! Ban! Ban! Ban! Guifeisen doesn’t cure ecstasy overdose, ergo it’s dangerous to think of Guifeisen as medicine!

Okay, enough of my mimicry. The D.E.A.’s next fallacy is one known as “ad hominem” or attacking the person, instead of the argument. It also has a bonus prize of hidden premise:

‘A few billionaires—not broad grassroots support—started and sustain the “medical” marijuana and drug legalization movements in the United States. Without their money and influence, the drug legalization movement would shrivel. According to National Families in Action, four individuals – George Soros, Peter Lewis, George Zimmer and John Sperling – contributed $1,510,000 to the effort to pass a “medical” marijuana law in California in 1996, a sum representing nearly 60 per cent of the total contributions.’

If a few billionaires fund the medical marijuana movements, so what? What exactly does that prove? As for the broad grassroots support, the hidden premise is that they don’t exist because there isn’t funding from them. A better read is that the grassroots support for medical marijuana are often patients, which the D.E.A. regularly calls, “criminals.” Does anyone really wonder why they’re not making their identities, much less their financial activities, known to the federal government? If someone who can lock you up is calling you a criminal, do you really want to give them your name?

Taking things a step further, without the coerced extraction of funds from the federal taxpayer, the D.E.A. and ONDCP, and hell, almost every last drug warrior (even D.A.R.E. programs and the Partnership for a Drug Free America take federal [pork] disbursements) and their prohibition policy would “shrivel.” At least the ‘legalization movement’ as they call it rely on voluntary contributions.

Finally, 1.5 million in 1996 as a significant figure? How about the billions spent yearly on drug prohibition, with only millions of prisoners to show for it? Or the 130 million spent by ONDCP to promote drug prohibition (though, to be fair, it was probably only 90 million in 1996, outspending these “billionaires” by a factor of 60)? A majority of this money is spent against marijuana, the same substance that has no known overdose, ever. Water can’t even claim that kind of safety.

There’s more, but really, need I say it (I probably will in a later blog regardless)?

Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek

I asked Jess if she could write up a blog post reflecting on the experience. Here is what she had to say:

Two weeks ago Chris Steffner came to my high school — a public school in New Jersey — to advocate for random student drug testing at my school’s board meeting. I raced back to my home town to deliver the urgent message that random student drug testing is wrong for my high school, and it’s wrong for young adults.

During the public comment period, I emphasized that my school is comprised of a small community of people in which, as is the case at many high schools, everybody knows everybody else’s business. I cannot overestimate the degree of psychological trauma a student would face if labeled by his peers and his teachers as a “drug user,” a “bad influence,” or “one of the bad kids.” You and I both know that if a teenager is repeatedly treated as a deviant, or someone who is not to be trusted, s/he will begin to act that way.

Research shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to develop substance abuse problems. In addition, after-school programs offer students who are abusing drugs productive activities as well as contact with teachers, coaches, and peers, who can help them identify and address problematic drug use. Yet, random student drug testing relies on the punishment of removing students who test positive from these programs, giving them more time to engage in the very thing that random student drug testing seeks to prevent – more drug use.

I believe that there are more effective ways to keep teens out of trouble with drugs. We should continue to engage students in after-school programs that grow their self-esteem and keep them out of trouble. We should continue to cultivate trusting, respectful relationships among students and teachers – young people who enjoy the confidence of their parents and teachers, and who are expected to assume responsibility for their actions, and the most likely to act responsibly. We might also think about incorporating science-based drug education into the school curriculum that, instead of using ineffective and dishonest scare tactics, recognizes and seeks to address the reasons why young people might choose to use, or not use, drugs.

The public comment period went extremely well — only two people testified in favor of random drug testing, and they weren’t even residents of my town. Community parents were overwhelmingly opposed to random drug testing, and over twenty of them got up to say so. We await the board’s decision in hopes that they will vote against random student drug testing, and for students’ health, happiness, and constitutional right to privacy.

The really exciting news is that we just learned today that the Bernards Board of Education voted down the student drug testing proposal!! This is really something to be thankful for. We’ll send more details next week.

Posted by Jennifer Kern

According to the Los Angeles Times, November 30, 2008 Sunday Home Edition, Mexico is now extraditing suspected drug smugglers at a record rate to the United States, for prosecution here.

While the U.S. does send suspected criminals to Mexico for prosecution, it is not nearly at the same rate. From the Times story:

“Mexico extradited 83 suspects to the United States last year and has handed over about 70 so far this year, according to U.S. figures. Fifty-one more cases await approval by Mexican judges. In return, U.S. authorities say that they have sent 26 wanted suspects to Mexico this year, a record.”

Clearly, our ratio is worse than the Thunderdome in the Mad Max movie: there two men entered, and one man left. For the U.S.? It’s closer to three suspects enter (and might even reach five) for every suspect that leaves.

While the numbers are relatively small, somehow I doubt this practice will help change the fact that the U.S. imprisons more people, at a higher ratio, than anyone else in the world. Not to mention that our conviction rates at the federal level are larger than accepted margins for human error – meaning that we have to accept at this point that we lock up innocent people in pursuit of our prohibition policies for some drugs.

All of this comes on the heels of another study by a Washington D.C. think-tank, this time the Brooking’s Institute, stating that our policies are an absolute failure. Why are we so hell-bent on exporting this failure? Probably because it’s easier to justify a failed policy, so long as “everyone else is doing it too.”

And yes, that was tongue-in-cheek. I am, after all, a child of the 80’s, growing up with ludicrous anti-drug ads.

Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek

Author Wendy Chapkis, professor of Sociology and Women and Gender Studies at the University of Southern Maine, is reading from her book Dying to Get High: Marijuana as Medicine at Bluestockings in the East Village this evening at 7 pm. What I would give to be in New York tonight!

Having previously tackled research on prostitution and published Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor and Beauty Secrets: Women and the Politics of Appearance, Chapkis turns to the war on drugs. I’ve only read the introduction – but I’m hooked and can’t wait to read the whole book. She is one of those smart, fearless writers who doesn’t pretend to be objective. It always makes me angry when researchers pretend they’re unbiased – there are always cultural lenses at play, always feelings and perspectives and ideas that make up who you are as a human. Those aren’t erased just because you’re researching something; there’s no clean slate to start from. By admitting who you are and where you’re coming from in the first place, your research – your story – stands on more honest footing and is easier to understand. Folks in Chapkis’ community have struggled with medical marijuana issues for years, and helped get Prop 215, California’s Compassionate Use Act, passed in 1996. They went on to found a medical marijuana cooperative for patients and caregivers to help seriously ill folks grow their own medicine.

Her book investigates the struggle with the federal government for the right to use marijuana, and portrays the chronically ill – many dying of AIDS – and their caregivers fighting for their rights. She’s a phenomenal writer, and dedicates this book “to the many WAMM [Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana] members who died during the decade in which this account was crafter, as well as to all those still active, still defiant, still demanding alternatives to war.”

So. Get out and celebrate World AIDS Day today. Fight for a better future.

If you’re in New York, go to tonight’s event!

If you’re in DC, join DC Fights Back.

If you’re somewhere else … well, I’m sure there’s something. If nothing else, join the Facebook event Don’t Be (RED)ICULESS on World AIDS Day – buy less and give more!

Posted by Vera Leone

Called “the Noble Experiment,” more of a misnomer; it was an experiment in suppressing the sovereign rights of U.S. citizenry over their own bodies. There’s nothing noble about forcing people, through punishment, to live according to someone else’s morality. Especially when it comes to restricting what they do with their own bodies.

Unfortunately, common sense in one area does not necessarily translate to common sense everywhere. Somehow, the lessons of Prohibition have not left their mark on the American People. There’s a great capacity to forgive and forget, and in this particular case, bad policies were forgiven, and now forgotten, even as bad policies stare in our face everyday, as (some) drug prohibition continues on.

As Ethan Nadelmann stated in the Wall Street Journal today (paraphrased): the devil you do know scares you less than the devil you don’t.

I can vouch for that. When I was locked up in federal prison for Conspiracy to Distribute LSD, I had a case manager quip during a ‘progress’ meeting: “I haven’t seen an LSD case in almost a hundred years!”

Yes, LSD cases are rare. Since the heyday of prosecution in the 70’s, LSD has fallen off the map of priorities to the federal government. LSD cases have become more and more rare through the 80’s and 90’s, even to today. Even more rare was for me to hold my tongue: “hard to imagine [not seeing an LSD case for a hundred years] that, considering it’s only been illegal for 36 [at the time] years.”

The point being that the prison staff member couldn’t imagine a world where LSD wasn’t illegal, and similarly, in his head, it always had been. He couldn’t think in terms of the drug war being a rather novel (not to mention fruitless) approach towards handling certain substances in a society.

People might hate the comparison, but it’s like being in the Antebellum South, and imagining a world with interracial couples being a norm, rather than exception.

The bottom line? Common sense won over prejudice. An experiment in repression clearly demonstrated to be a failure was abandoned. It might be because they called it an “experiment” rather than a “war” that it was repealed. No matter what the case, however, it is a common sense that we need to import to these modern times.

So while a lot of people will be celebrating today, I will not. Over 500,000 people remain in prison because of prohibition – just not alcohol prohibition. I’ll celebrate when they’re let free – not just because they’re unjustly punished, but because our society will finally be one major step closer towards truly being the land of the free.

Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek

The original action was brought on April 5, 2001. Along the way, one of the federal judges hearing the present case decided that the only way California would improve its prisoner treatment was if he assigned an outsider to take control.

The narrow question that the prisoners must answer in the positive in the three to four weeks of testimony is: does the overcrowding of California’s prisons cause the constitutionally deficient care the prisoners receive? California has about 172,000 inmates, almost double its prison capacity. Plaintiffs seek to limit the population of California’s 33 prisons to 104,000, requiring the release of 52,000 inmates to county jails, treatment centers and parole. If the judges are convinced by the plaintiffs, they will order a cap on the maximum prisoner population and could leave it to the state to figure out what to do with the excess prisoners.

Testimony from the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s witnesses converge on several points. California has one of the most overcrowded, overburdened prison systems in the country. According to one witness for the defense, every year around 140,000 prisoners go into the system, and 140,000 come out of the system. The average stay of an inmate is less than a year.

Condensing all of the testimony and evidence into the narrow quesiton presented by the court poses a challenge for both sides. Today Judge Henderson told the plaintiff during his cross examination that his lengthy questioning of the witness was “torturing us.”

However one views the massive evidence and testimony, the real missed opportunity here seems to be the questions not being asked.

If all goes according to plaintiff’s plans, the judges will find that prison overcrowding is the cause of the horrible, non-existent care that the inmates receive. Let us assume for a moment that such a decision will not be appealed to the Supreme Court (it will). The three judge panel will order the state of California to cap its prison population at 104,000.

California will then decide how to decide who to let out. Should they release those prisoners who are least likely to commit another crime? It turns out that the prisoners who commit “low level” offenses like property crimes are far more likely to commit another crime than a second degree murderer.

Is the criteria for release who is most likely to return to prison or who has committed the least objectionable crime?

Which brings me to my point: a very high percentage of prisoners that commit property and other low level crimes do so to satisfy their addiction to drugs. They commit crime because they cannot afford to satisfy their addiction. So, many “low level” offenders commit more crimes because they crave more drugs.

We the taxpayer are supporting a system that finds it wise to spend over $40,000 per year on someone because they committed a crime to feed a drug habit. How much would it cost to maintain that “criminal” on a regime of his addicted drug and provide him with job counseling? How much would be saved in property crimes prevented because the “criminal” did not have to steal to get a drug, not to mention the exorbitant costs of incarceration? How many lives would be saved by sparing thousands from the prison system?

In Switzerland, crime by heroin addicts has fallen 60 per cent since an initiative to allow health clinics to administer controlled doses of the drug began 14 years ago, according to the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Swiss voters just passed a landmark law to provide free heroin to registered addicts.

Imagine if the federal judiciary could convene a three judge panel that asks a slightly broader question: “Is drug prohibition, three strikes, and the imposition of three years of parole on every released prisoner the cause of the prison overcrowding crises in the state of California?” Starting with the proposition that from 1982 to 2000, California’s prison population grew at a rate of 500%, I think the plaintiffs would have a strong case.

Posted by J. Gibson Verkuil