When it comes to the drug war, Bush can't see the forest for the trees.

While he touts the U.S. success in Afghanistan, today in a speech:

[he] included the country on his list of major drug-producing nations and said its U.S.-backed president, Hamid Karzai, lacked the capacity to solve the problem.....Officials with the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Afghanistan have warned that militants were financing their guerrilla war by drug running. Afghan opium, which spawns the lion's share of the West's heroin, accounts for about one third of the country's economy, Afghanistan's Central Bank governor said on Wednesday.

No big deal. Here's his real concern:

Bush cited "continuing concerns" about the flow of drugs from Canada. White House spokesman Scott McClellan quoted Bush as saying that he was "concerned" legislation in Canada to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana "could be an invitation to greater activity by organized crime and can undermine law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts."

And then he just makes stuff up.

Opening September 14 at Times Square....the traveling museum of the DEA featuring ""Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists & You". Its basic spiel:

The DEA's describes the new exhibit as tracing "...the historic and contemporary connections between global drug trafficking and terrorism. Starting with the horrific events of September 11, 2001 and moving back in time to the ancient Silk Road, this exhibit…will present the visitor with a global and historical overview of this deadly connection. The visitor will have many opportunities to explore the often-symbiotic relationships that exist between terrorist groups and drug trafficking cartels and the personal impact those connections have on the visitor."

Oh really? Than why is the DEA spending more time busting medical marijuana growers and patients than terrorists?

'There have been more arrests for medical marijuana cultivation and distribution since September 11, than there have been for any acts of terrorism in California.' "

Instead of paying attention to the DEA's campaign, or worse, attending it, check out the Marijuana Policy Project's counter-campaign, Target America: The DEA and You.

Our federal sentencing laws are ridiculously gun-o-phobic. If you possess a gun during a drug crime, even if you never used it, intended to use it or even brandished it, there is a mandatory penalty of five years tacked onto whatever sentence you get for the drug crime for the first offense, and 25 years for subsequent offenses. In the case of 25 year old rap record producer Weldon Angelos, who sold marijuana on three occasions and twice had a gun on him that he never used or even flashed, and then had some guns in his home, the mandatory minimum penalty is 55 years in federal prison. The top end of his sentencing range is 63 years. Federal sentences have no parole. You do 85% of the time.

Mr. Angelos carried a Glock pistol in an ankle holster when he sold marijuana on two occasions, though he did not brandish or use it. More guns were found in a briefcase and a safe at his home. ....[the judge] is required to add five years for the gun in the first deal and 25 years each for the second deal and the guns found at his home.

"It would appear effectively to be a life sentence," the judge, Paul G. Cassell of Federal District Court there, wrote in a request to the prosecution and the defense for advice about whether he has any choice but to send the man to prison forever.

A study in Great Britain finds that smoking marijuana has both short and long term benefits for MS sufferers.

"In the short term-study there was some evidence of cannabinoids alleviating symptoms of multiple sclerosis; in the longer term there is a suggestion of a more useful beneficial effect, which was not clear at the initial stage," he said.

For the first time, Oklahoma has brought first degree murder charges against a woman whose baby was stillborn based on drugs the mother ingested while pregnant. Prosecutors say there will be more such cases filed in the future:

A 27-year-old Oklahoma woman has been charged with first-degree murder after doctors said the woman's illegal drug use caused her baby to be stillborn, prosecutors said on Thursday. It is the first time the state has charged a woman with first-degree murder for using illegal drugs that are suspected of killing the fetus she carried, Oklahoma County prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said they filed first-degree murder charges against Theresa Hernandez late on Wednesday. Police arrested Hernandez after she gave birth to a dead boy at an Oklahoma City hospital in April. A doctor attending the birth told police the mother and baby tested positive for methamphetamine and ruled the death a homicide. Doctors told police the baby had enough methamphetamine in his system to kill two adults.

Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes Lane said: "We've been wanting to do this with a number of people. This has been needing to happen for a long time."

How much meth does it take to kill two adults? And if such amount really is determinable, how come it didn't kill the pregnant woman? How much money is the State of Oklahoma going to spend to attempt to prove the woman's drug taking caused the death of the fetus? Treatment, not jail, would be a wiser investment. America. Prison Nation.

If you are interested in the War on Drugs and are going to be in Washington, DC on September 17, here's a free event you won't want to miss. If you can't attend, call your Representative in Congress and ask them to send a staffer:

Rep. Ron. Paul, M.D., Rep. John Conyers, 60 Plus Association & the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons invite you to attend

The Politics of Pain & Painkillers: Drug Policy & Patient Access to Effective Pain Treatments Friday, Sept 17, 2004
121 Cannon HOB
11 am – 12:30 pm (Light refreshments following presentations)
RSVP: briefing@aapsonline.org or (800) 635-1196 by 12:00 noon, Sept 15.

Background on the Bush Administration's crackdown on doctors prescribing for patients in chronic pain is here and here.

From the Press Release we've been asked to disseminate:

Ashcroft has a new tool in his war on drugs arsenal - Pre-written, canned op-eds praising mandatory minimum sentences, signed by various U.S. Attorneys around the country.

Under the fearless leadership of Attorney General John Ashcroft, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken to churning out prewritten op-ed pieces in support of mandatory minimum sentencing requirements, which are being pitched to local newspapers bearing the signatures of local U.S. attorneys, reports the Drug Reform Coordination Network. Ashcroft's full-throttle "AstroTurfing" campaign – i.e., a pseudo-grassroots campaign – comes in response to a growing discontent with the man-min sentencing structure, voiced by several federal judges, including Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy – and, more recently, a June 24 Supreme Court decision (Blakley v. Washington), in which the court opined that juries, and not judges, must decide the facts of a case if those facts may result in a longer sentence.

The DOJ's bolstering campaign was outed earlier this month by the advocacy group Families Against Mandatory Minimums and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, after the "model" op-ed turned up in three different newspapers. And last week DRCNet spotted the same piece – which warns that the high court's Blakley decision jeopardizes "the safety of America" – in three Tennessee newspapers, signed by two different U.S. attorneys.

[link via Cursor.]

The police in Long Beach, California would like it known that they displayed compassion and did the right thing while executing a search warrant. Here's the e-mail that was sent by one of the drug officers to an advocacy group for the disabled:

Greetings from the "seedy" world of narcotics. (No pun intended!) Just wanted to let you know that for all the problematic cases that the LBPD seems to generate to torment you and make your work difficult, today I was involved in one that should make you happy. We were called out to assist patrol who had been called to a domestic violence call and found six marijuana plants growing in the backyard. The original call was for a domestic violence, of which the home owner was not involved, but we did not know that at the time.

We obtained a search warrant on the house and as part of our investigation we learned that the owner of the house was a medicinal marijuana patient, registered through Compassionate Caregivers, with a doctors prescription that could be verified and confirmed. As a result of the PROPER documentation, the woman was left alone and her plants remain with her.

So, as you talk to the community let them know that there are some positive interactions between the LBPD and the medicinal marijuana community, and as long as we are able to verify their claims through proper documentation they will not have a problem. Hopefully this email finds you well, let me know if I can be of assistance to you.

There was an officer's name and other identifying information in the email which I have deleted, not knowing how public he wanted to go with his e-mail. Good work, Long Beach. TalkLeft is glad to know you followed state law and your consciences instead of Ashcroft.

Speaking of informants or "rats" as they are known in the trade, there's a very cool looking new website, Who's A Rat?, dedicated to outing them and the cops they work for:

Who's A Rat is a database driven website designed to assist attorneys and criminal defendants with few resources. The purpose of this website is for individuals and attorneys to post and share all exclusive information related to local, state and federal informants...

Here's a press release-- on the site.

[It] is the first site to allow users around the country to post local, state and federal agents' and informants' names, pictures and related information

Not suprisingly, law enforcement is not amused. The site, by Sean Bucci, made its debut last week. It takes paypal donations. While there, check out the "rat of the week" feature.

Update: At least one federal court has ruled a defendant has a right to maintain a website seeking information on rats in his case.

The LA Times writes an editorial advocating legislation approving the non-prescription purchase of syringes:

There is no evidence that drug abuse is any higher in states that do not require prescriptions for syringes. More than 26,000 Californians have AIDS because of syringe-sharing. Legislators can't stop junkies from shooting up, but they can give them a better alternative than poisoned needles.

45 states permit limited syringe sales without a doctor's approval. But for a veto last year by former Governor Gray Davis, it would be the law now in California. California should pass the measure, and Gov. Arnold should endorse it.

In some states law enforcement authorities may ask sexual assualt victims to submit to a lie detector test (a practice that is outlawed in many states). One such victim who has been asked by an investigating detective to take a lie detector test after her attacker "passed" one discusses her experience in a post to the AntiPolygraph.org message board titled, Raped.

TalkLeft discusses the unreliability of polygraphs here and here.

As far as we're concerned, polygraphs are as reliable as voodoo. Their primary usefulness to law enforcement occurs during the pre-test interview process in which they convince people to confess before taking the test. The F.B.I. is famous for this.

Robert X. Cringely writes a very powerful article about an important study that shows the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which dramatically increased federal prison sentences, don't deter crime. Before the guidelines were enacted, the Government commissioned a study. DOJ didn't like the results. They didn't pay the authors, who later lost their business. One of the study's authors later committed suicide. The other became a law professor and original member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Why should we care?

...we should care because I'm told the Block and Nold study, which was intended to economically validate the proposed sentencing guidelines, instead showed that the new guidelines would actually create more crime than they would deter. More crime, more drug use, more robbery, more murder would be the result, not less. Not only that, but these guidelines would lead to entire segments of the population entering a downward economic spiral, taking away their American dream.

There is no mention anywhere of this study, which was completely buried by the DoJ under then-secretary Edwin Meese. The proposed sentencing guidelines were accepted unaltered and the world we have today is the result. We spend tens of billions per year on prisons to house people who don't contribute in any way to our economy. We tear apart the black and latino communities. The cost to society is immense, and as Block and Nold showed, unnecessary. AND THE FEDS KNEW THIS AT THE TIME.

There's lots more, go read the whole thing.