The Frontline documentary on methamphetamine which aired on PBS this past week managed to be even more sensationalistic and one-sided than I expected. I had to laugh out loud when the narrator came out with "methamphetamine is the most addictive substance known to man." Really? Wasn't crack the most addictive? Or was it heroin? Go back far enough and you'll find the same claims made about marijuana. And that's the point. Without some balanced, historical perspective on the phenomena of illicit drug use, programs like this devolve into simple drug war hysteria.

There were other problems with this show. But, here, I'm going to let Michael Clark lay it out for you, because he's a PhD, and a much better writer and thinker than I am:

The program was misleading on at least two major issues:

1st, and most importantly to the thesis, they claimed that ephedrine has no natural source and they implied that without ephedrine or pseudoephedrine meth manufacture would not be possible. Ephedrine has a natural source-- ephedra (duh!). And the ephedrine synthesis is used because it is the easiest and most direct route. There are plenty of other ways to make meth from a variety of other precursors if one is willing to do the organic chemistry. The documentary clearly details how the meth industry adapted at a frightening pace to every attempt to cut off precursors, as well as the huge size of the market. Anyone who thinks that the industry isn't going to start using ephedra to extract precursors or switch to a non-ephedrine based synthesis, is figuratively speaking, smoking meth.

Aggressively cutting off (pseduo)ephedrine might well decrease purity and increase price, and thereby lower addition rates. But it is not going to do anything resembling end meth use and might even have unforseen negative consequences (such as how they documented that pushing meth labs into Mexico increased meth shipments to the east coast). The major advantage of forcing a change to ephedra as a pre-precursor or a change to non-ephedrine synthesis would seem to be closing down the crude kitchen labs. This could be argued as a worthwhile harm reduction measure.

Specifically, forcing a shift to requiring the meth industry to use more sophisticated chemistry, means more work done by chemists and less by untrained meth cooks intoxicated with their own product. The anticipated result should be a reduction in the frequency of fires and small toxic waste dumps in residential areas, as well as a reduction in the number of children exposed to these environments.

But the reduction in use is not even going to resemble what happened with methaqualone, a near complete drop off. There the molecule was much more complicated, and there was another drug rising (i.e. cocaine) for the Columbians to make much more money on than yet another sedative-hypnotic; especially one that wasn't all that different in effect and duration from drugs still widely available.

2nd- The documentary makes it seem like Mark Souder is concerned about people addicted to drugs. The man might as well be nicknamed "Kick 'em when they're down" Souder for his work to put as many obstacles as he can into the way of recovering addict's re-integration into society. The man is no friend to anyone who is concerned about the effect of drugs and drug addiction on individual human beings. He got a free ride.

Thanks, Michael for sending around this analysis!

Tags: Meth, Methamphetamine, Frontline, PBS.

I'm a little late on this, but last week Italy's parliament passed an intense zero-tolerance law, going back on the more relaxed drug laws they passed in the 1990s. The law, which is likely to be signed by the president, criminalizes possession and has a penalty of 6-20 years in prison for trafficking anything from marijuana to heroin.

The guy who proposed this law, Gianfranco Fini, is described by the Guardian as the "leader of the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance." Yipe. There is also this tidbit:

Two years ago, he declared that a new approach was needed because drug-taking was a "rejection of the most elementary duties of the individual towards the various communities in which he or she lives."

This struck me as an interesting articulation of the idea that people get so worked up about punishing drug users because they feel that drug users are getting away with something, and violating the social contract. What does Fini think the individual's "most elementary duties" are? If we were even able to come to some agreement about an individual's responsibilities towards his/her community (ha!), could he really provide evidence that drug users are neglecting said duties, and would tend to them if they did not have access to drugs?

And then of course there is the point that it is pretty hard to maintain any duties towards your community if you are in prison. Hmm.

Tags: Italy, zero tolerance.

I have to admit that I have no idea what to make of the "Dick Cheney shoots a man in the face with a shotgun and then the white house sort of delays releasing the story to the press and then the man has heart attack and Cheney might have been drunk and what's his relationship to that woman he was with anyway?" story that seems to be all the rage this week.

Really, I don't know what to make of it at all.

Molly Ivins, however, has some interesting comments in her column this week.

She mentions that Harry Whittington, the Republican lawyer Cheney shot in the face, was outspoken about the need to reform the prison system in Texas. Apparently he served on the Texas Board of Corrections and she quotes him as proclaiming that "prisons are to crime what greenhouses are to plants."

Ivins says that whenever a new overzealous "tough on crime" legislator got elected in Texas, the senior members of the party would make him or her meet with Whittington to get a lesson on the high costs of building prisons in order to curb crime.

Sounds like a drug policy reform ally to me! A Texas Republican ally no less!

Again, I don't have any grand conclusion about what this means.

Maybe Cheney can make it up to Whittington by supporting the repeal of the outrageous federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Tags: Cheney, Texas, War on Drugs.

Some of you already know that our medical marijuana bill was defeated 4 to 3 in the House Agriculture and Water committee. It was heartbreaking. One vote. All we needed was one vote to continue.

The final vote was cast by Representative Joe Stell. After he voted to table (aka kill) our bill, Essie Debonet exclaimed "Why are you trying to kill us?"

She immediately turned around and looked at me. I will never forget the fear and anger I saw in her eyes. The look on her face will haunt me forever. Essie suffers from serious side effects due to her HIV/AIDS medications.

Before the vote, Representative Cervantes bluntly stated that the bill was sent to the Agriculture Committee to be killed. He asked his colleauges to get the bill out of committee so the bill could receive the House floor vote it deserves.

Sadly, that will not happen this year. But we'll be back until we get this bill through. You can count on that.

Tags: Medical Marijuana, New Mexico.

DPA received a lot of good media hits this week. First, there was this good USA Today article quoting me on the government's latest effort to peek into your medicine cabinet. Then there was a great Associated Press story quoting me and several other drug policy reform advocates on the failure of the war on drugs (the early version of the story - which doesn't quote me - is what was picked up in a lot of papers). Then there was this great blog post by Scott Henson and this short blurb by Andrew Sullivan. Today, I awoke to three great pieces: Debra Saunders details DPA's plans to reign in the federal Byrne grant program in the San Francisco Chronicle. Ellis Henican discusses DPA's outreach to the conservative base in Newsday. And the New York Times quotes DPA's Executive Director, Ethan Nadelmann, on why coca tea should be part of the international commodities market.

Tags: War on Drugs.