Heroin Addiction Rising & now can be synthesized

On August 20th the San Diego Union Tribune had an editorial about the increase in the abuse of heroin.  The alert was raised by using data provided by the US DEA and the San Diego County Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force.  They claim that more people are using pain killers than ever before.  These organizations, of course want to defend and probably increase their budgets, so their claims could be viewed with some skepticism.  I would prefer there be some sort of independent organization gather and provide those statistics.  I do know from the US demographics that there are a huge number of people getting to the age where they have more aches and pains, and chronic diseases that require more pain medication to control it.  I didn't see any mention of that fact.  All opiate medications are very carefully controlled, inventoried and tracked.  If there are "leaks" in the system, the DEA certainly has the power to tighten up the tracking of those medicines.

On the other hand, what I predicted many years ago, has now happened.  Rachel Feltman of the Washington Post reported that scientists can now synthesize heroin using yeast and sugar.   So, theoretically, citizens could make heroin, (and in the future maybe cocaine, or THC) at home for their own use?  I'm sure that the anti-drug industrial complex will do their best to stop people from being able to do that!  

Asset Seizure -- A Relic of the War on Drugs

Today's Sunday LA Times (23 Aug 15) had an editorial advocating SB433 (sponsored by State Senator Holly Mitchell --Democrat from LA) currently being considered by California's legislature to put some more restrictions on the seizure of assets by police agencies. Three days ago, the San Diego Union Tribune published an editorial by David Bejarano, the Chula Vista Police Chief arguing against the law.

Since the 1980s I have been concerned about the infringement on our civil liberties by the police being permitted to confiscate our property without proving our guilt.  The situation has continued to become worse, as the amount of assets seized continues to increase.  It is sort of like allowing our US Army soldiers or battalions to keep any money, land or assets they might capture in war.  Throughout the first millennium that practice was called "looting and pillaging" and the "rewarding fun" of doing that was one of the main recruiting tools used by Roman Emperors, Crusaders, and Attila the Hun to conscript soldiers.

I can understand David Bejarano and the California Police Chief's Association position.  They are frustrated, feel they don't have enough budget to fight what appears to be an endless and overwhelming war on drugs. The funds obtained through seizures can help them do their job.  I can also sympathize with his argument (using a hypothetical transnational drug organization) that there are situations where huge amounts of assets could be "laundered." before a the defendant is found guilty.  Yes, in cases like that, the assets should be "frozen" to prevent them from moving them out of reach before a trial.  However, as is so often the case, when the police are given a "tool" they abuse it.  Police agencies have used the forfeiture process to blackmail people into testifying (maybe lying) against others in order to get their property back.  They have seized homes from owners who's tenants have done drug deals.  They have "planted" evidence in order to be able to seize property from unwitting citizens.  The process of getting property returned is so expensive and cumbersome (guilty until proven innocent) that innocent people have lost almost everything they owned to fight it.  

On the other hand, David Bejarano, and the Police Chiefs clearly have a conflict of interest in arguing against the law. Police departments are clearly beneficiaries of the current arrangement.

It is clear that forfeiture is primarily used as a weapon in the drug war.  I haven't heard many cases where it has been used in cases involving other crimes, such as prostitution, gambling, etc.  I agree that recreational drugs are a scourge on our society and we do need to try to stop people from abusing them.  However I do not believe that our current approach focusing on interdiction is the right one.  As a result of our drug war, the US has a larger percentage of our population locked up in prisons than any other country in the world.  Are we really a "free" country?  Or are we being subjugated by the "Police-Industrial" complex who make huge amounts of money (much more than the "street value" of drugs seized) to seize and hold our property hostage, monitor our finances,track our travels,  read our email, and listen to our phone calls,

I hope SB433 passes.  It isn't a perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction of putting some controls on the process to protect citizens from abuse, while still allowing our police departments to do their job. 

Marijuana Legalization Movement Makes No Sense? or Right-Wing Propaganda?

The San Diego Union Tribune published a heavily headlined op-ed piece by David W. Murray and John P. Walters in Sunday's Union Tribune entitled: "Marijuana Legalization Movement Makes No Sense" The two men were part of the George H.W. Bush administration.
Murray and Walters are complaining that Congressman Ted Lieu proposed eliminating the DEA/CESP program which goes around the country destroying crops of Marijuana using Federal money. Ted Lieu calls the program a ridiculous waste of taxpayer's money. If there are states now where Marijuana is legal, and the CESP program doesn't enforce it there, why should the Federal government go around destroying crops at taxpayer expense?
I disagree with them, of course. Apparently others disagree also:
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/08/like-a-bad-penny/ and http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/12/03/einstein-insanity-and-the-war-on-drugs/
Their logic is very convoluted and irrational. Apparently Murray and Walters are somehow a part of the "Hudson Institute" who supposedly "challenges conventional thinking and helps manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary studies in defense, international relations, economics, health care, technology, culture, and law." -- I don't think these guys are challenging any conventional thinking--since they appear to be touting the "party line" of right wingers--keep drugs illegal! I don't know, for sure, but possibly the Hudson Institute is another of the many right-wing so-called "think tanks" that sell their opinions to the highest bidders.  These two are among the "top-20 anti-marijuana crusaders"
From their resumes, I see these gentlemen have received money or support from the right-wing, anti-drug groups, such as lawyers, judges, prison guards, DEA suppliers or subcontractors etc, and are writing this to curry their support.  They are obviously "proud" of their reign of terror in the drug war during the Bush administrations and complain that Obama hasn't done enough in the drug war.  Probably their sponsors haven't been getting as many lucrative contracts in the drug war.

Murray and Walters complain that Lieu's doesn't explain how his proposal will improve America's "well being."  However it is clear that Lieu's proposal would cut expenditures of Government money, It would probably stop the expensive incarceration of people they catch growing marijuana which would save more money.  What damage would it do other than reduce the street price of the drug?  Meanwhile, the US "war on drugs" has incarcerated a larger percentage of the US population than any other country has behind bars at huge expense!
Here is a link to a good summary of Marijuana Laws: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2005021100

Are Synthetic Cannabinoids becoming a problem in the US?

I saw this article in the San Diego Union Tribune written by Amina Kahn of the LA Times. Also published in the "Press Reader."  Synthetic Cannabinoid Data Point to High Risk  The report was written as a news article, not an opinion piece.  It appeared to report on a study done by extracting data from the National Poison Data System to declare that synthetic cannabinoids are becoming a national health crisis.  What bothered me was that it looked to me that the author of the article and the authors of the study were presenting data in such a way to sensationalize this "crisis" rather than present it in an objective way.  You can tell from the way the article is worded that the author of the article and study want the Government (DEA probably) to crack down harder on all recreational drugs.  Of course, the only way of doing this is to take away more citizen's rights.

The study determined that there were 15 deaths from Jan to May 2015 compared to only 5 during same period the previous year.  This could have been compared to the average of 75 killed and as many as 300 injured from lightning strikes in the US.   How relevant are those 15 deaths when CDC says There were over 16,000 homicides in the US last year and over 11,000 from guns? Where are our priorities?

In the article, the authors complain that "Because the producers of psychoactive drugs can tweak their formulas, it is hard for the Government regulators to keep up."  I've heard this complaint many times from the anti-drug crowd.  Usually the new "drugs" are sold as something else, such as potpourri or bath salts in order to avoid arguing with the "lords of the drug war."  It appears that purveyors of these substances are always "guilty until proven innocent" --So even if they came up with a "perfect recreational drug" the anti-drug warriors and DEA would move to make it illegal (like Marijuana) and it could take decades to test it and get it legalized. Over the years, sometimes "anti-drug warriors" have arrested people selling legal substances (for example: oregano) as marijuana.  Those situations embarrassed the police for false arrests and not recognizing drugs (which isn't easy). So now there are laws that make it illegal to possess or sell materials as drugs even if they aren't

One of the main problems of the synthetic drugs is the fact that most recreational drugs are illegal.  That causes people to experiment with other drugs.  Economists call this "cross elasticity of demand." Because the "good drugs" are illegal, people want to find ways of obtaining and using drugs that are easier to hide, more difficult to detect, and more difficult to get arrested for having in possession.  Obviously concentrated synthetic cannabinoid is smaller and easier to hide than a bundle of pot. Even better if it is disguised as incense or bath salts.  Yes, it is more difficult to arrest someone for having a bag of potpourri in their possession.  Also, because these drugs are made in "home laboratories" it is very likely that they have dose concentration quality control problems, as well as sanitation and purity issues.  I wonder how many of the poison center calls were due to errors in dosage of the various synthetic drugs?  How many were due to mental illness or attempts at suicide? There were over 41,000 suicides in the US in 2013  There were probably many times more failed attempts at suicide.  Could any of these deaths or calls to poison hotlines been suicide attempts?   

Why would people take a chance on a synthetic drug if they could get "the real thing" at reasonable cost and no risk of arrest?  It will be very interesting to see how these statistics compare over the next few years in the states that have legalized recreational marijuana.  Will people continue to take chances on "home brew" uncontrolled drugs?  Or will the relatively easy access to legal marijuana eliminate that problem.  It appears to me that a very large amount of our US population is making a very good income from fighting the "drug war."  This includes, prison guards, judges, bailiffs, prosecutors, police, FBI, Homeland Security, Coast Guard, drone manufacturers, and, of course, all of the other contractors selling hardware, software or services to those agencies.  If we didn't have illegal drugs, many would be out of a job!  It would eliminate gangs, money laundering, car searches etc.  These people are generally wealthy and are influential through very large political donations.  They are all watching Washington & Colorado and are clearly trying to find fault in the state's "experiment" with legalization.  I'm sure we will hear a lot more biased, and hopefully some unbiased news reports in the future.

Why Baltimore's black community turned on police | UTSanDiego.com

As I retired USAF officer, I shouldn't be intimidated when talking to a police officer.  But I believe I am!  Every time I've asked an officer on duty a question, I have received some sort of "mind your own business" type of answer, even when it was clear that the officer wasn't doing anything important.  When walking or driving past an officer, I always make sure I'm on "best behavior" because I know that they are looking for any excuse to write a ticket.  That is their job!  That is how they are rated and evaluated.  That personal experience probably also rubs off on children as well.  For example when mom says: "Slow down, there's a police officer"  or "hide your beer, there's a cop patrolling the beach." it sets an example for children that they should watch out for police.  The days when parents try to teach their kids that "the policeman is your friend." seem to be over!  Police actions such as DUI checkpoints, random car searches, and stops for "broken taillights seem almost frightening when I am the subject.  This is my experience as a white male interacting generally with a white police officer in a suburban neighborhood.  The relationship between citizens and police is a complicated "love/hate" one at best in most communities.  We expect them to protect us against the "other people" --

However, I find it very hard to imagine how difficult it must be for police in inner-city locations like Baltimore in dealing with the public.  Minority children see first hand how dangerous it can be to interact with police.  The "drug war" provides citizens and children frequent opportunities to see police taking action against their friends and neighbors.

This feature in the Sunday May 2nd San Diego Union Tribune points out some of the problems that helped create the mistrust in Baltimore:



Why Baltimore's black community turned on police | UTSanDiego.com



I have no doubt that recreational drugs are a scourge on society.  They destroy lives, damage family relationships and impact health and safety of all of us.  But I really believe that the "war on drugs" is worse than the drugs themselves.  The "war" causes users to switch to drugs that are more dangerous, less stable, and more concentrated.  Because there now are so many people employed due to the war on drugs, and so many businesses are making money selling stuff to fight the "war" it will be very difficult to change.  Any attempt to reduce the anti-drug effort immediately gets fought by groups such as prison guard unions, police departments, prosecutors, as well as companies that sell drones.