Constitutional conundrum

I know the constitutional issues at play here are a little more complex than this, but:

Isn't it strange that the Supreme Court says doctors in Oregon can kill people but aren't allowed to give them medical marijuana?

A film the Drug Czar doesn't want you to see

Filmmaker John Holowach asked me to plug the premiere of his new documentary "HIGH: The True Tale of American Marijuana," which is being hosted by the Ohio State University SSDP chapter.

Details:

* February 28th, 2006 @ 7:30 P.M.
* Campbell Hall, Room 220; Ohio State University; Columbus, OH
* Admission: $5, which will directly benefit OSU SSDP
* There will be a Q&A session with John Holowach after the film
* Here are directions to the building
* E-mail osussdp[at]gmail[dot]com for more info

I've seen an advanced copy of the film, and it's very entertaining and moving. You can check out the trailer here.

Interestingly, John began researching the film while still a high school student (in his words) "under the influence of DARE." Just another positive unintended consequence of good ol' DARE (not unlike the founding and growth of SSDP itself)...

Contact John if you'd like more info about the film, especially if you're a student and would like to host a screening.

The plant is vindicated in Britain

This is a happy ending to the story that I made note of upon its advent.

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, today ruled out another reclassification of cannabis despite recent warnings that the drug can cause serious mental illness.

Mr Clarke said cannabis would not be changed back to a class B drug, instead announcing a public health campaign to warn people of the health risks associated with its use.

He told MPs that his decision to keep cannabis as a class C drug had followed advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and was supported by police and most drug and mental health charities.

The council's unpublished report is said to have concluded that the risk of someone developing schizophrenia as a result of using cannabis was "very small".

It is believed to have said it was a "substantially less" harmful drug than those currently classified as class B, including amphetamines such as speed and barbiturates.

Celebrate, blokes!

SSDP has a new executive director

SSDP is excited to announce that the Board of Directors has selected Kris Krane to lead our organization as executive director. Kris comes to SSDP with a wealth of knowledge and experience in drug policy reform, having served as associate director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) for the past five years.

Kris was an active member of SSDP while attending American University, and has played a key role in the explosive and sustained growth of NORML's student activist network.

The SSDP staff and chapters look forward to working with Kris to foster sensible drug policies that truly take into account the concerns of young people.

Sacrificing the war on terror for the war on drugs

The Associated Press reports that an increasing number of soldiers are being kicked out of the military for drug use.

Drug use is also an increasing reason that soldiers are being discharged from the Army, up 40 percent since 2002; last year 1,986 soldiers were kicked out of the Army for using marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and other illegal drugs. By contrast, soldiers thrown out for alcohol dropped from 251 in 2002 to 164 last year.

Rod Powers, a retired sergeant in the Air Force who writes an advice column on the Web about military service and has written books on the subject, said that the drug-use discharges probably reflect more sophisticated drug-testing policies in all military branches.

"The military is getting smarter about drug testing, with better science and more random tests," he said. "I hear from a lot of young recruits thinking they can beat a urinalysis, but I tell them it's not so easy."

In a time when enlistment is dropping and the military is stretched way too thin fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, why would the government work extra hard to kick soldiers out of the service for drug use? If a soldier's performance is impaired by his or her drug use and others are being put at risk, of course the military should act. But it makes no sense to randomly test soldiers to search for arbitrary drug use.

Where are our priorities?

Smoke's definitely being sent up somewhere

From the Metro East region of my hometown St. Louis metropolitan area, the salacious tale of a so-called "double life." The story gets off to a good enough start:

Monday through Friday, he commutes to St. Louis. He wears a tie to work. He is 30 years old, single, and shows up for his job promptly every day at 9 a.m. For 40 hours every week, he is a fully functional computer support technician, earning $38,000 per year.

For those of you joining us from nearer to the coasts, I can attest that $38,000 is a sufficiently comfortable salary for a single male in these parts, given the relatively low property values and cost of living around here. From here, though, things begin to get a little more dicey:

Then comes the weekend. And the weed. Lots of weed. From 7 p.m. on Friday until the late hours of Sunday night, Robert is a marijuana addict.

That's funny; I'd never heard that one could have an addiction on a weekend-only basis. Thanks to the high quality of our media's coverage of the War on Drugs, though, I get to learn something new and previously presumed to be completely inconceivable every day. Just look at what an out-of-control maniac this guy turns into:

He lights up on Friday evenings, as soon as he arrives back at his house in Collinsville. He usually smokes with friends, though many times, he gets stoned alone. He stays high for much of the weekend, watching television, surfing the Internet.

So, let me get this straight. Here's a guy who's got a pretty well-paying job, lives a seemingly contented life well within his means and seems to have no problems fulfilling any of his obligations to anyone. Sounds to me like he's a pretty stand-up guy. But no, because he enjoys smoking marijuana on the weekends while hanging out with his friends or watching TV, he's an "addict." In the words of Charlie Brown, good grief.

How abnormal is Robert's behavior? Let's see. He's a single 30-year-old computer technician who lives in Collinsville, IL. I'm not quite 30 yet myself, but I'm awfully close. And I have to tell you, bumming around the house on the weekend watching some tube is not a terribly uncommon activity for the single male members of that demographic. Even more so, I imagine (if the reader will permit me a single prima facie politically incorrect observation) this is the case among single male 30-somethings who also happen to be computer technicians. In short, aside from the fact that he likes to spark up a joint when he finds himself with a little free time on his hands, there's just absolutely nothing about this guy that sounds out-of-the-ordinary to me in any way. But, as the story goes on to describe:

He rarely goes outside, hardly ever speaks with his neighbors. His house is well kept, and he hides his weed in a shoebox even though he lives alone.

Wow, so now not only does his job performance at least meet all expectations and his punctuality stand above reproach, but it turns out that he also actually keeps a notably clean home and is smart and courteous enough to keep his marijuana use out of sight. As far as his interactions with his neighbors are concerned, it's not clear to me how his marijuana use ought to be held accountable for his generally private disposition when his smoking is only confined to the weekends. It seems James Frey isn't the only one whose incredible tale of the allegedly catastrophic consequences of recreational drug use is getting some exposure this week.

There's a disturbing trend in the media of salacious stories of drug use that just don't pass the smell test. not that this is anything new. As we observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, let us remember that fishy stories even worse than these were commonplace in the early days of marijuana prohibition, as Black users were routinely depicted as menaces to society. The overt employment of derogatory racial stereotypes may no longer rule the day, but the prohibitionists' hysterical tales of woe remain with us still.

The article cites a NIDA-sponsored study that estimates the number of regular marijuana users in America to be somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million. NORML estimates the number of regular users to be closer to 11 million, but no matter. The fact remains, there are many millions of regular marijuana smokers in the United States, the overwhelming majority of whom are safe, responsible users whose lives are not the least bit adversely affected by their marijuana use. From what I can tell, attempts at anti-marijuana spin notwithstanding, Robert definitely falls into that category. The article even includes a favorable quote that puts the relative risks and advantages of marijuana use into perspective:

Many decided long ago that they didn't like the taste of alcohol, the feel of a hangover, or the sickness that comes with drinking too much. According to the users, marijuana has "all the fun with none of the side effects."

Call me crazy, but that actually just plain makes sense to me. But despite commendably including a sensible comment about the actual effects of marijuana use, the article still couldn't even resist resorting to the "leading a double life" cliche three times, and twice in the span of two sentences!

When Manning was in his 20s, he led a double life. Like many users, he led a double life, working a white-collar job Monday through Friday, then getting high and staying that way for an entire weekend.

The article goes on to relate his story, in abbreviated form, the details of which sound remarkably similar to Robert's. Except the author avails himself of the completely unsupported and unsubstantiated "gateway drug" theory, and then discusses at length an outfit called Marijuana Anonymous. (Their somewhat dubious list of twelve warning signs of marijuana addiction are listed here, with a note that exhibiting as few as one (1) symptom is evidence that you may be a problem user.)

Look, I'm not saying that there are no problem marijuana users whatsoever. My issue, rather, is the total disconnect with reality when it comes to the media's portrayal of recreational drug users. When they go out of their way to describe an overwhelmingly responsible recreation user like Robert as a crazed fiend, I can't help but think that there's got to be something up with the accuracy and objectivity with which our media report to us on drug-related issues.

On top of that, there are opportunistic hacks like James Frey who peddle these stories for profit because they've succeeded in duping a tremendous portion of the American public into believing that such tales capture an "essential truth" about the inevitable consequences of recreational drug use. There's only one problem: none of these stories are true. Try as they might to defame his character, the Collinsville Herald's depiction of Robert left me convinced that he's precisely the sort of marijuana user that every marijuana user ought to be. And it turns out Frey's story was, in significant portion, made up.

So maybe someone could help me understand, because I don't think I quite get it. If these stories about the evils of drug use need to be exaggerated and outright fabricated in order to achieve the desired effect (i.e., shock value), then what's the essential truth? What's essentially true about any of these hysterical tales when their purveyors, when pressed, are forced to admit that they embellished them because they would otherwise be completely toothless in their capacity as a cautionary tales? It seems to me that the only essential (and sad) truth is that our nation's drug education has managed to produce a populace that's overwhelmingly unable to discern drug fact from drug fiction when they see it. But then again, I might have just missed something; after all, like I said above, thanks to our media's coverage of the WOD, I get to learn something new and previously presumed to be completely inconceivable every day.

The Drug Czar's coming to a town near you

Next week marks the official kick-off of the federal government's 2006 regional student drug testing summits. If the past two years' summits are any indication, this four city tour will be nothing more than a propaganda circus.

The whole thing is meant to coerce local schools into taking advantage of millions of dollars of federal grant money made available for the express purpose of testing teens' urine. While student drug testing might sound like a good idea at first glance to any teacher or parent concerned with youth drug abuse, the practice actually fails to deter young people from using drugs - as the largest study ever conducted on the topic shows.

Parents everywhere should be "pissed off" that their hard-earned tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet - literally - on programs that usurp family decision making and do nothing to stop young people from using drugs.

The first stop on the tour is next Thursday in Orlando, FL. Here's the full schedule:

Orlando, FL, January 19, 2006
(Rosen Centre Hotel, 9840 International Drive)

San Diego, CA, February 22, 2006
(Hilton San Diego Mission Valley, 901 Camino del Rio South)

Falls Church, VA, March 15, 2006
(Fairview Park Marriott, 3111 Fairview Park Drive)

Milwaukee, WI, April 25, 2006
(Hyatt Regency Milwaukee, 333 West Kilbourn Avenue)

If you live in or around any of these cities, please get in touch with SSDP as soon as possible by calling our world headquarters at (202) 293-4414 to find out how you can counteract the Drug Czar's propaganda machine when it comes to town. Students, parents, and activists had a great time raining on the Drug Czar's parade last year. Let's make sure he and his cronies know that we'll continue to be there providing the truth wherever and whenever they proliferate lies.

If you're planning on going, be sure to take a look at the student drug testing section of SSDP's website, where you'll find talking points and other materials.

UPDATE: Make sure to sign up if you're planning on attending one of the summits.

Who'd have thought: Some parents want to do their jobs

Alaska will be left out of a large annual study on youth drug use because researchers weren't able to obtain high enough response rates. This year's results were statistically insignificant because not enough parents provided written consent for their children to be given surveys about drug use, as required by state law.

The Alaska Department of Education did not bother publishing results from the Alaska Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered last spring, because the state response to the survey was less than 60 percent.

Voters in Alaska are known for their especially strong support for citizens' privacy rights, which is embodied by the Republican state legislator who wrote the 1999 law requiring parents to sign off on survey participation.

"We don't want schools, or anyone else, intruding into the privacy of homes without their parents' permission," said state Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River.

It's simply not the government's right to know some things about children without their parents agreeing, Dyson said.

"I hold the old-fashioned view that the responsibility of raising kids lies with parents," Dyson said.

The state even spent extra money on trying to get more parents to send in the consent forms.

Pizza parties for 57 classrooms cost $5,000 to $7,000, an expense borne by the state interested in obtaining results from the state's largest school district, Kerosky said.

[snip]

Calling parents and asking them to sign forms had little effect.

"It didn't seem to make a big difference in our response rate," Stayrook said.

In light of the lackluster parental enthusiasm for the survey, you'd think Alaskans would also be reluctant to allow school officials to force their children into bathroom stalls and collect samples of their urine for the purposes of discerning drug use. That's why it's especially disappointing to see the Association of Alaska School Boards touting the ONDCP's federal grant money for drug testing in this July 2005 newsletter.

Drug testing is a huge impediment to family decision making, not to mention that it fails to reduce youth drug use. It's shameful that the federal government flushes Americans' hard-earned tax dollars down the toilet - literally - on testing teens' piss while doing nothing to actually prevent drug abuse. We know that strong open and honest relationships - particularly between teens and their families - are a crucial part of the effort to prevent drug abuse by young people. And schools stepping in and playing gotcha games with drug testing is wholly antithetical to that important aim.

Let's hope the Association of Alaska School Boards gets their act together and recognizes student drug testing for what it really is: bad for Alaskan families and contrary to the state's proud principles.

True conservatives vs. the Drug Czar

The American Prospect has a great report on the Drug Czar's declining ad campaign budget.

With the Iraq war and Katrina cleanup straining the federal budget, the Republican Study Committee--a klatch of over 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives--called in September for the ads warning young people about the dangers of weed, speed, and other substances to be scrapped to save money. The campaign has a budget of $100 million for this year, and has cost taxpayers well over $1 billion since its inception in 1998. But as the Republican group, headed by Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, pointed out in a statement, "there is no solid evidence that media campaigns are effective in either preventing or reducing the use of illegal drugs."

Indeed, a federally-funded study on the ads found that "there is little evidence of direct favorable Campaign effects on youth, either for the Marijuana Initiative period or for the Campaign as whole. The trend data in marijuana use is not favorable, and for the primary target audience, 14- to 16-year-olds, past year use increased from 2000 through 2003..."

Its questionable results aren’t the only controversy the campaign has kicked up. Two executives of a media company formerly hired to create the ads were jailed this last summer for over billing the ONDCP. Earlier this last year, a General Accounting Office report declared that prepackaged “news stories” created by the drug czar’s office and distributed to local TV stations, where many aired without acknowledgment of their origin, constituted illegal “covert propaganda.” That finding echoed a scandal from 2000, when Salon magazine revealed that the ONDCP was allowing networks to fill public-service announcement requirements by inserting anti-drug storylines into popular shows like ER.

Oh, those drug warriors and their scandals. They just don't stop, do they?

The article wraps up with a great quote from the Marijuana Policy Project's Aaron Houston.

Houston says he’s not surprised to now find himself shoulder-to-shoulder with a bevy of Republicans. “It’s a waste of taxpayer money. Every independent analysis has shown it to be an utter failure,” he says. “Cutting this program is entirely consistent with conservative ideals.”

But the Media Campaign is just one example of Drug War excess that runs counter to true conservative principles. As we run up more and more national debt, look for more and more Drug War opposition from the right side of the aisle. And we're going to need it, considering the lackluster support many Democrats have thus far displayed for drug policy reform.

[Thanks to Adshock for the heads up on this one.]

An unforgettable punishment

From CNN:

Three [Baltimore] city police officers have been indicted on rape charges alleging that one officer had sex with a woman at a police station in exchange for her release and that the other two conspired to let it happen, the state's attorney's office said.

[snip]

Attorney Warren Brown, representing Jones [the accused], said the rape accusation was made up by a 22-year-old woman who was arrested with another woman on December 27, allegedly with marijuana in their possession.

While I am in no position to judge whether the officers are guilty or not, my heart goes out to this woman, especially if the allegations are true.

Even if the allegations are false, we must wonder how often this kind of thing goes on unreported. The Drug War is a playground for corrupt cops (not to mention other public officials)... leniency can easily be granted for favors: whether it be cash, information, or sex. Non-violent drug offenders are the easiest of targets, since they are often law-abiding citizens (albeit their illegal drug-usage), and are put in a complicated position when facing the derailing penalties of arrest and prosecution.

I'll be following this story and will post any updates as soon as they become available.

Update 1/9: From WBAL...

Investigators said they recovered condoms from a desk at the station and substances suspected to be drugs from within police lockers.

OK, so the police had condoms in a desk. Unprofessional perhaps, but not exactly evidence of rape (unless they were used condoms). But drugs in their personal lockers??... The plot thickens.