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