Not mentioned in my previous blog concerning the raid at San Diego was information provided from the Los Angeles Times:

"University police began the investigation a year ago after a 19-year-old female student died of cocaine and ethanol intoxication, San Diego State President Stephen Weber said at a news conference Tuesday morning at the district attorney's office."

In other words, another polydrug user overdose. It is unclear whether cocaine or alcohol that caused death, yet cocaine, being the illicit "drug," bears all the blame - mainly because, in my opinion, alcohol has a lobby, cocaine doesn't.

How many arrests does the D.E.A. estimate it will take to prevent the next overdose?

"According to the DEA, the seized evidence included 4 pounds of cocaine, 50 pounds of marijuana, 48 hydroponic marijuana plants, 350 Ecstasy pills, 30 vials of hash oil, methamphetamine, psilocybin (mushrooms), various illicit prescription drugs, a shotgun, three semiautomatic pistols, three brass knuckles and $60,000 in cash."

When Customs is seizing tons of cocaine at the border, the DEA arresting almost a hundred people, and only seizing the amounts listed above is a joke - except that the penalties faced by these students will not be funny. The amounts above are a single grain of the beach of drugs coming into and already on the streets of the United States. The people arrested represent the same grain on a beach of people participating in this illicit distribution and use network.

How can anyone other than a complete lunatic think that this approach is somehow successful, considering the overdose came after almost four decades of the same failed drug prohibition policies? And why would interdiction be more successful than making naloxone more available (not that it would apply in the present case, there is no known drug to counteract alcohol overdose), an approach opposed by the federal government?

We don't get more answers though, we get more posturing, more sensationalism, and more hiding of the truth: did the female student last year die from asphyxiation or depressed breathing (alcohol related death), or heart attack (cocaine related death)?

The lunacy takes a turn for the worse...

Nevermind the terrible pack of distortions and reality-thwarting announcements from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, that stuff is chump change. As they say, action speaks louder than words:

This week? A raid at San Diego State University, netting seventy-five student drug busts, with violations ranging from simple possession, to distribution.

You've got to hand it to the federal drug warriors - they're diligent in pursuing prohibitionist policies. With the current budget and economic crisis, there might even be an argument that the federal government is saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in student aid that will certainly be denied those students "busted" in the raids. That argument falls flat, however, when one realizes that the drug warriors will be wasting millions of dollars prosecuting and incarcerating college kids, who might be better served by either: a) getting them into treatment if they need it, or b) leaving them alone.

The justification? Two cocaine overdose deaths in the past year. Two.

• Alcohol is linked to 1,400 student deaths in college and 500,000 unintentional injuries each year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
• Alcohol kills 6.5 times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined (Be Responsible About Drinking, Inc., n.d.).

So when is the D.E.A. going after the possessors and distributors of this scourge, alcohol? --Never, as drug policies in the U.S. do not reflect the reality: drugs don't discriminate, but our drug laws do. Not just in terms of racism, but also in terms of which drugs are illegal versus legal. Most illicit drugs remain so because they don't have a high-powered, money-backed lobby.

Back to a missed point: considering that the overdose deaths were in San Diego, the possessors and distributors were all in San Diego, how exactly did the federal agents find themselves with jurisdiction over this case? Don't they have international cartels to go after, or something?

I mean, last I checked, San Diego State University wasn't the home of the kingpins of cocaine distribution in the United States... but the D.E.A.'s lunacy evidently disagrees with my analysis.

It's almost unbelievable the amount of insanity that goes into drug prohibition policy. Our friends at the Office of National Drug Control Policy certainly are the experts in this field, and are aiming for the corner on the market of insanity.

Just last week I commented on the funny math of the feds. This week? Further proof they can't add:

In the Federal News Service for April 28, 2008, John Walters, "We're not happy, obviously, that the amount of heroin coming out of Afghanistan has become kind of historic in its magnitude."

What he means to say is that, after decades of interdiction, within six years of having production virtually eliminated under Taliban rule (by February 2001, production had been reduced from 12,600 acres to only 17 acres), last year all records were broken for opium production. Further, Afghanistan is now, in 2008, making more opium than ever before... and that's with United States military patrolling the region.

Afghanistan + 6 years + Interdiction = Increased opium production. Somehow, the equation isn't working out as originally planned.

There's more, like Walter's banal repetition of the same mantra that cocaine availability is at its lowest levels for the past twenty years, despite most law enforcement agencies finding cocaine availability has not changed significantly (not to mention, if cocaine was getting so scarce, how did they manage to seize so much in the hyped 'Bryne Raid' day?). Walters is likewise in utter denial of the porous nature of our borders (even claiming that the U.S. government is interdicting up to 50% of the illicit chemicals being transported across the border!). Let's be blatantly honest here: if you can't keep drugs out of prison, how the hell are you going to keep them out of a whole country?

Not to fear! Insanity has a solution, which Walters states unequivocally: more money, more aircraft, more cops.

In criminology, they've called it the humpty-dumpty principle: just keep throwing more money and more people at the problem, and eventually it'll get fixed, despite there being no evidence that the solution is the correct one. You need to use the proper tools to solve a problem. So analyzing what tool you are using becomes very important, and unfortunately, one that the ONDCP hasn't bothered with for a while: in terms of reducing the harms of drugs, isn't prohibition like trying to fix a flat tire by hitting the wheel with a stone axe?

St. Louis Dispatch just published a story about poor crack defendants, who have an opportunity to reduce their sentences, being denied counsel.

After the Sentencing Commission's unanimous vote to retroactively lessen the disparity between crack and cocaine for sentencing purposes, Acting Attorney General Mukasey warned of the "flood" or "crime wave" of "violent" and "gang-related" crack defendants hitting the streets in March. This hasn't happened.

Instead, it seems that some judges have decided to thwart the "crimewave" in a rather novel way. Some judges have decided to determine the complexity of cases before them, and deny appointed counsel to crack defendants seeking resentencing without the money necessary to hire a lawyer.

Just as our drug laws discriminate, evidently even some judges see fit to do so as well - the average crack defendant does not resemble the average crack user - the former is generally a person of color, the latter is generally white. I can't imagine that the system would so casually dismiss the right to counsel if the primary beneficiaries were white, but this is not the case. Now, those crack defendants with access to resources necessary to hire lawyers will find themselves on a better footing than those without money.

Sentencing is perhaps one of the most important phases of the criminal justice process. In most instances, it is considered so complex and important that no one is permitted to waive their appearance. Should a change in law happen, like what has happened for crack defendants, in a majority of cases, re-sentencing is necessary.
To re-sentence someone in the federal criminal courts is virtually identical to an initial sentencing. To re-sentence without counsel is like an initial sentencing without counsel, no matter how simple some judges would like to paint the picture.

Law is not simple - even experts can't all agree on what laws mean, how to implement them without offending the basic framework and foundation of our laws (the Constitution), and which laws violate the Constitution and must be discarded.

Yet somehow, some appellate courts and district judges are of the opinion that crack defendants, most of which are not versed in even the basic tenets of law, who can't explain the difference between civil and criminal law, statute or administrative code, are nonetheless still capable of representing themselves.

If this is not an utter embarrassment, a contemptible action by certain judges that further disenfranchises crack defendants, I don't know what is. To force crack defendants to argue for their reductions without counsel upsets a fundamental fairness that the entire judiciary should back 100%. As U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn correctly stated, "The government is represented by counsel, I'm making sure the defendant has counsel, too." If our laws are supposedly fair, isn't this the bare minimum required?

Yesterday I attended a presentation at my old stomping ground of NYU. The speaker -- whom I was very excited to see -- was Sudhir Venkatesh, whose new(ish) book, Gang Leader for a Day, describes the underground economy of the Robert Taylor Homes - the largest housing project in Chicago during the late 80s to mid 90s until they were demolished.

The book describes a demographic of people that had not been thoroughly studied in a meaningful sociological way until the self-described "hippy" Venkatesh wandered into the Robert Taylor homes in 1989 to administer a survey. One thing led to another (my way of saying: read the book), and he ended up befriending the local gang leader of the Black Kings -- one of the most powerful gangs in Chicago at that time.

The relationship between the gang leader, JT, and Venkatesh spans a decade; and in that time Venkatesh had the opportunity to study the informal economies of the projects. The study really examines how people make a living, and in essence survive, in the absence of any government help. The book outlines the complex networks of these economies; replete with rules and unspoken agreements, power sharing, and hostile takeovers.

The importance of this book is found not only in its ability to describe economies so often misunderstood by politicians, scholars, media, and policy-makers; Venkatesh seeks to humanize the people of the projects by highlighting their endeavors to get ahead and their ability to survive. Ultimately, the reader comes to find that the people marginalized and forgotten are the ones with the greatest will to negotiate and struggle. The narrative, to be sure, is not a morality tale. It doesn't judge the variety of ways people make a living, but it does seek to understand the interworkings of it. The book is worth the read, and hopefully, will illuminate the plight of the urban poor in a substantive way that helps inform a way of how to get them out of it.

One more thing: the "rogue" sociologist term on the cover of his book wasn't his idea, it was his publishers; I asked him last night.

You got to hand it to the federal government: if you take the attorney general and the Chief Scientist of ONDCP together, there are only 6,000 non-federal and/or non-crack drug war prisoners.

How does this come about? Take Acting Attorney General Mukasey at his word: the federal crack-cocaine disparity changes will cause a "crime wave" of up to 3,000 crack offenders being immediately released, and 20,000 eligible for sentencing reductions. 21% of those cases had guns involved, meaning about 16,000 were in prison solely for crack-cocaine distribution or possession charges.

This is important because of another interesting figure handed out, this time by the Chief Scientist of the Office of National Drug Control Policy: There are only 22,000 total drug war prisoners in state and federal prisons that only involve drug trafficking and possession.

Don't believe me? We got the audio right here.

So, if 16,000 of those crack defendants are in prison solely for drug possession and distribution charges, that only leaves 6,000 non-crack, non-federal drug war prisoners. I used to think that I was one in 500,000. I somehow feel a little more important knowing that I was one out of 6,000.

The federal government, in its "War on Drugs," only bolsters the old adage:

The first victim of war is the truth. The math of the federal government doesn't add up to what the facts are telling us.

The facts are that the drug war locks up hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, violates individual sovereign rights to a person's own body and mind, and the pursuit of prohibition has led to elimination of privacy protection, government restraint, and rational discourse and study of certain chemical substances.

Above the Influence -- the folks at the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) who brought you such anti-drug advert gems such as the "talking dog" and "guys in drive-thru hitting little girl on bike" -- created a web-based campaign, "Stoners in the Mist." I really hope the makers of "Gorillas in the Mist" sued Above the Influence. Be warned: it is dumb, and quite insulting.

In a nutshell, this anti-marijuana mockumentary follows two "anthropologists" as they infiltrate and study stoners, who conceivably do not move from the couch for 72 hours; keep poor hygiene, as illustrated by a girl stoner's unexpected find of a piece of brownie in her hair; or demonstrate generally bad motor skills -- apparently stoners cannot catch anything being tossed to them from 2 feet away.

This faux-documentary started last year, but I guess I was too stoned sitting on my couch to notice (see what I did there?). This parody, however, should ultimately be rendered timeless given the appropriate advertising -- unthinking aspersions tend to be preserved in the annals of history (see Reefer Madness for example). However, this kind of drug user generalization has been perfected by the ONDCP for decades.

At first it seems that there is a conflicting message presented by Above the Influence. The "documentary" obviously parodies people who smoke a lot of pot; but since very few, if any people are actually like that, the audience really doesn't take this parody of "extreme" pot smokers seriously. Making such a parody indicates that marijuana isn't a problem, or else Above the Influence would spend tax dollars on a less extreme, more reality-based campaign. Yet there are still over 800,000 marijuana arrests per year, almost 90% for possession alone. Clearly ONDCP believes that marijuana is a problem, so it seems that Above the Influence either doesn't understand the audience of teenagers that is their base, or just think that teenagers are high enough to actually believe that stoners act this way.

On Tuesday, the Drug Policy Alliance, Harm Reduction Coalition, New York City AIDS Housing Network (NYCAHN), and Voices of Community Advocates and Leaders (VOCAL) traveled up to Albany for a day of action and meetings with state Legislators. The goal was two-fold: the first was to urge passing of a 911 Good Samaritan bill that would provide immunity to a person from arrest for drug possession if they call 911 in the event of a drug overdose, and the second was to urge Legislators to take out needle possession from New York State’'s penal law.


Last year in New York City, nearly 1,000 people died from drug overdoses, – making it the 4th leading cause of accidental death in New York City - more people died from overdoses than homicides. Many of these deaths could have been prevented, but when an overdose occurs, the first reaction of those witnessing is not to call for medical help because there is the fear that the police will come and arrest them. Since most overdose deaths do not occur immediately, every minute without medical intervention makes recovery less likely. The 911 Good Samaritan law provides immunity to those calling 911 or receiving medical treatment for an overdose. We went to Albany to urge state lawmakers that this law prioritizes saving lives over criminal arrest.

The second reason for our action in Albany is to urge legislators to decriminalize possession of needles by taking possession of needles out of the criminal code. New York State passed good policy in 2000 with the Expanded Syringe Access Program (ESAP), effectively decriminalizing needles in the public health code by Department of Health mandate. However, because possession of needles still remained an arrestable and jailable offense in the criminal penal law, many syringe exchange participants were and are harassed by police, arrested, and even jailed for up to a year because they possessed needles even when they were allowed to do so under the public health law. The effort to take needle possession out of the criminal code reconciles the public and criminal penal law and, more importantly, encourages greater access to clean and further exchange of dirty needles– - a practice that has already led to the dramatic decrease of HIV/AIDS prevalence in injection drug users from nearly 53% to 13% today.

We certainly hope that the passionate narratives and dramatic statistics told to Legislators by those affected by overdose and clean needle access can move these politicians to enact sound and effective legislation.

A recent report from the UK Drug Policy Commission, whose mission is to provide independent and objective analysis of UK drug policy, critiqued the effectiveness of programs within the criminal justice system for people with drug problems.

Over the past several years, government drug strategies have focused on increasing treatment and support services -- but the report finds that that's just a starting point.

The report is full of recommendations that would make a drug policy reformer nod his or her head, but there was one section that really made me think, "Wow, they actually get it!" In this section, the report recommends against prison for most offenders who have drug problems.

The executive summary reads, "Imprisonment can have unintended negative consequences for problem drug-using offenders... An environment which is struggling to cope with record numbers of prisoners is unlikely to be conducive to recovery." The report points to imprisonment as having the negative effects of worsening problems with housing and employment, and increasing health risks for blood-borne diseases.

The report recommends community sentences as the more effective alternative.

Other sensible recommendations:

The report recommends increased attention to quality of services, including a broader range of services, better assessment systems to match people to appropriate treatments, and better services (such as housing, education and employment services) to help people reintegrate into society when they leave prison.

The Commission also cautions against trying to broaden the reach of criminal justice-based intervention to people who are not problematic drug users. It says that recreational drug users who get caught up in the criminal justice system can end up becoming more criminalized if, for example, they fail to complete drug treatment. The report also notes that such a widening of the net would increase the cost per person for these interventions.

Not what you think...