Politics triumphed over science in the UK last week when the head of the country's drug advisory council, David Nutt, was forced to resign after releasing a report in which he and his colleagues classify drugs based on their potential to cause harm rather than the legal classification assigned to them by the British government. The report groups alcohol among the most dangerous drugs and marijuana among the least.

Nutt has said that several members of the council will join him in forming an independent drug advisory group if the government doesn't reverse its position by next week.

The situation in the UK mirrors that of France in 1998, when French health official Bernard Roques released a similar report questioning that nation's existing drug classification system. That report also named alcohol as one of the more harmful substances and placed marijuana on the lower end of the spectrum. The French government made moves to reclassify drugs based on the report's findings, but, following backlash from the alcohol industry, a watered down version of the report became the basis for France's new drug policy.

Nutt's firing is disheartening because it comes at a time when other European countries (see previous posts on Germany and Portugal) are forging ahead with drug policies based on science and a genuine interest in reducing harm.

It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds and, particularly, whether it receives attention in the U.S., because the Office of National Drug Control Policy is currently working on its own three-year drug policy strategy to be released early next year. Will the U.S., like the UK, continue to ignore scientific fact and reinforce the same, failed drug war policies? Or will the new drug czar take a new approach based on science and human rights?

Want to speak out against David Nutt's firing? Join the Facebook group calling for his reinstatement.

Joint Cause Commercial from Wil Wells on Vimeo.

Along the same vein of stupidity and general unwillingness to have an honest dialogue with anyone who doesn't agree with them youth about drug use, here is a gem of a video from Californians for Drug Free Youth (CADFY).

This "commercial" was released in opposition to California's marijuana tax and regulate bill, which had its first hearing on Wednesday. Note: CADFY's url is www.jointcause.com -- I doubt they even know why I laughed for 5 minutes when I learned that.

Of course, if you are a drug warrior, and base an argumentation on the word "seriously?", you generally make drug policy reformers who engage in science-based policy look even more legit. So to thank them, you can write on CADFY's facebook page.

That's right, drug prohibitionists are now using modern technology to disseminate antiquated ideas.

To counterbalance a more enlightened federal policy toward patients and suppliers of medical marijuana, Minnesota's highest court ruled (don't think I've linked to Fox News before) that those who possess bong water can be prosecuted for possessing a narcotic mixture.

A Minnesota woman can be charged for a controlled substance, a first-degree drug crime (25 grams or more of a controlled substance), by possessing 37 grams -- about 2.5 tablespoons -- of bong water that tested positive for methamphetamine.

The decision effectively reverses two lower court rulings that found that charging Sara Peck with 37 grams of methamphetamine-laced water as a first-degree narcotic possession is pretty much crap. The high court (pun very much intended -- although I know plenty of people that make better decisions while high) found that since the drug water counts as a "mixture" under state law, meaning "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity", Peck can be charged with the higher offense that carries a possible sentence of 7 years 2 months, while a possession of drug paraphernalia carries a $300 fine and a petty misdemeanor conviction that would not be on her record. A narcotics officer testified that drug users sometimes drink or inject the bong water (I really don't know if this is the case for people who use meth, but it doesn't seem realistic).

This decision ushers in the possibility of extracting plea deals by trumping up drug charges. It also, more disturbingly, expands the possibilities of what warrants a drug indictment. Would my blood, since it may contain controlled substances, be subject to supoena? Or my urine? If I set foot on Minnesotan soil, will police be waiting at the baggage gate to arrest my bladder?

This is a clearly terribly worded penal provision, that acts as a exploitative tool by unhinged prosecutors that seek to pile on charges to get convictions. It also may realize the possibility that those who violate parole or probation with a dirty urine could then be charged with possessing a narcotic "mixture".

This is a teaching moment for hygiene: 1) always make sure your bong is clean and 2) pee frequently!


I think we all are SOL regarding the blood issue.

We're all cheering the new federal medical marijuana guidelines that direct prosecutors not to arrest law-abiding patients in medical marijuana states. But of course, it remains to be seen what prosecutors will do with those guidelines.

I just read a piece in which criminal defense lawyer Allison Margolin shines a light on the Los Angeles District Attorney's campaign to shut down dispensaries in her city. The whole piece is worth a read -- Margolin makes a convincing case that prosecuting medical marijuana operators is economically foolish and legally problematic -- but one paragraph in particular jumped out at me. Regardless of whether we think California's dispensaries need more regulation, we would all do well to consider the following:

The media has focused on the fact that dispensaries in LA have mushroomed over the past year, and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries, is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement or the LA District Attorney's office as legitimate.

On Wednesday, major provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms signed into law in April went into effect: restoring sentencing decisions in most (but unfortunately not all) drug cases, and allowing nearly 1,500 people serving time in prison for B drug felonies under the old Rocky law to petition for resentencing.

It is the first time in 36 years that New York State drug laws place the power of sentencing decisions in the hands of judges, who can now take into account the totality of the circumstances when someone is convicted of a drug offense to fashion the appropriate sentence -- whether it be treatment or other alternatives to incarceration programs, probation, or parole -- and make a prison sentence the last resort.

You can read more about the new provisions that go into effect from DPA's gabriel sayegh here, and get more info (fact sheet) on the reforms here.

This reform of mandatory minimum drug sentencing provisions indicates a real shift that focuses drug abuse and dependence as a health issue, rather than addressing it solely as a criminal justice matter. Although there is far to go, New York can show the nation that while it was the first state in the country to adopt such misguided and racist laws, they can now become a national leader by using effective community-based alternatives to incarceration to address drugs as a public health and safety matter, not a prison one.

Much has been made about the new Marie Claire article "Stiletto Stoners" that profiles several successful white women who smoke pot. I am on the fence about this article. On the one hand, it does tap into a readership and highlight a class of people that should be included in the conversation about responsible cannabis use and the need to normalize a behavior that is already...well, normal.

But on the other hand, in the larger context of the war on drugs, it is a narcissistic piece that highlights the lives of people that are not affected by the consequences of prohibition in the least. It is almost as if Marie Claire is saying SOME people can smoke pot responsibly, principally these well to do white women who appear to be the readership of the magazine, but OTHERS should probably get their lives together before they indulge in something far less harmful that alcohol.

Keep in mind that those that lead lives of privilege smoke possibly unaware that over 850,000 are arrested annually for marijuana, and 90% of those arrests are for possession only. And while every adult should be free to smoke, eat, vaporize, etc marijuana unencumbered or frightened by possible arrest, it still remains that marijuana arrests, like all drugs arrests, are racially screwed. Take New York City for insistence, where 40,000 people are arrested per year for small amounts of marijuana, and 87% of those arrested are people of color.

That being said, it is important to explore every facet of the marijuana conversation, and this is a worthwhile component. Hopefully more people are inspired to start coming out of the marijuana using closet -- and maybe even show his or her face.

And also, the story inspired a pretty great video on Today.

Nineteen-year-old Casey Gogos of Green Bay, WI was convicted yesterday on homicide charges in the death of a 17-year-old who died after overdosing on heroin allegedly supplied by Gogos. He faces up to 52 years in prison.

Wisconsin is one of several states with a Len Bias law, named after the Maryland basketball player who in 1986 famously died of a heart attack after taking cocaine. These laws allow for homicide charges to be brought against individuals who supply drugs that later contribute to the death of another person. (Bias's death also set into motion a host of other drug war measures, including mandatory minimums, crack/powder sentencing disparities and school-zone laws.)

Even though I know these laws exist, and I shouldn't be surprised considering all the political grandstanding that goes into crafting our nation's drug laws, it still shocks me every time I hear about someone being held solely responsible for a death resulting from someone else's uncoerced actions.

Especially mind-blowing is that even people doing drugs with someone who dies of an overdose can be prosecuted. These are often the only people who can call for help, and yet the law provides them with a disincentive to call 911.

Why is the reaction to drug deaths always to find more ways to put people in prison, rather than educating people about how to actually prevent drug deaths?

Even though I am some people are suffering from a case of the Mondays, there is some great media coverage today about the marijuana legalization debate. Four articles about marijuana legalization from large media publications were published today. Just wanted to let you guys know that these are out there.

AM New York (for those of you who take the subway) has a great front page! article about the dramatic marijuana arrest epidemic that has crowned NYC the marijuana arrest capital of the world. DPA's director or media relations, Tony Newman, is quoted within the article.

Fortune Magazine has a comprehensive story about the medical marijuana dispensaries in California. They ask the question: Is the end of marijuana prohibition among us? DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, is quoted in the article.

New York Magazine's Mark Jacobson has an excellent piece also about marijuana arrests in New York City, splicing in anecdotes and other pieces of marijuana-related culture in the Big Apple.

The Washington Post provides a nice anecdotal story about the younger generation's views on marijuana legalization. It as also invokes Maryland's little known medical marijuana defense known as medical necessity (2nd post down).

Labels: marijuana, medical marijuana, New York

Today's swat-style home invasion is brought to you by the DEA in conjunction with the New York Police Department. (author's note: when I google image searched for "NYPD cartoons", I was reminded of this -- some people are just full of hate.) The New York Daily News reports a botched raid by the DEA, backed up by the NYPD, on a reputed gang boss.

The reasoning behind the raid -- Ruiz's apartment acted as a stash house -- seems highly suspicious. The adage drug sellers try to adhere to (at least in the movies) is "you don't shit where you eat". It makes sense that this would apply to a boss in a violent drug gang. Why would he have his own apartment be a stash house? Methinks it's simply shoddy police work. This is reaffirmed for two reasons: 1) while the DEA was raiding the house, the DEA was actually arresting Ruiz elsewhere in NYC and, more importantly 2) they raided the wrong house!

The warrant listed the wrong apartment, and the article seems to indicate that while Ruiz used to live in the building, he had not lived there for a few years. Instead, the DEA scared the living crap out of a mother and daughter, ages 48 and 19 years old respectively. Not only did the two continually insist while these paramilitary were trashing their apartment that they had the wrong apartment, the NYPD even scrolled through the daughter's pictures on the computer and laughed at the two women on the beach.

The police and DEA eventually left, muttering what I would imagine was the most insincere apology ever spoken in New York. Then again, what would you expect?