Monday, February 15, 2016

Why Is Marijuana Banned? The Real Reasons Are Worse Than You Think



 02/11/2016 01:07 pm ET | Updated 12 hours ago
  • The InfluenceThe full spectrum of human relationships with drugs


BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
By Johann Hari
Across the world, more and more people are asking: Why is marijuana banned? Why are people still sent to prison for using or selling it?
Most of us assume it's because someone, somewhere sat down with the scientific evidence, and figured out that cannabis is more harmful than other drugs we use all the time -- like alcohol and cigarettes.
Somebody worked it all out, in our best interest.
But when I started to go through the official archives -- researching my book Chasing The Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs -- to find out why cannabis was banned back in the 1930s, I discovered that's not what happened.
Not at all.
In 1929, a man called Harry Anslinger was put in charge of the Department of Prohibition in Washington, D.C. But alcohol prohibition had been a disaster. Gangsters had taken over whole neighborhoods. Alcohol -- controlled by criminals -- had become even more poisonous.
So alcohol prohibition finally ended -- and Harry Anslinger was afraid. He found himself in charge of a huge government department, with nothing for it to do. Up until then, he had said that cannabis was not a problem. It doesn't harm people, he explained, and "there is no more absurd fallacy" than the idea it makes people violent.
harry anslinger
Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics, poses for a photo on September 24, 1930. (AP Photo)
But then -- suddenly, when his department needed a new purpose -- he announced he had changed his mind.
He explained to the public what would happen if you smoked cannabis.
First, you will fall into "a delirious rage." Then you will be gripped by "dreams... of an erotic character." Then you will "lose the power of connected thought." Finally, you will reach the inevitable end-point: "Insanity."
Marijuana turns man into a "wild beast." If marijuana bumped into Frankenstein's monster on the stairs, Anslinger warned, the monster would drop dead of fright.
Harry Anslinger became obsessed with one case in particular. In Florida, a boy called Victor Licata hacked his family to death with an axe. Anslinger explained to America: This is what will happen when you smoke "the demon weed." The case became notorious. The parents of the U.S. were terrified.
What evidence did Harry Anslinger have? It turns out at this time he wrote to the 30 leading scientists on this subject, asking if cannabis was dangerous, and if there should be a ban.
Twenty-nine wrote back and said no.
Anslinger picked out the one scientist who said yes, and presented him to the world. The press -- obsessed with Victor Licata's axe -- cheered them on.
In a panic that gripped America, marijuana was banned. The U.S. told other countries they had to do the same. Many countries said it was a dumb idea, and refused to do it. For example, Mexico decided their drug policy should be run by doctors. Their medical advice was that cannabis didn't cause these problems, and they refused to ban it. The U.S. was furious. Anslinger ordered them to fall into line. The Mexicans held out -- until, in the end, the U.S. cut off the supply of all legal painkillers to Mexico. People started to die in agony in their hospitals. So with regret, Mexico sacked the doctor -- and launched its own drug war.
"The scientific evidence suggests cannabis is safer than alcohol. Alcohol kills 40,000 people every year in the U.S. Cannabis kills nobody."
But at home, questions were being asked. A leading American doctor called Michael Ball wrote to Harry Anslinger, puzzled. He explained he had used cannabis as a medical student, and it had only made him sleepy. Maybe cannabis does drive a small number of people crazy, he said -- but we need to fund some scientific studies to find out.
Anslinger wrote back firmly. "The marihuana evil can no longer be temporized with," he explained, and he would fund no independent science. Then, or ever.
For years, doctors kept approaching him with evidence he was wrong, and he began to snap, telling them they were "treading on dangerous ground" and should watch their mouths.
Today, most of the world is still living with the ban on cannabis that Harry Anslinger introduced, in the nation-wide panic that followed Victor Licata's killing spree.
But here's the catch. Years later, somebody went and looked at the psychiatric files for Victor Licata.
It turns out there's no evidence he ever used cannabis.
He had a lot of mental illness in his family. They had been told a year before he needed to be institutionalized -- but they refused. His psychiatrists never even mentioned marijuana in connection to him.
So, does cannabis make people mad?
The former chief advisor on drugs to the British government, David Nutt, explains -- if cannabis causes psychosis in a straightforward way, then it would show in a straightforward way.
When cannabis use goes up, psychosis will go up. And when cannabis use goes down psychosis will go down.
So does that happen? We have a lot of data from a lot of countries. And it turns out it doesn't. For example, in Britain, cannabis use has increased by a factor of about 40 since the 1960s. And rates of psychosis? They have remained steady.
In fact, the scientific evidence suggests cannabis is safer than alcohol. Alcohol kills 40,000 people every year in the U.S. Cannabis kills nobody -- although Willie Nelson says a friend of his did once die when a bale of cannabis fell on his head.
mason tvert
Mason Tvert on Thursday, May 6, 2010. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)
This is why, in 2006, a young man in Colorado called Mason Tvert issued a challenge to the governor of his state, John Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper owned brew-pubs selling alcohol across the state, and it made him rich. But he said cannabis was harmful and had to be banned. So Mason issued him a challenge -- to a duel. You bring a crate of booze. I'll bring a pack of joints. For every hit of booze you take, I'll take a hit of cannabis. We'll see who dies first.
It was the ultimate High Noon.
Mason went on to lead the campaign to legalize cannabis in his state. His fellow citizens voted to do it -- by 55 percent. Now adults can buy cannabis legally, in licensed stores, where they are taxed--and the money is used to build schools. After a year and a half of seeing this system in practice, support for legalization has risen to 69 percent. And even Governor Hickenlooper has started calling it "common sense."
Oh -- and Colorado hasn't been filled with people hacking their families to death yet.
Isn't it time we listened to the science -- and finally put away Victor Licata's axe?
Cross-posted from The Influence. Follow them on Facebook here.
Johann Hari is a British journalist and author. This article is adapted from his New York Times best-sellling book Chasing The Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs. To find out why Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher, Naomi Klein and Elton John have all praised it, click here.

Join our community and receive 20% off everything on the site

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Pressure on Lynch to step aside in Clinton email probe

Pressure on Lynch to step aside in Clinton email probe


Getty Images
Loretta Lynch is on the edge of the spotlight, about to be dragged to the center. 
If the FBI finds sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton or one of her top aides for mishandling classified information, Lynch’s Justice Department will have to decide whether to press ahead.
Even if no evidence of wrongdoing is found, Clinton’s many critics are unlikely to take the word of an appointee of President Obama’s and will doubt that justice has been served.

Already, top Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor to be brought in and evaluate the situation.

No. 2 Senate Republican John Cornyn (Texas) took to the floor of the Senate last week to call for a special counsel to be appointed “because of the conflict of interest by asking Attorney General Lynch to investigate and perhaps even prosecute somebody in the Obama administration.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) agrees that Lynch ought to consider a special counsel, a representative said, to reassure the country that decisions are made “without regard to any political considerations.”
The Justice Department, however, has so far declined the request.
“This matter is being reviewed by career attorneys and investigators and does not meet the criteria for the appointment of a special prosecutor,” department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.
Federal officials are currently investigating the security of Clinton’s bespoke email arrangement and whether classified information may have been mishandled.
Critics of Clinton have called for indictments to be handed down following revelations that more than 1,500 classified emails — including 22 classified at the highest level — were found on her personal server. None of the messages were marked as classified, and accounts differ as to whether they should have been classified at the time they were sent.

During a Democratic presidential debate last week, Clinton insisted that she was “100 percent confident” that the FBI’s review will not evolve into a criminal matter.

Instead, she and other Democrats have decried the criticism about the emails as simple political gamesmanship designed to drag down her presidential campaign.

“I think the American people will know it’s an absurdity, and I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever,” said Clinton.

Lynch’s critics are unconvinced that the attorney general can be a neutral arbiter.

“I think they probably won’t indict her, because the attorney general is from New York, who I believe is a friend of Hillary Clinton,” Donald Trump, a leading Republican presidential candidate, said on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends” in October.
Skeptics of Lynch have also pointed to an October interview in which President Obama appeared to dismiss concerns about Clinton’s private server.
“I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered,” Obama said on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”
“It might appear that he’s trying to influence the conduct of the investigation,” Cornyn said on the Senate floor this week. “That’s a real problem.”
No close ties
Lynch and Clinton never had much of a personal relationship, former colleagues told The Hill in recent days.

“I’m not aware of any relationship with Hillary Clinton,” said Steven Edwards, who worked alongside Lynch for nearly a decade at the law firm Hogan Lovells (the firm was previously called Hogan & Hartson when Lynch joined it in 2001).

Lynch was appointed to be the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband.
However, she was personally recommended for the position by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and one government official said Clinton himself had a relatively minor role in the selection process. 
For a period of months, she also worked as the district’s top prosecutor while Hillary Clinton was serving as the junior senator from New York, until Lynch left for private practice in 2001.
Lynch would return to become the U.S. attorney in 2010, before she was tapped to be the nation’s top law enforcement official last year.

But unlike some U.S. attorneys — such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Preet Bharara, the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — Lynch never appeared to glad-hand with politicians, former colleagues say.

“I worked with her very closely and you know, I’ve got lots of partners who, when we chitchat, talk about their involvement in political campaigns or their lunches with people in Washington,” said Dennis Tracey, a partner at Hogan Lovells who worked with Lynch. “But she never did.”

“If Rudy is at one end of the spectrum, Loretta is at the other one, in terms of being political,” echoed Edwards, who is now at Quinn Emanuel. “She is a very, very cautious person and doesn’t operate that way.” 
Lynch’s own future
SPONSORED CONTENT
The New Key to Political Advertising Success: Go Small or Go Home

The New Key to Political Advertising Success: Go Small or Go Home

“Going small” can pay off big, when the right message reaches the right people. Read More
Lingering in the background is the prospect that Lynch’s decision may affect her own future.

Lynch was confirmed by the Senate last year after a five-month delay largely unrelated to her own qualifications. That left the nation’s top lawyer with just a year and a half in office, during Obama’s lame duck period in which policy efforts are likely to stall.

If Clinton becomes the next president, however, Lynch may be asked to stay on, at least for a short time. As such, she may have a little bit of skin in the game.

“That Hillary Clinton could be the Democrat nominee and potential next president represents an extraordinary circumstance that commends the appointment of a special counsel,” said Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), the head of the House Oversight subcommittee on national security, in a statement to The Hill. “For a Democrat-appointed attorney general such as Lynch, this is obviously something that distinguishes the Clinton investigation from other cases.”
             
Along with 43 other Republicans, DeSantis wrote a letter to the Justice Department last year asking for a special counsel to be appointed so that the investigation can be conducted “impartially.”

Former colleagues of Lynch rejected the notion that she would be biased in the Clinton probe.

“I cannot imagine allowing any personal relationship to affect her work. It’s just not the way she is,” said Tracey. 
Special prosecutor
So far, the Justice Department has declined congressional requests to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the Clinton issue.

In a letter to DeSantis in November, assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik said that the law allowing for a special counsel “has rarely been used.”

“Any investigation related to this referral [into Clinton’s server] will be conducted by law enforcement professionals and career attorneys in accordance with established department policies and procedures designed to ensure the integrity of all ongoing investigations,” Kadzik wrote.

The FBI has refused to share details about its investigation. So far, however, the bureau does not appear to be conducting a criminal probe, and officials have said it is not directly targeting Clinton.

Multiple lawyers watching the case have suggested that Clinton’s top aides may be in more trouble than she is.

As one former senior Justice Department official noted, there are many options for the government to take apart from either nothing or an indictment against Clinton.

“It could play out with people agreeing to plead to … a misdemeanor charge, people agreeing to leave office or withdraw in return for a pardon,” the former official said.

“I think ultimately, one of those events is going to happen,” the former official added.

“It’s not going to be forgotten about.”

Monday, February 8, 2016

With Each Passing Day, the Iowa Caucus Results Get Shadier and Shadier