Nice priority of resources, ONDCP.

It's truly unbelievable that there was ever a question that this case might be decided any other way. Some background:

Back in 2003, teachers at then 13-year-old Savana Redding's school heard from another student that Savana had given her a couple of ibuprofen pills. Knowing that hearsay from a middle school girl is pretty much gospel, the vice principal ordered Savana to strip down to her undergarments, then pull her bra and underwear away from her body to prove she wasn't hiding any pills.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices saw the light yesterday and, acknowledging that Savana's constitutional rights were most certainly violated, decided to make sure what happened to her wouldn't happen to another student.

Most of them.

Way to go Clarence Thomas on being the only justice to dissent and insist that humiliating and degrading a child is okay! Here's his creepy opinion:

"Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments, nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announced the safest places to secrete contraband in school."

For most people, given the opportunity, ruling in Savana's favor would be a no-brainer. The fact that there are still powerful people in the justice system who need convincing that kids shouldn't be violated at school is more than a little scary.

Read what DPA has to say about the Fourth Amendment and illegal search and seizure.

The United Nations released its 2009 World Drug Report this week, and it seems the UN is getting on board with the drug policy reform movement's call for treatment over incarceration. The report praises Portugal's drug decriminalization approach, a system that just a few years ago UN leaders dismissed as too radical.

In the wake of the report and this new opening for discussing decriminalization, DPA is joining with a coalition of over 40 international groups and drug policy experts in calling on world governments to take a new approach to drug policy founded on sound science and concern for human rights, civil liberties, and economic and racial justice.

The groups' call to action urges global leaders to move away from the failed international drug policing tactics that continue to harm communities all over the world. The signers ask governments to:

1. Focus on reducing the harms related to drug trade and use, such as making needle and syringe exchange programs widely available.
2. Decriminalize the possession of drugs for personal use.
3. Ensure that evidence-based treatments for pain and addiction are widely available, including methadone and buprenorphine.
4. Treat supporting farmers in moving away from coca or poppy cultivation as a development issue.
5. Comply fully with human rights obligations in any drug control measure, ensuring proportionality of penalties, abolishing the death penalty, and avoiding non-evidence-based forms of treatment.

The UN is finally acknowledging the damage that harsh, discriminatory drug laws have inflicted on the world community, and this call to action outlines the right way to fix the problem. I'm hoping world leaders hear this call to action and take the correct steps to right the wrongs of global drug prohibition. And if the world takes action, will the U.S. listen too?

Read more about the call to action.

The Obama administration has decided to stop funding one of the nation's many failed drug policies. President Obama's new budget proposal contains no funding for the ineffective Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program. SDFSC provides federal grants for school districts to implement drug prevention programs that often rely heavily on zero-tolerance policies and student drug testing.

Both Obama and VP Biden supported funding for SDFSC while in the Senate, but apparently the fiscal crisis has led the administration to rethink spending money on a program that simply doesn't work.

I'm cautiously optimistic that this could be the beginning of a shift toward better drug policy, and it's about time. Current school drug prevention programs are overwhelmingly ineffective. Through it's Safety First Project, DPA has argued that student drug testing programs in particular are harming students, families, and school communities, while failing entirely to decrease the rate of drug use among teens.

The degree to which poorly designed school drug programs have transformed the climate in schools all over the country is depressing. They've strained the relationships between students and teachers, who are asked to misinform their students and to grant no second chances. They've turned schools into police states where students are prevented from graduating because of positive (or false-positive) drug tests, where kids are kicked out of extracurricular activities and subsequently made more susceptible to increased drug use and drug-related violence, and where authority figures disregard students' right to privacy (sometimes egregiously so). They've created an environment where educators are not champions of student achievement, but obstacles to it.

Educators have long floundered under government misguidance when talking to kids about drugs, and students have been fed a lot of lies. (Personally, I remember a tall tale propagated by my school's health teacher about a former student who went out back behind the school to smoke a joint...AND DIED!) Let's hope the administration's decision to eliminate funding for failed school drug programs is the precursor to a comprehensive overhaul of youth drug prevention policy. It's time to give kids honest information about drugs and focus on keeping them safe and in school.

The D.E.A. has long been the target of my occasional rants against raiding medical marijuana dispensaries. I usually call it an act of cowardice, because if they were truly concerned about the evils of drugs, they'd concentrate on drug cartels killing hundreds if not thousands in Mexico, and international trafficking rings, and go after source countries like Afghanistan. Not that I think that would work, but at least it would mean their message was consistent with their actions.

But that was before I realized they were a bunch of civilians, and that we're not really fighting a "war" per se against drugs. Hell, just ask the new Drug Czar.

The proof finally came in their own words, in an article from McClatchy about D.E.A. agents feeling like they're being punished for being required to do their job:

"Another agent, David Beavers, told McClatchy that he was ordered in July 2007 to prepare to go to Afghanistan in two weeks while he was on bereavement leave after his mother-in-law died. To avoid going, the Orlando, Fla., pilot decided to retire early.

Both men have flown for the DEA in Latin American countries wracked by drug violence, but they say service in a combat zone should be treated as voluntary because they're not military personnel."

See, we had it all wrong. The D.E.A. are not a quasi-military unit. Quasi-military units would look like soldiers, and when required, would act like soldiers. Instead, we have the D.E.A., who clearly don't want to act like soldiers, and hell, look nothing like them. From their own website:

**NOTE** Information, including photos, generated by the Drug Enforcement Administration is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published, or otherwise used without the Drug Enforcement Administration's permission. However, citation of the Drug Enforcement Administration as the source of the information or photos is appreciated, as appropriate.

I don't see a single soldier there, or anyone who could possibly be confused as such. I understand now why they don't want to be in a combat zone - it's not like they're equipped with military gear.

So, I definitely gave the D.E.A. the credit they asked for on their website photo archive -- think nothing of it, and no problem guys. Just remember, the next time a bunch of people come marching into your buildings in camouflage and machine guns - hey, they're probably just civilians wanting a cup of coffee.

Several extraordinary pieces of logical and compassionate drug policy reform legislation have been introduced on the federal level!

Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced, along with co-sponsors Tammy Balwin, Ron Paul, Dana Rohrbacher, and Maurice Hinchey, "H.R. 2943: the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009. "

This legislation would effectively decriminalize marijuana, up to 100 grams, for personal use. This legislation would apply only on the federal level, so that those pesky federal agencies, such as the DEA, cannot arrest people who possess marijuana within the weight limit. While this is great legislation, keep in mind the DEA has already disregarded another edict by Attorney General Eric Holder to stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries.

Another piece of legislation introduced last week was by Congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland who, along with several co-sponsors, submitted "H.R. 2855: the Drug Overdose Reduction Act of 2009". Among other things, the legislation would require the Center for Disease Control to monitor fatal and nonfatal drug overdoses and, very importantly, allocated $27 million dollars to overdose prevention programs throughout the country -- a necessity to life-saving programs that remain woefully underfunded. It is important to note that this funding can go towards purchasing naloxone, an opiate reversal drug, which has never received federal funding before (only state funding).

Coinciding with the overdose prevention legislation, the Drug Policy Alliance released a ground-breaking report, "Preventing Overdose, Saving Lives". This report details evidence-based strategies, that already exist, which can reduce overdose risk, protect Good Samaritans and medical professionals, streamline government response systems, and save lives.

This is all good news, signaling that legislators are exercising their beliefs that the war on drugs has failed, and new policies and strategies must be employed utilizing a public health and safety approach.

This is encouraging, but we still have many miles of road ahead.

In an effort to further undermine the meaningful Rockefeller Drug Law reform passed by the New York State Legislature and signed by Governor Paterson in April, District Attorneys from across NY State have began to "chicken little" the reforms. That is, the reforms are "going kill people".

First, the prosecutors attacked judicial discretion. Now, they are attacking a conditional sealing of records provision after the defendant successfully completes a treatment program. Prosecutors have been sealing records for years, but you only hear them screaming about death and mayhem after they lose , and the judge gains, the power to seal records. The thing is, the sealing isn't automatic, and the judge can deny a record sealing if he or she thinks it is against the public's safety.

I suppose that if I was a prosecutor, and for nearly 36 years I had the ultimate power of sentencing someone in a drug case, without any check by a judge (the scale the lady justice holds is clearly just for show), then I would be a bit annoyed that I lost some of my power, too.

If you read between the soiled lines of the prosecutor talking points, you will come to find that they are calling judges incompetent. The fear-mongering imbued into these prosecutors and Senate Republican's statements is saying "if judges are allowed to decide sentencing, all hell will break loose". Meaning, judges do not have the ability to take into consideration anything, and will tailor sentences that are so inappropriate as to actually have the effect of killing people. If I were a judge, I would be pissed as all hell that my years of litigation practice, and then judicial experience, doesn't hold any water to some assistant district attorney (prosecutor supervisors rarely try drug cases), straight out of law school, who have no grasp of the reality of the justice system, or of real life for that matter.

A public defender once told me that he didn't join up to defend the indigent out of some idea altruism pulling at his heartstrings. Nope. He joined up to act as a check against the power of the government. Without lawyers, the prosecutors are an unchecked extension of the governments imposition on its people.

Mandatory minimum sentences act in the same manner. Before the reforms, the prosecutors set the charge and decided the sentence based on that level charge. They also had the power to suggest or veto treatment or other alternative sentencing options. Now, the prosecutor still sets the charge, and can offer substantial input into sentencing decisions. Only now, and as it should be, the judge, as the impartial arbiter of the powers of the government and the defendant, decides on the sentence (whether prison, probation, or an alternative program).

How does that mean all hell is going to break out in New York? If we give people who need help the help they need, and if they show determination of bettering themselves, why shouldn't they get a second chance? Sealing their records would allow them to gain meaningful employment, and aid in getting rid of the elephant in the room that is systematically denying people jobs if they have a criminal record (even if the conviction was decades ago).

Prosecutors apparently like seeing "criminals" fail.


You can read two great op-eds from DPA's Tony Papa and The Fortune Society's Glenn Martin about conditional sealing. They are spot on.

I just finished up my first week as the newest staff member in DPA's DC office, and these days, I spend a lot of time explaining to friends and family what kinds of issues I'll be working on at my new job. Without fail, the issue that draws the most skepticism is heroin maintenance. A lot of people can see the argument for marijuana decriminalization and for ending sentencing disparity, but most are at least a little taken aback when I start taking about distributing free heroin.

I can understand where they're coming from - it's a concept that completely goes against the prevailing narrative in the United States about drugs and drug use. So many of us have been taught since childhood to see people who use drugs as criminals, and heroin users are perhaps the most harshly stigmatized. I've also witnessed, at least on a rhetorical level, a real lack of compassion for people who become addicted. There's an unfair assumption that when people fail to gain control over their addictions, they fail because they just aren't trying hard enough.

We've all heard stories - mostly on television - of people who have managed to completely kick their addictions and go on to lead healthy, admirable lives on the straight and narrow. But these stories most often misinform audiences about the availability of effective addiction treatment and gloss over the difficulty of the recovery process. Most of the people I've seen profiled in these tales of redemption are celebrities - people with access to the best medical care, mental healthcare, and rehab facilities, and the money to surround themselves with all sorts of material distractions.

And even among the wealthy, there are plenty who just can't quit or whose road to recovery is marred by multiple relapses. The average person, who lacks the resources to obtain top-notch addiction treatment, faces far more difficult odds.

Many of us in this country are suffering from a case of tunnel vision. We have been trained to see "getting clean" as the only solution to drug addiction when, in fact, heroin maintenance programs implemented abroad have shown that, with the assistance of healthcare workers, people can bring their drug use under control without achieving total abstinence. I suspect that with the proper oversight and implementation, these programs will prove to be far more effective in helping drug users lead stable, productive lives than any large-scale treatment program currently available in the United States.

Although the U.S. still relies on its disastrous prison system to regulate the drug problem, several other countries have embraced more pragmatic, compassionate approaches to dealing with drug misuse. Two more countries recently joined the list of nations that have adopted heroin prescription programs.

New legislation passed in Germany will allow doctors to prescribe synthetic heroin to people with long-term addictions. The law will benefit heroin users who have been unable to quit using other methods of treatment.

The Canadian health department will fund heroin prescription trials beginning later this year in Vancouver and Montreal. Treatment facilities will offer prescriptions for synthetic heroin to about 200 drug users.

Positive results change minds, and heroin prescription programs have consistently led to reductions in crime, overdose deaths, and new HIV cases.

Without a major shift in U.S. public's perception of heroin and heroin users, lawmakers here at home aren't likely to follow the example of their counterparts in Germany and Canada. But as more countries implement successful heroin maintenance programs, I hope that we will begin to see a paradigm shift in U.S. drug policy.

Or, as they title it, "National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy."

I believe the quotable can be attributed to The Who, "Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Nowhere is this more true than drug policy.

Let's look at the chapters of this document:
Chapter 1: Intelligence and Information Sharing
Chapter 2: At the Ports of Entry
Chapter 3: Between the Ports of Entry
Chapter 4: Air and Marine
Chapter 5: Investigations and Prosecutions
Chapter 6: Money
Chapter 7: Weapons
Chapter 8: Technology
Chapter 9: Cooperation with Mexico

I could write a similar document. "National Strategy for Handling Apple Falling."
Chapter 1: Assessment of connection to tree branch
Chapter 2: Intelligence reports of surface beneath apple tree
Chapter 3: Clean up policies for smashed apples
Chapter 4: Predicting next apple to fall
Chapter 5: Investigations and Prosecutions
Chapter 6: Money
Chapter 7: Tools
Chapter 8: Technology
Chapter 9: Cooperation with Apple Farmers

Yet still ignore the underlying principle: gravity. Unless you're planning on stopping gravity, the damn apple is going to fall. Similarly, if you ban substances that people want to have, you're going to have an illicit substance market. Duh.

How many more of these ridiculous documents can the government waste taxpayer money on before people agree to stop funding idiocy?

Illogic, an ill-known MC from Columbus, Ohio, has a single that is applicable to what LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) pointed me to on Facebook: a Huffingtonpost article by Ryan Grim pointing out that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)'s "high potency" marijuana THC averages were obtained by averaging in hashish samples.

Illogic's noteworthy single? It's called, "Stop Lyin'."

Hey ONDCP! Ever considered telling the truth for a change? You might actually get some credibility, instead of further proving that you're nothing but a propaganda machine for failed policies, and the modern-day equivalent of "Reefer Madness."

For all those that question the methodology, calling hashish "marijuana" is like calling opium sap a "poppy," coca paste "coca" or milk "a cow." They are NOT the same, even though you can get the former from the latter.

Thanks again to both LEAP and to Ryan Grim for linking and uncovering yet another "study" that's really just a pack of lies. Ricaurte, eat your heart out!