According to report from the Colorado Daily, 22-year old Michael Wilson died last weekend after being shot by a police officer with a Taser gun. Wilson was running from police and the “Boulder County Drug Task Force,” who had suspected him of growing marijuana in a nearby field.

Of course, Wilson is a fool for running from police, who are reporting that Wilson was armed with a folding knife and was “displaying assaultive behavior.” The ACLU is up in arms about the use of the Taser gun, which appears to be responsible for the death. But the deeper problem is with regard to the reasons why this conflict even occured in the first place and the motivation that Wilson would have had to run (i.e. he was more than likely facing jail time). Was his life really worth keeping that weed off the streets?

A Radley Balko article on FoxNews presents an interesting list of suggestions for lessening the damages of the failed War on Drugs (which, as Balko points out, has not changed the drug use rate, has filled the jails while doing nothing to affect the dropping price of illegal drugs, and has had no effect on the annual number of overdose deaths, which has tripled).

As Balko concedes, full-scale legalization is not going to happen any time soon. Thus, he calls for a tightening of the reigns on paramilitary police forces like SWAT teams, whose tactics are being implemented far past their intended use. Balko’s basic point is that routine police proceedings such be just that–not military exercises.

Of Balko’s suggestions (which can be viewed in their entirety via the link above), the one that makes the most sense involves changing asset forfeiture policies. Apparently (I didn’t know this), police departments are able to sell off property seized from drug SUSPECTS (keeping much of the revenue for themselves), leaving the ones who are acquitted, or even not charged, with no choice but to sue in court. Man, what a shadily un-American set-up.

Thanks to the US Marijuana Party for the link to Balko’s article. For Balko’s own blog, click here.

Back in the 60’s, when psychedelic, hallucinogenic drugs where relatively “new” to the average American (i.e. their EVIL hadn’t been recognized yet), they were used in several academic experiments studying the brain’s activity during reports of spiritual experiences. Since drugs like LSD and “magic” mushrooms (the active drug in which is psilocybin) were made illegal, these studies were for the most part discontinued by legitimate scientists and the thought of anyone conducting such a study gradually became associated with crackpots like Timothy Leary.

Of the 36 volunteers of the Johns Hopkins study, 22 reported having a complete mystical experience that they couldn’t put into words (compared with just 4 of the control-group, who took Ritalin under the same conditions). Of the 24 volunteers who responded to a survey given two months later, two-thirds referred to the experience of taking psilocybin as one of the top-five most meaningful experiences of their lives, and 80% reported a lasting sense of well-being.

The biggest positive of this study is that it opens the door for more of its kind, the existence of which will perhaps gradually reduce the stigmatization of hallucinogenic drugs. Many of these drugs are used in Native American religious ceremonies in order to heighten spiritual experiences.

The most important aspect of the study is its scientific credibility, the best testimony to which is perhaps the independently-made commentary of Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University. The psychiatrist and behavioural neuroscientist is of the opinion that “this is one of the most rigorously well-controlled studies ever done” regarding the relationship between a hallucinogen and reported spiritual experience.

See the full story here.

In a surprise use of rationality, several Conservative British politicians are calling for the opium industry in Afghanistan to become legalized and regulated. Conservative Party leader David Cameron is among the most important voices in the discussion, which arose primarily in response to reports from British military officers in southern Afghanistan regarding the opium eradication project.

These officers have reported a wasteful over-insistence upon eradicating the opium industry by NATO coalition forces that has ultimately resulted in the strengthening of the Taliban. An enormous amount of time and money has been spent trying to eradicate the opium trade in Afghanistan, which makes up about 50% of the struggling nation’s economy. Since much of this industry consists of small farmers who rely on poppy cultivation as their sole means of income, the result of the eradication movement has been a bolstering of the Taliban’s ranks. The Taliban takes in these left-with-no-choice farmers and gives them food in exchange for support.

Torry whip Tobias Ellwood has also argued that legalizing and regulating the Afghan opium industry would also help solve the reported opium shortage in the medical industry and reduce the amount of opium that finds itself in heroin-development labs. A similar argument is made by Italian vice foreign minister Ugo Intini here. Furthermore, a generally stronger Afghan economy intrinsically weakens the Taliban, which thrives on taking in those with no options.

Read the full story here.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) recently released a report entitled “Wasted in the War on Drugs” that shows evidence of tremendous waste and incompetence in the American government’s drug enforcement policies and practices.

Including among these wasteful practices is the prosecution of medicinal marijuana users in states in which medicinal marijuana is legal, and the repeated investment in the counterproductive National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, despite detailed government reports testifying to its failure. The CAGW suggests that these sorts of nonsensical practices are indicative of the government’s absurd prioritizing of attacking marjiuana usage while the usage of methamphetamine and cocaine continues to rise.

For the fully story and a summary of the report, click here.

A study conducted by Yasmin Hurd at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine on rats who were exposed to marijuana in their “adolesence” shows that they are no more likely to become addicted to heroin then those who were not. (And I always thought that the discrepancy between the 97 million Americans who have tried pot and the 3 million Americans who have tried heroin was enough to shoot down the gateway theory).

Another study conducted by Donald Tashkin at UCLA found no connection between (even heavy) marijuana use and smoking-related cancers. Much of this has to do with the fact that marijuana is hardly ever used in quanities comparable to a dangerous-level of cigarette smoking.

See the full stories on both studies here

It has been more than ten years since the people of California, for all their quirks, wisely voted for the legalization of medically prescribed marijuana. Now, the city of San Francisco is still struggling with where to put the state-sanctioned, medicinal marijuana clubs. Recently booted from residential areas, many of these clubs are now also being booted from commerical areas that are too ‘touristy.’ Locals fear that the presence of “cannabis houses” in these areas “sends the wrong message” to tourists.

Mayor Newsome is sympathetic to these concerns–which were expressed by a neighborhood planning commission vote that somehow overrode city ordinances allowing marjiuana clinics meeting a particular list of criteria and paying a 10,000 permit application fee to operate in places just like Fisherman’s Wharf–but fears that they are rooted in the classic “Not in My Backyard” policy of American liberals and conservatives alike (assuming that the latter, of course, are not of the “Not at All” variety when it comes to this particular social issue).

Newsome (who appears to be in a rather unenviable position) has the right instincts here, but fails to point out that the NIMBY feelings of his constituency are especially irrational in this case. The bottom-line is that medicinal marijuna clinics are not analogous to rehab centers or prisons, or even low-income housing developments, which are cited as being often hot-beds for crime. There really isn’t an identifiable reason to “not want these users around.” These people are in no respect different from any other patients, using any other prescription drug.

Complaints amount to things like “they use it outside.” So what? Your votes have sanctioned its medical usage; you’ve said it’s ok. The only reason you still see smoking marijuana as different from taking regular pills is some deep-rooted irrational fear of a particular drug that is, if anything, LESS harmful and LESS habit-forming then the prescription drugs taken by millions every day.

Another complaint is that these places attract crime. Hello! Have you seen the signs in every major drug store chain that indicates the lack of oxy-contin on the premises? Or have you tried to buy Sudafed lately? Drug-store robbery is a major problem. But its funny how no one wants to kick CVS out of the neighborhood.

Say what you want about NIMBY, it doesn’t even make sense in this case.

See the full story here.

For the last five years, Prarie Plant Systems has been the sole provider of marijuana to the Canadian government for research and medicinal usage. The contract, however, is about to run out, leaving Canada to seek bids from other companies.

The re-opening of competition is not necessarily the result of dissatisifaction with Prarie Plant Systems. While initial crops from the Manitoba-based company were returned in mass quantities for being too weak, subsequent improvements made in 2004 resulted in a “return-rate” of less than 2%. Rather, the idea is simply to let taxpayers and users benefit from increased competition, mirroring the government’s policy with its other contracts. The goal of this policy is not only to drive prices down and quality up, but to leave medicinal users with options regarding strains of the drug to which some of them have better responses to than others.

As of now, there is no particular reason to believe that Prarie Plant will lose its contract, although it certainly could. The lessen here, however, is that the classic economic model of free enterprise could benefit everyone involved, except those who shouldn’t–i.e. those who make a crappy product, want to profit too much, and refuse to adhere to legitimately enforced business and production practices—-i.e. the shady drug dealers who currently control the majority of marijuana sales.

Proponents of the legalization of marijuana who wish to argue predominantly on economic grounds (and not as much on touchy-feely, wishy-washy “it expands your mind, man”-type arguments) should pay close attention to how this plays out. This situation actually presents us with a real-life, marijuana-based, large-scale economic experiment from which to learn and from which to present evidence in future cases and for future arguments.

Click here for the full story.

For the last five years, Prarie Plant Systems has been the sole provider of marijuana to the Canadian government for research and medicinal usage. The contract, however, is about to run out, leaving Canada to seek bids from other companies.

The re-opening of competition is not necessarily the result of dissatisifaction with Prarie Plant Systems. While initial crops from the Manitoba-based company were returned in mass quantities for being too weak, subsequent improvements made in 2004 resulted in a “return-rate” of less than 2%. Rather, the idea is simply to let taxpayers and users benefit from increased competition, mirroring the government’s policy with its other contracts. The goal of this policy is not only to drive prices down and quality up, but to leave medicinal users with options regarding strains of the drug to which some of them have better responses to than others.

As of now, there is no particular reason to believe that Prarie Plant will lose its contract, although it certainly could. The lessen here, however, is that the classic economic model of free enterprise could benefit everyone involved, except those who shouldn’t–i.e. those who make a crappy product, want to profit too much, and refuse to adhere to legitimately enforced business and production practices—-i.e. the shady drug dealers who currently control the majority of marijuana sales.

Proponents of the legalization of marijuana who wish to argue predominantly on economic grounds (and not as much on touchy-feely, wishy-washy “it expands your mind, man”-type arguments) should pay close attention to how this plays out. This situation actually presents us with a real-life, marijuana-based, large-scale economic experiment from which to learn and from which to present evidence in future cases and for future arguments.

Click here for the full story.

You know that meth epidemic spreading throughout the nation? Well, it turns out, maybe it isn’t a spreading epidemic so much as a media creation. Observe:

So where is the wave of meth sweeping the nation and destroying communities? It’s on the cover of Newsweek so it must be true! Well, funnily enough it isn’t happening, and the data shows that the number of schoolkids using meth, people showing up in emergency rooms because of meth, and those reporting in the government’s own household surveys that they’re using meth, is the same that it’s been for 20 years. Here’s another excellent article in Slate debunking the whole epidemic myth.

So what has changed? Well it would be optimistic to think that people have realized the idiocy of the drug war, and the Administration has clearly come up against serious resistance to its stance about persecution of pain doctors and medical marijuana users. What passes for official drug policy in this country now centers on attacking marijuana use — and why wouldn’t it, as there aren’t sufficient numbers of users of any other drug to arrest 750,000 of them each year, and then justify the $30-$60 billion we spend each year on the “War on Drugs”. But unfortunately I doubt that the as misplaced focus on marijuana is the real reason for the outcry about meth. Instead we have to look to the main proponents of the war on drugs — America’s always hungry law enforcement agencies.

Thanks to Matthew Holt for his analysis over at The Healthcare Blog.