5 Biggest Lies from Anti-Pot Propagandist Kevin Sabet 

August 8, 2013  

AlterNet - Sunil Kumar Aggarwal

 

 

Kevin Abraham Sabet-Sharghi, Ph.D., aka Kevin Sabet, has been a headline-grabbing right-winger ever since his U.C. Berkeley days [3]—where he did not study science or medicine despite his current appointment as an assistant professor of medicine [4] at the University of Florida. His most recent incarnation [5] as a co-founder of Project SAM [6] (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) follows a stint in the Obama White House on its drug policy staff from 2009-2011. His personal website [7] claims he is the “quarterback” of a new anti-drug movement, boasting that he’s been “quoted in over 15,000 news stories.” [8]

Project SAM’s anti-marijuana priorities include emphasizing the “lifelong stigma” of pot-related arrests, the prospect of “Big Marijuana” marketing it to children, the industry being taken over by Big Tobacco, and seeking federal research on pharmaceuticalized medical marijuana products. 

Unlike Sabet, I have spent more than a decade training in the relevant disciplines he attempts to speak for. I’ve earned degrees in medicine and medical social scientific fields, not social policy like Sabet, and I feel the need to debunk his "moral entrepreneurship" [9] that demonizes marijuana use and ignores scientific research that contradicts his drug warrior claims.

What follows are five claims from his list of talking points—fictions—followed by the facts.

Claim #1: There’s no need to smoke it.

"Since we don't smoke opium to get the effects of morphine, why should we smoke marijuana to receive its therapeutic effects?" [10](Published or aired on Reason.com, Christian Science Monitor, CNN’s Dr. Drew, Huffington Post, Project SAM website.)

However one medicinal agent is delivered into the body should have no bearing whatsoever on how another medicinal agent should or should not be given. To believe so shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the variation of medicines and modes of delivery in modern clinical practice. To allow medicinal use of cannabis-marijuana does not mean that one would only be presented with the option of smoking it to receive its therapeutic effects. Many other modes of delivery: oral, topical, sublingual, vaporized, etc. are available.

Moreover, the harms of cannabis smoking are nowhere near [11] the harms of tobacco smoke. All large-scale, long-term epidemiological studies conducted to date have not shown any links to COPD or lung cancer. In fact, cancer-protective effects have been demonstrated in at least two studies. Opium is consumed orally in medicine today in the tincture form of paregoric [12], used across the United States in hospitals and clinics for refractory diarrhea.

Claim #2: The plant has dangerous unknown elements.

"The raw marijuana plant material -- itself containing hundreds of unknown components -- has not met FDA's standards of safety and efficacy." [13] (CNN, Huffington Post, Project SAM website.)

Adequate and well-controlled studies proving the medical efficacy of cannabis exist, but are ignored by marijuana schedulers [14] in the Department of Health and Human Services, under which the FDA resides. Large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving hundreds of patients in America and abroad that are in some cases a year in duration have been published in U.S. National Library of Medicine indexed journals showing that marijuana, orally administered in extract form, can treat intractable pain [15] in cancer and improve mobility [16]and symptom control [17] in multiple sclerosis.

Cannabis-marijuana plant material is one of the best studied and characterized plant materials in science. As of 2008, there were over 15,000 articles alone on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabis [18].

Claim #3: Marijuana use stunts intelligence.

"Recently completed research shows that pot can significantly decrease IQ." [19] (USnews.com, CNN.com, CNN’s Piers Morgan, Reason, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Project SAM website.)

This assertion is based on a reference to a research study [20] from New Zealand published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science in August 2012 that grossly mischaracterizes its results, and did not in fact establish this causal link.

In this research, there was no breakdown of frequency or amount of cannabis used to see if there was any "dose dependency" to the effects—an important item in association studies. The study’s cannabis exposure data was strictly based on self-report, even though other data, such as the subjects’ reported cognitive performances, were corroborated by statements from close contacts. There was only consideration of alcohol dependence, not binge drinking patterns, which have also been shown to be neurotoxic, and if occurring, would confound results. Schizophrenia was considered as a confounding factor, but other mental illnesses such as major depression, anxiety, PTSD or traumatic brain injuries, such as concussions, all of which can reduce performance on neurocognitive tests, were not factored in.

In other words, the "pot makes you stupider" proof was not there. There was no neuroimaging or physiological/neurochemical/anatomical correlates presented. A subsequent study [21] published in the same journal with the same dataset concluded that all the variation in cognitive effects could be explained just as easily by socioeconomic variables rather than cannabis use, which cast significant doubt on the robustness of the initial study.

Pioneering scientists and doctors such as Carl Sagan, Lester Grinspoon, Richard Feynman, Stephen Jay Gould, Andrew Weil, Oliver Sacks, and others [22] have stated that cannabis use improved the quality of their intellectual work. This aspect of cannabis use is entirely ignored by Sabet and his colleagues. Finally, Dutch senior high school students rank number one in math and number two in science globally [23], despite the country having a de facto legal marijuana market for over 30 years.

Claim #4: Today’s pot is much stronger than it used to be.

“Today's marijuana is 10 times more dangerous than the marijuana of the '60s that many parents smoked in their dorm rooms,” [24] Sabet told Salon.com. It's “five to six times greater in potency and strength” [25] he told Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and “4-5 times stronger" [19] he wrote in a recent U.S. News and World Reportcommentary.

Aside from the fact that Sabet varies his figures based on which media outlet he is communicating to, it is patently false to claim that marijuana-cannabis and the forms it was ingested in were somehow so different 50 years ago. Cannabis resin, produced by its flowers, has always been concentrated in solutions that were consumed orally. So it is false to claim that the cannabis available today is somehow so different than what it was in the past.

If there are higher potency forms of herbal cannabis available, based on THC content, it’s due to the pressures produced by prohibition and the lack of legal regulation. And it can be a good thing, if a higher THC percentage is present, as a consumer would need to consume less to achieve a desired effect. Additionally, there are other cannabinioids and terpeniods whose concentration can be varied to produce a variety of effects.

While people can certainly have unpleasant reactions from consuming too much THC-rich cannabis, the best way to address this is labeling and consumer education, not blackmarket-generating 

prohibition and contrabanding.

Claim #5: 1 out of 6 youngsters get hooked.

“Marijuana addicts 1 out of every 6 children who ever try the drug.” [26] (Baker Institute Blog, Russia Today,CNN.com, Huffington Post, Project SAM website.)

Sabet has made this outrageous statement by citing Johns Hopkins epidemiologist J.C. Anthony, as well as federal drug abuse research summaries produced by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), whose director, Nora Volkow, has made this same claim [27].  

Both sources, however, rely on psychiatric diagnostic manuals widely criticized in peer-reviewed literature (see here [28] and here [29]) for gross over-pathologization of substance-related problems. Eager to diagnose, these studies ignore the impact that aggressive policing of cannabis has on users. The illegality of marijuana not only affects what subjects will be willing to disclose to researchers, but the stress of engaging in behavior that can lead to "social death"—suspension, arrest, loss of job, benefits, etc.—may be more psychologically trying than the drug itself.

The research supporting the claim is also based on faulty math. While the "1 out of 6" statistic does not appear anywhere in the text, figures or tables of the references (2002 [30], 1994 [31]), the only way to come to this number is by manipulating numbers. The study's authors attempt to measure the “Cumulative Probability for Meeting Criteria for [Marijuana] Dependence” by a certain age does not follow users over time, and thus represents a survey-based snapshot of their lives in which they recollect their past use. This data, collected from 3,940 total users sampled of whom 354 were classified as dependent, allows for the inference that, by age 18, 5.61% or "1 in 17" marijuana users are at risk for dependence. It does not, however, allow for an analyst to add together dependence risk percentages from ages 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18 , to get  14.5% or "1 in 6." If the same math were applied to all ages reported, you would end up with 162.24%.

The NIDA reference to “1 in 6” [32] is based on self-reported data [33] from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health to analyze data for "age of first marijuana use" and "Illicit Drug Dependence or Abuse in the Past Year." [34] In a similar maneuver, the authors added the percentages for drug-dependent youths who had used marijuana age 14 or younger (12.7%) and ages 15-18 (4.9%), which equalled 17.6%, or "1 in 6." They effectively played with numbers to invoke the widely debunked [35] marijuana gateway theory.

Culture Warrior Propagandist

The proposals that Sabet pushes, while dressed in science, are essentially moral judgments. This is why there is no attempt to take seriously the large body of evidence [36] showing the beneficial impacts of cannabis use or regulated cannabis markets on human health and social well-being. His major thrust is moral entrepreneurship: to popularize negative associations such as "threatening" and "culturally foreign" with cross-cultural, millennia-old, common human-cannabis relationship behaviors [37] such as cultivation, consumption and trade.

Sabet and his team, many of whom are specialists in addiction or are recovering addicts, such as SAM’s chairman, former congressman Patrick J. Kennedy, are not interested in this evidence. They continue with a soundbite debate society approach, which neglects the fact that millions of lives globally are ruined annually due to an unevenly applied penalty system ranging from arrest to the death penalty.

Surprisingly, even Sabet's Baha'i faith [38]’s policymaking body, the Universal House of Justice, the leading body of a religion that itself continues to face persecution [39], pronounced in 1967 [40] that cannabis is allowed for medical purposes by followers:

Concerning "the use of marijuana, LSD and other psychedelic products," we have already informed the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States that Bahá'ís should not use...substances, except when prescribed for medical treatment.

Sabet may seek to seem reasonable by saying [41] that there is benefit to "components” of cannabis, but despite his wishes, we must not allow it to remain tightly in the hands of the pharmaceutical sector but rather available as widely as possible like other herbal medicines.

Cannabis, a commonwealth plant [42] that evolved 34 million years ago [43], which has a myriad of benefits as medicine, food, fiber, fuel, relaxant, etc. should not belong only to a wealthy, well-connected elite. Given Sabet’s prior political track record—campaigning against drugs and other "immoral" indignities since his U.C. Berkeley days—it is not surprising that he has chosen to serve the interests of the few over the many.

Fortunately, the pushback on the talking points epitomized by Project SAM is forcing Sabet to retreat from his most strident comments. His Huffingtonpost blog recently noted [44] that “folks” who are studying how to “do legalization best” have come up with some “laudable proposals.”

But marijuana proponents should not be fooled. Kevin Sabet has built a career being a drug warrior and conservative contrarian. And if the bio on his personal website tells us anything, it is that right-wingers like Sabet know how to reinvent themselves to perpetuate the 1960s culture war. 

See more stories tagged with:

keivn sabet [45],

marijuana [46],

myths [47],

project sam [48]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/5-biggest-lies-anti-pot-propagandist-kevin-sabet

Links:
[1] http://alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sunil-kumar-aggarwal
[3] http://calstuff.blogspot.com/2002/07/time-for-another-blast-from-past.html
[4] https://directory.ufl.edu/people/WHESVVTEE/
[5] http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/01/marjiuana_project_sam_colorado_chapter_mason_tvert.php
[6] http://learnaboutsam.org/
[7] http://kevinsabet.com/
[8] http://kevinsabet.com/biography
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_entrepreneur
[10] http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/11/drug-policy-and-the-obama-administration/1
[11] http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201302-034ED?journalCode=annalsats
[12] http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a601090.html
[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-a-sabet-phd/cmas-decision-not-based_b_1024471.html
[14] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-kumar-aggarwal/marijuana-schedule-1_b_3071725.html
[15] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22483680
[16] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1739436/
[17] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21362108
[18] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18777572
[19] http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-marijuana-use-be-legalized/there-are-smarter-ways-to-deal-with-marijuana-than-legalization
[20] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract
[21] http://www.pnas.org/content/110/11/4251
[22] http://coed.com/2011/02/02/the-10-smartest-pot-smokers-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/
[23] http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
[24] http://www.salon.com/2013/02/13/meet_the_quarterback_of_the_new_anti_drug_movement/
[25] http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/anti-pot-advocate-kevin-sabet-talks-marijuana-legislation/5111653a78c90a5cb4000068
[26] http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2013/05/civil-liberties-erode-when-drug-use-widens/
[27] http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/marijuana-use-holds-steady-among-u-s-teens/
[28] http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/4
[29] http://cannabinergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/JNMD_distress_coping_and_drug_law_medical_cannabis_Aggarwal_et_al_2013.pdf
[30] http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v26/n4/full/1395810a.html
[31] http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=fulltext.journal&jcode=pha&vol=2&issue=3&page=244&format=HTML#c7
[32] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
[33] http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11Results/NSDUHresults2011.htm
[34] http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2011SummNatFindDetTables/NSDUH-DetTabsPDFWHTML2011/2k11DetailedTabs/Web/HTML/NSDUH-DetTabsSect6peTabs1to54-2011.htm#Tab6.38B
[35] http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/
[36] http://cannabinergy.com/dr-cannabinergy-library/
[37] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581812/
[38] http://malden.advocatenews.net/bahai-open-house-honors-100th-anniversary-of-founders-sons-visit-to-malden/
[39] http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/31/iran-government-assault-academic-freedom
[40] http://www.aqdasproject.com/lg-hbh/lg-1183-1188.html#ptop
[41] http://learnaboutsam.com/medicine/
[42] http://www.denverlawreview.org/medical-marijuana/2010/8/23/cannabis-a-commonwealth-medicinal-plant-long-suppressed-now.html
[43] http://books.google.com/books?id=AznCzOxvrtwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=The+evolution+of+Cannabis+and+coevolution+with+the+cannabinoid+receptor&source=bl&ots=zp4kDDAWAs&sig=F4WAbdP82EIRJFL92fdnO5x4Luk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O98CUtrADajc4APehIHgBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20evolution%20of%20Cannabis%20and%20coevolution%20with%20the%20cannabinoid%20receptor&f=false
[44] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-a-sabet-phd/washington-post-marijuana_b_3417017.html
[45] http://www.alternet.org/tags/keivn-sabet
[46] http://www.alternet.org/tags/marijuana
[47] http://www.alternet.org/tags/myths
[48] http://www.alternet.org/tags/project-sam
[49] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Marijuana Prohibition 

Marijuana Prohibition Responsible for Death of 2-Year-Old Girl
by Sabrina Fendrick, Director of Women's Outreach
August 7, 2013




    Marijuana prohibition has taken yet another innocent life.  In January 2013, two- year-old Alexandra Hill was taken from her home in Round Rock, Texas because her parents had admitted to smoking pot after their child had gone to bed.   As a result, she was placed with an abusive foster mother, who subsequently beat her to death.

    According to her father, Joshua Hill, who spoke with KVUE, a local ABC affiliate, “She would come to visitation with bruises on her, and mold and mildew in her bag. It got to a point where [he] actually told CPS that they would have to have [him] arrested because [he] wouldn’t let her go back.”  A few days later, the Hill family got a call informing them that their daughter was in a coma, and they needed to get to the hospital right away.  Two days after that, Alex was taken off life support.  Up until she was snatched from her family in January, the 2 year old had never been sick or gone to the hospital.

    “When a parent who responsibly consumes marijuana after hours is seen as neglectful in comparison to a parent who responsibly enjoys a glass of wine, then the system isn’t just broken, it’s deadly,” said Sabrina Fendrick, Director of Women’s Outreach at NORML.  Little Alex’s fate was sealed the minute the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) determined that such behavior qualifies as “neglectful supervision,” and put her with a foster mother who had not been given a proper background check.

   This is just one more tragic casualty of marijuana prohibition.  However, the practice of child snatching by CPS from marijuana-using parents is by no means unique to this story.  Current policy gives state agencies the right to legally kidnap minors and infants from their loving parents’ home (simply for the fact that they are cannabis consumers), and place them in an unknown, possibly dangerous or truly neglectful environment.  Hundreds of similar CPS cases pop up around the country every year.   Only when the government changes its view, and policies on marijuana can we truly protect the rights and integrity of good parents who responsibly consume cannabis after hours and out of their child’s view.  It’s time for CPS, the state of Texas and the federal government to step up, take responsibility for all of the damage they have caused, and commit to ending this disastrous and fatal policy.

Trayvon Martin, The Gun Industry and The War On Drugs

Following the tragic events behind the young Emmitt Till's murder, the majority of 1950's U.S.A. became aware of its nation's brutal racial secret: the Jim Crow Laws. Under this archaic and inhuman jurisprudence, it took the sacrafice of the young Emmitt Till to startle a nation into realizing its own inadequesy. The social division, especially in the Southern United States, in which different worlds were created. Till's sacrafice would be a symbol for the youth who would boldy march on Birminghamg during the summer of 1963. Sacrificing their adolescent mind and bodies to the onslaught of fire hoses and angry canine, all for Civil Rights. For a chance to sit at the table of government and commerce and have their fare share. Then too, the sacrafise of the child was heard around the county to awaken our hearts and minds to the need for progressive legislation.

The need for the community and government to act by setting new standards of how we treat each other as United States citizens. With the murder of Trayvon Martin, the nation should once again turn a caring eye towards its democratic bodies, in an effort to root out its antiquated laws. Specifically in addressing the lax gun control laws and the national anti drug campaign that has lost its social relevance. The death of Trayvon Martin bares a similar burden to the sacrafice of the youth during the epoch of the Civil Rights Movement. It was the Jim Crowe laws that fostered the atmosphere of intolerance and created the world of impunity which allowed violent white perpetrators to commit attrocious acts. These racist mandates created a vast seperation within the American social matrix, alienating millions. With the Trayvon Martin murder, will note two distinct lapses within the Florida judicial system, in which a minor was sacraficed for the sake of convenient justice. Within our modern twenty first century America, we have a War on Drugs that is decimating our middle and lower class families. Coincidently, this wild west, good guys and bad guys approach to narcotics and drug consumption has created a major illicit guns trade that the ballistics industry has profited handsomely from. Few in the media today discuss the fact that Mr. Martin was suspended from school under a Zero Tolerance durg policy. Tragically it was this omission of justice that would send Martin from his mothers house in Miami to his fathers house outside of Orlando in Sanford. Martin was suspended for a trace amount of marijuanna found on his person, under a zero tolerance drug policy. The fact that marijuanna, an openly marketed and semi legal herb, is still treated as a narcotic, is a sign of a legal system unwilling to change with the progressive nature of its human inhabitants. The medical and social benefits of the drug have been highlighted by advocates in the mainstream media for over fifty year. The actuall outcome of the War on Drugs has been an adict riddled nation, where pharmacutical companies absorb billions of dollars, while law enforcement selectively regulates and enforces the social consumptive habits of various ethnic and socio economic groups. The tragedy we note today is the out of place death of a young man, who instead of having a second spring break in Orlando, should have been receiving a quality public education.

Most who discuss this tragedy note the failure of the Stand Your Ground Law to assist in the order of civility within Sanford, Florida on that horrific night. This case will forever ingrain itself in Florida and United States jurisprudence in its relation to the governments legal obligations towards limiting the use of dangerous weapons. Once the Supreme Court makes its decision on any legal manuvering in the prosecution of the shooter and the subsequent changes to the gun control mandates Federally and locally, the nation will then begin to digest the true impact of this crime. And yet the very law on the books today, which we say will assist society in defending innoscence from the intrusion of the dreaded OTHER, has allowed the perpetrator of a violant act to remain free. Trayvon Martin will receive no justice in the traditional sense. The man who took his life will not be tried in state or federal court for murder. A civil suit will certainly be pursued and at most, the federal government will be able to prosecute to its limits under Civil Rights legislation. At most, Martin could serve a few years in prison for his alleged act of "homeland security".

The lesson from this crime should be a sharp reminder, not that racism still exists, or that society is plagued by violence. The lesson, in Trayvon's honor, must be a personal burden upon the entire American nation. Every citizen who refuses to vote. Everyone who votes for their own self interest, their own families and their own churches. Every politician who takes financial support from gun, pharmaceutical, and anti-narcotic lobbyists and superPAC's. Every one who has made it this far into this essay. Me. We all should acquire a degree of guilt from this incident. In taking this burden upon our souls, we all may change the current system which continues to sacrafice our nations youth for profit and false morality.

Results from the 2010National Survey on Drug Use and Health:Summary of National Findings

Highlights

This report presents the first information from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older. The survey interviews approximately 67,500 persons each year. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons in this report described using terms such as "increased," "decreased," or "more than" are statistically significant at the .05 level.

Illicit Drug Use

In 2010, an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) illicit drug users, meaning they had used an illicit drug during the month prior to the survey interview. This estimate represents 8.9 percent of the population aged 12 or older. Illicit drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically.

The rate of current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older in 2010 (8.9 percent) was similar to the rate in 2009 (8.7 percent), but higher than the rate in 2008 (8.0 percent).

Marijuana was the most commonly used illicit drug. In 2010, there were 17.4 million past month users. Between 2007 and 2010, the rate of use increased from 5.8 to 6.9 percent, and the number of users increased from 14.4 million to 17.4 million.

In 2010, there were 1.5 million current cocaine users aged 12 or older, comprising 0.6 percent of the population. These estimates were similar to the number and rate in 2009 (1.6 million or 0.7 percent), but were lower than the estimates in 2006 (2.4 million or 1.0 percent).

Hallucinogens were used in the past month by 1.2 million persons (0.5 percent) aged 12 or older in 2010, including 695,000 (0.3 percent) who had used Ecstasy. These estimates were similar to estimates in 2009.

In 2010, there were 7.0 million (2.7 percent) persons aged 12 or older who used prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically in the past month. These estimates were similar to estimates in 2009 (7.0 million or 2.8 percent) and to estimates in 2002 (6.3 million or 2.7 percent).

The number of past month methamphetamine users decreased between 2006 and 2010, from 731,000 (0.3 percent) to 353,000 (0.1 percent).

Among youths aged 12 to 17, the current illicit drug use rate was similar in 2009 (10.0 percent) and 2010 (10.1 percent), but higher than the rate in 2008 (9.3 percent). Between 2002 and 2008, the rate declined from 11.6 to 9.3 percent.

The rate of current marijuana use among youths aged 12 to 17 decreased from 8.2 percent in 2002 to 6.7 percent in 2006, remained unchanged at 6.7 percent in 2007 and 2008, then increased to 7.3 percent in 2009 and 7.4 percent in 2010.

Among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs declined from 4.0 percent in 2002 to 3.0 percent in 2010.

The rate of current Ecstasy use among youths aged 12 to 17 declined from 0.5 percent in 2002 to 0.3 percent in 2004, remained at that level through 2007, then increased to 0.5 percent in 2009 and 2010.

The rate of current use of illicit drugs among young adults aged 18 to 25 increased from 19.6 percent in 2008 to 21.2 percent in 2009 and 21.5 percent in 2010, driven largely by an increase in marijuana use (from 16.5 percent in 2008 to 18.1 percent in 2009 and 18.5 percent in 2010).

Among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rate of current nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs in 2010 was 5.9 percent, similar to the rate in the years from 2002 to 2009. There were decreases from 2002 to 2010 in the use of cocaine (from 2.0 to 1.5 percent) and methamphetamine (from 0.6 to 0.2 percent).

Among those aged 50 to 59, the rate of past month illicit drug use increased from 2.7 percent in 2002 to 5.8 percent in 2010. This trend partially reflects the aging into this age group of the baby boom cohort (i.e., persons born between 1946 and 1964), whose lifetime rate of illicit drug use has been higher than those of older cohorts.

Among persons aged 12 or older in 2009-2010 who used pain relievers nonmedically in the past 12 months, 55.0 percent got the drug they most recently used from a friend or relative for free. Another 17.3 percent reported they got the drug from one doctor. Only 4.4 percent got pain relievers from a drug dealer or other stranger, and 0.4 percent bought them on the Internet. Among those who reported getting the pain reliever from a friend or relative for free, 79.4 percent reported in a follow-up question that the friend or relative had obtained the drugs from just one doctor.

Among unemployed adults aged 18 or older in 2010, 17.5 percent were current illicit drug users, which was higher than the 8.4 percent of those employed full time and 11.2 percent of those employed part time. However, most illicit drug users were employed. Of the 20.2 million current illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2010, 13.3 million (65.9 percent) were employed either full or part time.

In 2010, 10.6 million persons aged 12 or older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the past year. This corresponds to 4.2 percent of the population aged 12 or older, which was the same as the rate in 2009 and lower than the rate in 2002 (4.7 percent). In 2010, the rate was highest among young adults aged 18 to 25 (12.7 percent).

Alcohol Use

Slightly more than half of Americans aged 12 or older reported being current drinkers of alcohol in the 2010 survey (51.8 percent). This translates to an estimated 131.3 million people, which was similar to the 2009 estimate of 130.6 million people (51.9 percent).

In 2010, nearly one quarter (23.1 percent) of persons aged 12 or older participated in binge drinking. This translates to about 58.6 million people. The rate in 2010 was similar to the estimate in 2009 (23.7 percent). Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least 1 day in the 30 days prior to the survey.

In 2010, heavy drinking was reported by 6.7 percent of the population aged 12 or older, or 16.9 million people. This rate was similar to the rate of heavy drinking in 2009 (6.8 percent). Heavy drinking is defined as binge drinking on at least 5 days in the past 30 days.

Among young adults aged 18 to 25 in 2010, the rate of binge drinking was 40.6 percent, and the rate of heavy drinking was 13.6 percent. These rates were similar to the rates in 2009.

The rate of current alcohol use among youths aged 12 to 17 was 13.6 percent in 2010, which was lower than the 2009 rate (14.7 percent). Youth binge and heavy drinking rates in 2010 (7.8 and 1.7 percent) were also lower than rates in 2009 (8.8 and 2.1 percent).

There were an estimated 10.0 million underage (aged 12 to 20) drinkers in 2010, including 6.5 million binge drinkers and 2.0 million heavy drinkers.
Past month and binge drinking rates among underage persons declined between 2002 and 2010. Past month use declined from 28.8 to 26.3 percent, while binge drinking declined from 19.3 to 17.0 percent.

In 2010, 55.3 percent of current drinkers aged 12 to 20 reported that their last use of alcohol in the past month occurred in someone else's home, and 29.9 percent reported that it had occurred in their own home.

About one third (30.6 percent) paid for the alcohol the last time they drank, including 8.8 percent who purchased the alcohol themselves and 21.6 percent who gave money to someone else to purchase it. Among those who did not pay for the alcohol they last drank, 38.9 percent got it from an unrelated person aged 21 or older, 16.6 percent from another person younger than 21 years old, and 21.6 percent from a parent, guardian, or other adult family member.

In 2010, an estimated 11.4 percent of persons aged 12 or older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. This percentage had dropped since 2002, when it was 14.2 percent. The rate of driving under the influence of alcohol was highest among persons aged 21 to 25 (23.4 percent).

Tobacco Use
 In 2010, an estimated 69.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were current (past month) users of a tobacco product. This represents 27.4 percent of the population in that age range. In addition, 58.3 million persons (23.0 percent of the population) were current cigarette smokers; 13.2 million (5.2 percent) smoked cigars; 8.9 million (3.5 percent) used smokeless tobacco; and 2.2 million (0.8 percent) smoked tobacco in pipes.

Between 2002 and 2010, past month use of any tobacco product decreased from 30.4 to 27.4 percent, and past month cigarette use declined from 26.0 to 23.0 percent. Rates of past month use of cigars, smokeless tobacco, and pipe tobacco in 2010 were similar to corresponding rates in 2002.
The rate of past month tobacco use among 12 to 17 year olds declined from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 10.7 percent in 2010, including a decline from 2009 (11.6 percent) to 2010. The rate of past month cigarette use among 12 to 17 year olds also declined between 2002 and 2010, from 13.0 to 8.3 percent, including a decline between 2008 (9.1 percent) and 2010. Cigar use among youths declined between 2009 and 2010, from 4.0 to 3.2 percent.
Initiation of Substance Use (Incidence, or First-Time Use) within the Past 12 Months

In 2010, an estimated 3.0 million persons aged 12 or older used an illicit drug for the first time within the past 12 months. This averages to about 8,100 initiates per day and was similar to the estimate for 2009 (3.1 million). A majority of these past year illicit drug initiates reported that their first drug was marijuana (61.8 percent). About one quarter initiated with psychotherapeutics (26.2 percent, including 17.3 percent with pain relievers, 4.6 percent with tranquilizers, 2.5 percent with stimulants, and 1.9 percent with sedatives). A sizable proportion reported inhalants (9.0 percent) as their first illicit drug, and a small proportion used hallucinogens as their first drug (3.0 percent).

In 2010, the illicit drug categories with the largest number of past year initiates among persons aged 12 or older were marijuana use (2.4 million) and nonmedical use of pain relievers (2.0 million). These estimates were not significantly different from the numbers in 2009. However, the number of marijuana initiates increased between 2007 (2.1 million) and 2010 (2.4 million).

In 2010, the average age of marijuana initiates among persons aged 12 to 49 was 18.4 years, significantly higher than the average age of marijuana initiates in 2002 (17.0 years).

The number of past year initiates of methamphetamine among persons aged 12 or older was 105,000 in 2010. This estimate was significantly lower than the estimate in 2007 (157,000) and only about one third of the estimate in 2002 (299,000).

The number of past year initiates of Ecstasy aged 12 or older was similar in 2009 (1.1 million) and 2010 (937,000), but these estimates were an increase from 2005 (615,000).

The number of past year cocaine initiates aged 12 or older declined from 1.0 million in 2002 to 637,000 in 2010. The number of initiates of crack cocaine declined during this period from 337,000 to 83,000.
In 2010, there were 140,000 persons aged 12 or older who used heroin for the first time within the past year, not significantly different from the estimates from 2002 to 2009. Estimates during those years ranged from 91,000 to 180,000 per year.

Most (82.4 percent) of the 4.7 million past year alcohol initiates were younger than 21 at the time of initiation.

The number of persons aged 12 or older who smoked cigarettes for the first time within the past 12 months was 2.4 million in 2010, similar to the estimate in 2009 (2.5 million), but significantly higher than the estimate for 2002 (1.9 million). Most new smokers in 2010 were younger than 18 when they first smoked cigarettes (58.8 percent or 1.4 million).
The number of persons aged 12 or older who used smokeless tobacco for the first time within the past year increased from 928,000 in 2003 to 1.4 million in 2010.

Youth Prevention-Related Measures

Perceived risk is measured by NSDUH as the percentage reporting that there is great risk in the substance use behavior. The percentage of youths aged 12 to 17 perceiving great risk in smoking marijuana once or twice a week decreased from 54.7 percent in 2007 to 47.5 percent in 2010. Between 2002 and 2008, the percentages who reported great risk in smoking one or more packs of cigarettes per day increased from 63.1 to 69.7 percent, but the percentage dropped to 65.8 percent in 2009 and remained steady at 65.5 percent in 2010.

Almost half (48.6 percent) of youths aged 12 to 17 reported in 2010 that it would be "fairly easy" or "very easy" for them to obtain marijuana if they wanted some. Approximately one in five reported it would be easy to get cocaine (19.0 percent). About one in seven (12.9 percent) indicated that LSD would be "fairly" or "very" easily available, and 11.6 percent reported easy availability for heroin. Between 2002 and 2010, there were declines in the perceived availability for all four drugs.
A majority of youths aged 12 to 17 (89.6 percent) in 2010 reported that their parents would strongly disapprove of their trying marijuana or hashish once or twice. Current marijuana use was much less prevalent among youths who perceived strong parental disapproval for trying marijuana or hashish once or twice than for those who did not (4.4 vs. 32.8 percent).
In 2010, three quarters (75.9 percent) of youths aged 12 to 17 reported having seen or heard drug or alcohol prevention messages from sources outside of school, lower than in 2002 (83.2 percent). The percentage of school-enrolled youths reporting that they had seen or heard prevention messages at school also declined during this period, from 78.8 to 75.4 percent.

Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment

In 2010, an estimated 22.1 million persons (8.7 percent of the population aged 12 or older) were classified with substance dependence or abuse in the past year based on criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV). Of these, 2.9 million were classified with dependence or abuse of both alcohol and illicit drugs, 4.2 million had dependence or abuse of illicit drugs but not alcohol, and 15.0 million had dependence or abuse of alcohol but not illicit drugs.

Between 2002 and 2010, the number of persons with substance dependence or abuse was stable (22.0 million in 2002 and 22.1 million in 2010).
The specific illicit drugs that had the highest levels of past year dependence or abuse in 2010 were marijuana (4.5 million), pain relievers (1.9 million), and cocaine (1.0 million). The number of persons with marijuana dependence or abuse did not change between 2002 and 2010, but the number with pain reliever dependence or abuse increased (from 1.5 million to 1.9 million) and the number with cocaine dependence or abuse declined (from 1.5 million to 1.0 million).

In 2010, adults aged 21 or older who had first used alcohol at age 14 or younger were more than 5 times as likely to be classified with alcohol dependence or abuse than adults who had their first drink at age 21 or older (15.1 vs. 2.7 percent).

Between 2002 and 2010, the percentage of youths aged 12 to 17 with substance dependence or abuse declined from 8.9 to 7.3 percent.

Treatment need is defined as having a substance use disorder or receiving treatment at a specialty facility (hospital inpatient, drug or alcohol rehabilitation, or mental health centers) within the past 12 months. In 2010, 23.1 million persons aged 12 or older needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol use problem (9.1 percent of persons aged 12 or older). Of these, 2.6 million (1.0 percent of persons aged 12 or older and 11.2 percent of those who needed treatment) received treatment at a specialty facility. Thus, 20.5 million persons (8.1 percent of the population aged 12 or older) needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol use problem but did not receive treatment at a specialty facility in the past year.

Of the 20.5 million persons aged 12 or older in 2010 who were classified as needing substance use treatment but did not receive treatment at a specialty facility in the past year, 1.0 million persons (5.0 percent) reported that they felt they needed treatment for their illicit drug or alcohol use problem. Of these 1.0 million persons who felt they needed treatment, 341,000 (33.3 percent) reported that they made an effort to get treatment, and 683,000 (66.7 percent) reported making no effort to get treatment.

The number of people receiving specialty treatment in the past year in 2010 (2.6 million) was similar to the number in 2002 (2.3 million). However, the number receiving specialty treatment for a problem with nonmedical pain reliever use more than doubled during this period, from 199,000 to 406,000.

America’s prisons- A catching sickness
Sep 3rd 2011 - The Economist

A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America.
By Ernest Drucker. The New Press; 211 pages; $26.95.


IN MAY 1973 New York passed a set of laws that required judges to impose sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for anyone convicted of selling two ounces (57 grams) or possessing four ounces of “narcotic drugs”—usually cocaine, heroin or marijuana. They came to be known as the Rockefeller laws, after New York’s then-governor, Nelson Rockefeller. They sent New York’s prison population soaring, from an average of fewer than 75 inmates per 100,000 New Yorkers between 1880 and 1970 to five times that rate by the end of the century. Between 1987 and 1997 drug cases accounted for 45% of new prisoners.

Other states followed New York’s lead. They imposed long sentences for non-violent drug crimes and they denied judges the power to consider extenuating circumstances, or indeed anything other than the convict’s criminal history and the amount of drugs, when sentencing.

These laws were a public-policy disaster. Ernest Drucker, an epidemiologist, uses the tools of his trade to examine the laws and their consequences. He writes that America is suffering “a plague of prisons”, and the Rockefeller laws were the outbreak of that plague. Heroin use rose in New York during the 1960s. New York politicians wanting to convince their constituents that they were tough on crime, sent users and sellers to prison for a long time.

The pattern was repeated around the country. As a result, America’s prison population, like New York’s, rose fivefold from 1980 to 2009. The impact has been particularly strong in poor and minority communities: one in 11 black adults are under correctional supervision, compared with one in 45 whites. And 25% of children in much of Harlem and the South Bronx have had one of their parents imprisoned.

This does not indicate a violent-crime problem: in the South Bronx, only 3% of convictions are for felonies. The most common arrests are for loitering, vagrancy or drug use or possession. Collectively, these low-level, “quality of life” crimes account for nearly half of all arrests.

The arrests themselves, in Mr Drucker’s telling, represent an initial infection of sorts. They are “the seeds for most imprisonments”: they result in a suspect being taken to a police station, fingerprinted, jailed (in American parlance, jail is for pre-trial detention or short-term sentences; prison is for longer stays), brought before a judge, and having a criminal record established. Even these short periods of detention can result in losing jobs, housing or, particularly for women, custody of their children. As for those children, they themselves run a far higher risk of ending up in prison than the children of unincarcerated parents. The neighbourhoods in which they live end up permanently destabilised by the frequent circulation of adults in and out of prison.

None of Mr Drucker’s statistics or stories is new, but they bear repeating because they are unjust, unintended and easily remedied. Treating drug addiction as a public-health problem (emphasising treatment and harm-reduction) rather than a crime to be punished would go a long way towards making America’s poor and minority communities stabler and better. It would also save taxpayers money. All that is lacking is political will.

from the print edition | Books and Arts

The Inevitability of Addiction series...

Officials fear for infants born to prescription drug addicts
July 27, 2011
By Steve Turnham and Amber Lyon,
--CNN.com--

According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, prescription drug overdose deaths in Florida are up a staggering 265% since 2003. But it's not just the deaths that have Florida officials worried; it's the births.

"We saw the number of crack babies that died, and this is just another version of that," Broward County Sheriff Al Lamberti said. "We all need to be concerned."

According to state health records, 635 Florida babies were born addicted to prescription drugs in the first half of 2010 alone. South Florida doctors and intensive care nurses report an dramatic uptick in babies born hooked on pills that their mothers abused while pregnant.

They go through withdrawal symptoms," said Mary Osuch, the head nurse at Broward General Medical Center's neonatal intensive care unit. "They're crampy, miserable. They sweat. They can have rapid breathing. Sometimes, they can even have seizures."

According to the White House Office on Drug Control Policy, prescription drug abuse is the nation's fastest-growing drug problem.

Marsha Currant, who runs the Susan B. Anthony Recovery Center near Fort Lauderdale, says prescription drug addiction overtook crack in 2009 as the main problem afflicting the pregnant women who are treated there.

"In the very beginning, it was really 100% crack cocaine," said Currant, who started keeping track of drug trends in 1995. "We see a lot more prescription drugs now."

Currant says new mothers who are hooked on prescription drugs are often reluctant to seek help for fear the authorities will take their babies from them.

"We wanted to have a place where women didn't have to chose between getting treatment and having their children go into foster care," she said.

Compounding the problem, women who are addicted to prescription drugs and find themselves pregnant cannot safely go off the drugs without medical supervision. They need to be weaned off slowly, or the baby will go into withdrawal in the womb.

At the Susan B. Anthony Center, one mother who became hooked on prescription drugs after her husband died says she felt her baby suffering while she was getting clean.

"I know that I'm going through stuff getting off the pills. So what's she going through? She can't talk. She's just a baby," Jessica said.

Thanks to the center, Jessica was weaned off oxycodone before her baby, Casey, was born. But she fears the long-term effects of her drug abuse on her daughter, who has been suffering from respiratory problems.

"I want to make sure that she doesn't hurt anymore," Jessica said. "She doesn't deserve that, because she's a princess."

Jessica graduated from the center's recovery program last week.

Investigation into how Vietnamese children trafficked to the UK to work in the cannabis trade are often prosecuted as criminals rather than treated as victims.

Tyranny in NYC: The NYPD's Wasteful, Ineffective, Illegal, and Unjust Targeting of Blacks and Latinos

By Robert Gangi, AlterNetPosted on June 9, 2011, Printed on June 23, 2011

--alternet.org--

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been the focus of much public criticism in recent months. Elected officials and editorial writers have expressed concern and outrage over matters ranging from the city’s response to snow storms to the appointment of Cathie Black as the city’s Education Chancellor to the payroll scandal at the city’s Department of Employment. A policy area where the mayor has mainly escaped criticism and where it is long overdue is a truly objectionable practice of the Police Department, namely our city’s wasteful, ineffective, unjust, illegal and starkly racially biased arrest methods.

Wasteful

The vast majority of arrests in New York City are for low-level offenses, such as misdemeanors like possessing a small amount of marijuana or violations like selling umbrellas or flowers on the street without a license. By any criteria, almost none of these activities could be considered dangerous or predatory. At worst, most city residents would view them as public nuisances.

Police officers and other criminal justice personnel -- judges, court officers, district attorneys, public defenders and correction officers -- spend hours every day, if not their whole workday, processing these cases. And these law enforcement officials are preoccupied with these seemingly insignificant cases day after day, week after week, month after month and so on.  According to the Drug Policy Alliance, just one category of arrests -- for possessing, not selling, small amounts of marijuana -- costs New York City $75 million per year.
Ineffective

The aggressive arrest-driven policing applied in New York City aimed at minor offenses has effectively caught up hundreds of thousands, perhaps actually millions, of individuals in the criminal justice net in recent years. Last year, for example, the city’s police made over 370,000 arrests. Most of these arrests occurred in New York’s low-income communities of color -- for example, although the majority of people who use marijuana are white, 86 percent of the individuals arrested for marijuana possession last year were black or Latino.

Common sense tells us, as does more and more social science research into the perceptions of “procedural justice,” that the extent to which arrested people see and experience the criminal justice process as fair, respectful, consistent and impartial will determine their willingness in the future to respect the police and to comply with the rule of law. Unfortunately, the way New York City’s justice system processes cases involving minor offenses from arrest to conviction bears few if any of the hallmarks essential to people’s positive perception of procedural fairness.
In other words, most people caught up in this system will emerge from the court room at least somewhat embittered and angered by their treatment and with less regard for law enforcement personnel and procedures and with reduced willingness to comply with authority. Aggressive arrest-driven policing, while aimed at enhancing community safety and well being, actually contributes to the undermining of respect for social norms that is the building block for creating a stable and crime-free community.
Illegal

Many individuals subjected to aggressive arrest-driven police practices and subsequently charged with marijuana possession are coming forward with testimony that their arresting officers engaged in illegal search and seizure methods. According to these accounts heard over and over from people in different communities and who do not know each other, police often stop individuals, usually young black or brown men, for no apparent reason -- the persons involved are not engaged in what could be considered furtive or suspicious activity; they may have been walking to or from their school or workplace or been on a personal errand.
In another clear violation of their rights, the police conduct an aggressive search without asking permission and without any evident indication that the persons detained are carrying a weapon or contraband. The police reach into people’s pockets and crotch areas and/or tell them to remove their shoes. The police then confiscate the hidden marijuana and later claim to the court that the substance was open to public view, the condition necessary to charging the individual with a misdemeanor -- under state law, simple possession only rises to the level of a violation, which is not by legal standards even considered a crime.
These police actions broach provisions of our nation’s constitution and of New York State law. But most victims choose not to contest these illegal practices -- it would usually take 8 to 10 separate appearances at court to fight the charges. They usually accept a plea to a lesser offense, a violation instead of a misdemeanor, and thereby achieve their freedom until the next time the police stop and frisk them on the street.

Unjust

A particularly perverse category of injustice inflicted by aggressive arrest-driven policing takes the form of the collateral consequences arising from contact with the criminal justice system and the criminal record that ensues. The areas where bad consequences can, and often do, result from convictions for a misdemeanor or even a violation include housing, education, immigration, employment, driving, and public assistance.
Regarding immigration, for example, one misdemeanor conviction can lead to deportation. Two convictions for offenses reflecting “moral turpitude” can have a similar outcome; such offenses include shop lifting or turnstile jumping, hardly the kinds of dangerous or socially disruptive acts that should cause a person to be sent out of perhaps the only country that he or she has known to a foreign nation where the deportee has no remaining family or friends.

Criminal justice contact can also limit an individual’s job prospects, especially in New York where over 100 professions, ranging from barber to attorney, require licenses obtained from state authorities. Studies have shown that arrests alone can be an obstacle or even a bar to employment. New York City’s school system, for instance, mandates that an employee report any arrest, even for a violation, and will frequently suspend or reassign a teacher while a case is pending.

Even where arrests do not legally or technically prohibit employment, employers will always prefer job candidates who have had no contact with the criminal justice system. The damage done in depriving people of jobs extends, of course, to the families who will suffer undue hardship when their breadwinners cannot find gainful employment
Racial Bias

• Many recently gathered statistics point to the undeniable conclusion that New York City’s aggressive arrest-driven policing is marked by stark racial bias. In 2009, the city’s officers stopped and frisked over 576,000 individuals -- blacks and Latinos represent 84 percent of the people so treated, although the two ethnic groups make up only 53 percent of the city’s total population.
• In 2009, the city’s officers stopped and frisked over 576,000 individuals -- blacks and Latinos represent 84 percent of the people so treated, although the two ethnic groups make up only 53 percent of the city’s total population.
• Police data also show that young people were stopped at an average of once every 90 minutes in high-poverty, majority black and Latino neighborhoods like East New York and Brownsville, Brooklyn; whiter, wealthier areas averaged one stop every 18 hours.
• Individuals end up detained on Rikers Island or the city’s juvenile facilities as a direct result of whom the New York City Police Department arrests. Over 90 percent of the city’s adult detention population is black or Latino, as is about 95 percent of the juveniles locked up.
• In recent years, the top ten precincts for marijuana arrests in New York City averaged 2,150 marijuana arrests for every 100,000 residents; the populations in those precincts are 90 percent or more nonwhite. The 10 precincts with the lowest rates of marijuana arrests averaged 67 out of 100,000 residents, and are over 80 percent white. This, again, despite the fact that most pot users are white. Experience tells us that the general public, and especially the people that live in disadvantaged inner city communities, know this fundamental sorry truth about local policing: white people can possess marijuana with virtual impunity; if you are a person of color, however, then you must regularly look over your shoulder and watch out for the long harsh arm of the law.

Other strong evidence that aggressive arrest-driven policing has a racist impact comes from representatives of the non-profit prison reform organization, the Correctional Association of New York, which monitors conditions in the city’s court pens that hold recently arrested people just before they are arraigned, or officially charged with an offense, by a sitting judge. The organization’s officials report that on visits to the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Bronx pens, they usually see hundreds of detainees who were arrested the day or night before and there will only be one or two white faces in the midst of cell after cell of black and brown people. Out of 250 people arrested in Manhattan say on a Wednesday, conditions monitors will note that on the following Thursday they will see 248 or 250 people of color confined in those cells. Such a racial disparity -- not merely disproportionate but virtually exclusive -- is not an accident. It is a function of the policies and practices of the New York City Police Department.
Moving Forward

That the city’s Police Department pursues such a misguided and aggressive arrest-driven policy is disturbing but should not be completely surprising. History and experience tell us that whenever powerful law enforcement agencies, like police or prisons that can forcibly deprive people of their freedom, operate without checks and balances within government or without external, independent oversight, abuses and corruption are inevitable. That is what Attica and Abu Ghraib teach us. That is what recurring police scandals that have blighted New York’s landscape all too often teach us. And at this historical moment, the New York City Police Department is a revered, sacrosanct and politically untouchable agency. It is effectively accountable to no political figure including the city’s current mayor, or any government or civic body. Its commissioner is, for better or worse, an iconic figure; he and his policy setting team have to report or account to no one when they set arrest priorities or any other policy for the Police Department. Such unlimited power is dangerous, and should be unacceptable, to all New Yorkers, not just the black and brown residents of our inner city communities who bear the brunt of the Police Department’s harsh current policies.

It is way past time that the New York City Police Department stop its wasteful, ineffective, illegal, unjust, and racially biased arrest practices. It is way past time that the city’s citizens and elected officials demand transparency from Police Department leaders. New York City should take a page out of the Boston or San Diego Police Departments’ book and engage in collaborative problem-solving policing that cuts crime while stabilizing rather than disrupting communities and fosters adherence to social norms while building positive rather then hostile relationships with local residents. Such an approach would help provide New Yorkers of every race and income level with the chance to fully experience a more safe, livable, and inclusive city.

Robert Gangi is Senior Policy Analyst at the Urban Justice Center. He has been visiting prisons, conferring with officials and inmates, and writing reports on relevant criminal justice subjects for more than twenty years. During this time he has served as the Executive Director of the Correctional Association of New York.

40th Anniversary of the War on Drugs June 17, 2011

Today, June 17th, marks the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon’s declaration of a “War on Drugs.” To highlight the impact that the drug war has on communities around the world, more than a dozen SSDP chapters are organizing candlelight vigils in cities across the country.

The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.

Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction.

Introduction from Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, June 2011

Cannabis Eldery

Drug War Means Boom Times for Armored Car Maker
By Robert Beckhusen --wired.com--
June 3, 2011

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A 10-minute drive away from the Alamo, small teams on the factory floor of Texas Armoring Corporation work deliberately, turning everyday civilian vehicles into armored workhorses for the world's governments and business executives. The company is growing rapidly, and one reason is Mexico's drug war.

An adjacent building under construction will double available manufacturing space. TAC's workforce grew 30 percent last year to about 40 employees. That's enough to produce around 80 cars per year. Reality television networks have been calling, attracted to the company's tattooed workers, youngish executives and at-risk clientele.

Displayed inside the building's lobby are spiked road tacks that can be dropped out of rear compartments, armor components dented by rounds fired from AK-47 assault rifles, and a black SUV driver's side door with 2-inch thick bulletproof glass chewed up by ballistic impacts. Next, is a tire with a section cut out of it, showing hardened run-flat inserts underneath the rubber.

The armoring process is fairly straight-forward. A vehicle is sawed down to its frame with cutting torches. The frame is then wrapped in a combination of Kevlar, steel and polyethylene composite plates (industry term: "Spectra Shield") before the original fabrics and interior panels are restored. Eventually, at a price of around $80,000 or more — not including cost of the vehicle, and without options like smoke shields and digital video recorder systems — a client should be protected from rounds sized up to 7.62 millimeters.

Company president Trent Kimball boasts about his clients — heads of state, governments, multinational corporations and business executives — in a general way. But he won't name any; these guys like their privacy. International sales must clear U.S. Department of Commerce export controls, which are supposed to keep known drug traffickers and terrorist organizations from buying the armored rides.

Kimball says he's confident the company has never inadvertently sold to a drug lord. Traffickers avoid companies based in the United States, he said, opting instead for in-house armorers. In fact, Mexico's own armored-car industry is now worth $80 million a year and is growing at a brisk 10 percent. Mexican cartels have even begun building their own tanks.

Armoring is happening across the board, and Kimball says his clients — 20 percent either live or work in Mexico — are reacting to a sharp increase in crime and the threat of kidnapping.

An alarming surge in the practice over the past decade has surfaced in Latin America, the long-running leader in kidnapping. In Mexico, a record number of kidnappings happened last year. The country is now the riskiest country in Latin America for kidnapping and world leader in "express kidnapping" – quick, violent attacks that can last just a few hours and involve victims selected seemingly at random.

Kimball admits some of his clients may be a bit too paranoid. But others have to be, he says. Recently, a client in the Mexican city of Monterrey was nearly killed in an attack. The car saved his life. "Monterrey is a hotbed. There are very wealthy people who live in Monterrey," Kimball says. "It's an industrial city, so one of our clients …" he pauses. "We don’t know what the intentions of the people who attacked his vehicle were, but they did."

The spread of crime has spurred a partial restructuring away from high-end luxury vehicles to more compact and mid-sized, low-profile models. In Mexico's northern badlands and border cities, violence is now so widespread residents have depopulated city districts and abandoned entire towns to drug gangs. SUVs and trucks, particularly luxurious and heavy-duty versions, are favored by gangsters and have become frequent targets for carjackings.

An inspection of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security last year raised concerns about attacks in Colombia on conspicuous "embassy-owned, white Chevrolet Suburban armored vehicles." Clearly American, the vehicles made tempting prey.

In February, Zetas gunmen ambushed an SUV containing two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on a highway between San Luis Potosí and Matamoros. One agent was killed and the other wounded. The Zetas cell leader was later arrested and claimed the agents were mistaken for rival gang members.

In Juárez two weeks ago, three people traveling in a Hummer H3 with New Mexico plates were killed.

"We are definitely seeing a shift," Kimball said. "Not necessarily by politicians or State Department employees, but our clients — which are usually normal businessmen — understand if you drive a long Mercedes-Benz, you make yourself a target."

Let there be no mistake: most of TAC's business is in SUVs and luxury cars. On the floor of the company's factory, however, at least one small sedan could be seen nearly finished with Mexican license plates attached. Other low-profile models could be seen lined up elsewhere. The company has also recently armored relatively low-cost Nissan Maximas, Toyota Camrys and Chevrolet TrailBlazers. Kimball said he recently shipped three unassuming Mitsubishi Monteros.

"2008 models, not new ones," he said. "That's a smart guy."

40th Anniversary of the War on Drugs June 17, 2011

Friday, June 17th, marks the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon’s declaration of a “War on Drugs.” To highlight the impact that the drug war has on communities around the world, more than a dozen SSDP chapters are organizing candlelight vigils in cities across the country.

When the Police become the Judiciary

Kentucky vs Hollis Deshaun King

Case Summary

 Lexington, Kentucky: Police fabricate a narcotic deal in order to apprehend a suspected drug dealer.  The deal included the complete transaction of illegal narcotics, allowing the suspected dealer to leave without being apprehended.  The undercover officers who posed as “buyers” were shadowed by an additional undercover officer.  The third officer radioed for uniformed officers as he observed the suspected drug dealer entering a specific walkway of the complex.  The uniformed officers approached the front of two doors unsure of which the suspect had entered.  The officers claim to have smelled marijuana at the door of the left apartment.  The officers proceed to bang on the door and alert the tenants of their presence.  The officers testified that immediately after they started to make their presence known, sounds could be heard from inside the apartment.  These audible disturbances led the officers to believe criminal activity may be taking place and the evidence was in jeopardy of being destroyed.  The police crashed the door and apprehended three individuals who were allegedly smoking marijuana. In addition, the officers found marijuana and powder cocaine in plain view.  A more detailed search discovered crack cocaine, cash, and other drug paraphernalia. 

Lower Courts

A Fayette County Circuit Court grand jury charged the accused with trafficking in marijuana, first degree trafficking in a controlled substance and second degree persistent felony offender status.  The accused filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on a warrantless entry.  The Circuit Court denied the motion, judging the police conduct in accordance with the exigent circumstance exception.  [a1] The smell of marijuana, the “alleged commotion in the apartment”, and the “no response” to police alerting their presence and wish to enter the premise, the Circuit Court ruled, all created an atmosphere in which the officers were justified in preventing the destruction of evidence.  The defendant was convicted and sentenced to eleven years in prison.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling based on the same exigent circumstances argument.  The appeals court deemed the officer’s actions necessary because of the risk to evidence.  In addition, they ruled the police “did not impermissibly create the exigency… because they did not deliberately evade the warrant requirement.” (Kentucky v. King, Pg.7)

The Kentucky Supreme Court (302 S. W. 3d 649[2010]) overturned the lower court rulings.  The Court found questionable the argument that noise in the apartment meant imminent danger to evidence.  Ultimately, the ruling maintained the validity of the exigent circumstances exception.  The court implemented a two part test to determine whether the police created the exigent circumstance.  First, the police may not act with “bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement.”  Second, sans bad faith, police may not rely on exigent circumstances if “it was reasonably foreseeable that the investigative tactics employed by the police would create the exigent circumstances .”  Utilizing this test, the police were found not to have acted in bad faith.  The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the police failed the second part of the test because it was “reasonably foreseeable that the occupants would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence (Kentucky v. King, Pg. 7).”

Supreme Court

Scalia authored the majority opinion.  He began by citing the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

He noted that the amendment declares:1) all searches and seizures must be reasonable; and 2) a warrant must not be issued unless probable cause is established, including the specifics of what is to be “searched for” and “seized.”  The Supreme Court has “inferred that a warrant must generally be secured  (Kentucky v. King, Pg. 8).” However, Scalia began his ruling with a discussion of the long list (most recently Brigham v. Stuart [2006]& Groh v. Ramirez [2004]) of Court rulings in which the Fourth Amendment is interpreted as not explicitly mandating the need for a search warrant; regardless,Scalia noted that the court has occasionally overcome the need for a warrant based on the “reasonableness” of the search and seizure.  Payton v. New York and Mincey v. Arizona establish the core of Scalia’s belief that exigent circumstances have become an important factor in the defense of law enforcement officials that conduct a search and seizure without first obtaining a warrant.  

Scalia refers to the police activity prior to the entrance of the defendant's residence as a “controlled buy of crack cocaine outside an apartment complex.”

Kentucky v. King. No. 09-1272. Supreme Court of the United States. 16 May 2011. ONLINE http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

 

Medical marijuana patients across the country are under attack!

Despite the Obama Administration's promise to respect state laws, lawyers in the federal government are now threatening to arrest and prosecute people who are legally licensed to grow medical marijuana under state law.  These ideologues are trying to block sensible regulation – and they've already succeeded in Washington State.  We must stop them from erasing all the progress we've made and from leaving patients out in the cold.  Write U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today to demand that the federal government keep its promise to respect state medical marijuana laws.  Back in 2009, the Obama Administration said they wouldn't use "justice department resources to circumvent state laws" on medical marijuana. They've kept their promise for the past two years, even issuing a memo that made this hands-off approach official policy.
But now, federal government lawyers are intimidating states with new medical marijuana programs in an attempt to end these programs before they even get started. It's already happened in Washington State, where the governor vetoed a promising medical marijuana bill. And if these threats continue, they could jeopardize our efforts in every state where medical marijuana legislation is on the table.

These lawyers are playing politics with the lives of patients who need medical marijuana to cope with debilitating pain and nausea. Take action now and ask the Attorney General to keep the Administration's promise to leave state medical marijuana programs alone. To put a stop to these scare tactics, we don't need any laws changed – we just need the Attorney General to tell the handful of people sending the threats to stop. Write Attorney General Holder today and ask him to keep his word by respecting patients' needs. Then please spread the word – everything we've worked so hard to achieve is at risk!

Thank you again for your help.

Sincerely,
Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director
Drug Policy Alliance

Mexico's narco blog: Drug deaths in real time. As mainstream media agrees to guidelines for covering the drug war, an anonymous blogger is breaking gory stories. --aljazeera--
Chris Arsenault - Modified: 25 Apr 2011 14:02

The images are gruesome and unedited: a dead man in a sports jersey with his face covered in dried red blood and grey sand; a woman hanging from a rope above a busy urban over-pass and naked bodies lined up on the ground displaying clear, uncensored, signs of torture.

You have reached Mexico's narco blog: Click to continue.

"The narco blog uses much of the information citizens upload to other social networking sites," says Pedro Perez, president of the democratic union of journalists in Tamaulipas, one of the states on the US-Mexico border hit hardest by drug violence. "Organised crime gangs don’t use it [social media] to inform, they use it for issuing threats."

Some recent headlines from the site include: "Entire town taken hostage by Gunmen in Chihuahua"; "Eleven year old arrested in Acapulco with AK 47"; "Sinaloa cartel welcomes new police chief with tortured body"; and "Mass narco grave, 60 bodies found, total 148 corpses". Al Jazeera decided against publishing pictures from the blog.

Violence linked to Mexico's drug war has claimed more than 36,000 lives since President Felipe Calderon declared all-out war on cartels in December 2006.

Media criticism

While much of Mexico's mainstream media, especially television stations and local newspapers, has shied away from covering killings and naming the cartels involved, the narco blog and its anonymous curator, publish graphic details of spiraling violence.

"Individuals journalists are doing the best they can, but in general I don't think the media has done a fair job in covering drug violence," says Lucila Vargas, a professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina who studies Mexico's media landscape. "The media in Mexico are commercial enterprises and their first concern is with the bottom line," she told Al Jazeera.

Like most large scale industries in Mexico, the media - particularly television stations - are highly concentrated in a few hands. Mexicans are more likely to own a television set than to have access to running water but two TV stations - Televisa and TV Azteca - control 94 per cent of television entertainment content, according to the Mexican Right to Information Association.

While experts and average people criticise the mainstream press, there is clearly an appetite for the narco blog's coverage.

"International media outlets use the images and information from the site to report on what is happening," Perez told Al Jazeera. And that isn't surprising; followers of the Twitter page and Facebook group linked to the site include the US FBI, Mexico's Department of Defence and major international news outlets.

The narco blog has broken some major stories, including a video where a prison warden exposed her alleged system for setting inmates free at night to carry out murders for a drug gang. Security forces arrested the warden after the blog published the video.

"I was very impressed with it [the blog], it seems realistic," says Homero Gil de Zúñiga, director of community, journalism and communication research at the University of Texas in Austin, adding that verifying information posted on this and other blogs is difficult.

The curator is allegedly a computer security student in his twenties from northern Mexico, Associated Press reported, based on an interview with the man who answered the blog’s e-mail address.

"We decided to tell people what is actually happening and tell the stories exactly as they happen, without alteration or modifications of convenience," the blog's alleged author told the website Boing Boing.

But that raw methodology has many critics. "The narco blog is available to anyone, even my grandchildren," professor Vargas told Al Jazeera. "It has definitely crossed the line. I don’t know what else you can do that is more graphic.

There is plenty of research showing that prolonged exposure to violence de-sensitises people."

A narco salon

In addition to the occasional scoop, and pictures of pop stars attending lavish parties with alleged drug lords, the blog has plenty of claims and counter-claims from people purporting to represent various cartels.

In mid-April, gunmen exchanged fire and burned buildings in the border towns of Miguel Aleman and Ciudad Mier.

In a message posted on the blog, a purported spokesman for the Gulf cartel blamed soldiers linked to the Zetas - a gang comprised of former military operatives who once provided security and muscle for the Gulf cartel - for the shootings.

"We don’t brag about being brave," said a member of the Gulf Cartel in a separate posting aimed at Heriberto Lazcano, an alleged Zetas leader. "You are the ones who brag [that] roosters are tested [by] fighting, not speaking."

Think of the blog as a 19th century French salon where hit men, bandits, dealers - and the people affected by their violence – congregate to discuss ideas and actions. It is Mexico’s deadly version of "he said, she said". But since other media sources don't usually quote cartel members, citizens seem interested in what the digital hit men are saying.

In March, most of Mexico's news media, including the two leading TV stations Televisa and TV Azteca, agreed to a series of guidelines for reporting on the drug war. The news organisations promised not glorify drug violence, publish cartel propaganda or broadcast information that endangers the operations of security forces.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, (CPJ) supports the reporting guidelines, but three leading Mexican publications, Reforma, Proceso, and La Journada, refused to sign onto the deal, as reporters said it paved the way for self-censorship.

"In terms of the profession, probably the decision [to implement guidelines] was the right one," says Zúñiga from the University of Texas. "But there is going to be a niche for information [about cartel violence] and I’d anticipate that the blog is going to increase its followers."

Felipe Calderon, Mexico’s president, welcomed the agreement, stating that: "Media participation is crucial in building state security policy."

Bad news

Mexico has become one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists: Between 2005 and 2010 at least 66 reporters were killed, with 12 more disappeared, according to a report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). There have only been convictions in 10 per cent of the cases.

Violence, fear and impunity don’t just hurt reporters and their families, they decimates the quality of coverage.

"Local journalists have made a pact to just cover official acts like government activities, local policemen and local activities, things that are not dangerous," says Perez, who has been threatened by cartels while working with journalists in one of the most violent border-states. "We would like to be heroes, but we are being shot at by criminals."

A 2010 analysis of drug war coverage from the Fundacion MEPI, and investigate journalism center, found that regional newspapers in Mexico are failing to report most execution style killings linked to cartels. Journalists interviewed for the study said threats, bribes and other forms of pressure influenced their decisions not to cover killings or name the suspected cartels involved.

"Organised crime members have tried to bribe or influence traditional media [and] that is the importance of social media," says Raul Trejo Delabre, an independent media analyst in Mexico City.

"Thirty three million Mexicans use the Internet everyday," he told Al Jazeera, adding that average people use Twitter, Facebook and cellphone text messages to warn their friends about shoot-outs in the neighbourhood. The blog gets at least three million hits per week, the anonymous author told Associated Press in 2010 and the stats are likely higher now.

Regardless of the role of citizen journalism in keeping people informed or the journalistic ethics behind drug war coverage guidelines, Lucila Vargas doesn't think the policy will make much of a dent in the violence engulfing Mexico. "Journalism is only part of the popular culture landscape, which includes film, music and TV programmes and all of these have been glorifying the violence," she told Al Jazeera.

And, as parts of Mexico descend into a real-time version of an uber-violent Quentin Tarintino film, the popularity of sites like the narco blog seems to be increasing.

"Bad news sells newspapers," says Zúñiga, "but good news won't sell as many."

You can follow Chris Arsenault on twitter @AJEchris