Party Vibe

Oh, how the best of blogging plans get so quickly amended in the hurly burly of fully participating in a conference. One of the chief benefits of going to the conferences of other organizations is that one’s schedule is rather flexible. There’s no real responsibility other than going to panels one is interested in and gleaning grand ideas and tidbits that may wind up being an impetus for reform.

Not so with me here in the LBC, otherwise known as Long Beach, California, host city of DPA’s grand intellectual shindig. Among the people here is Kevin Sabat, one-time speechwriter for our beloved Drug Czar; he exchanged pleasantries with some old “pals” from Students for Sensible Drug Policies, and was rather interested in harm reduction. I would wager that the drug war extremists are here to learn about our “gameplan,” and were I a naive fellow I’d hope that Mr. Sabat would take some good learnin’ back to Mr. Walters, et al.

I have never met Mr. Sabat, but I remember him well: last year, he wrote an op-ed against a bill that I worked on that would have limited random student drug testing on a statewide basis in California. Apparently, this is the sort of “grass roots activism” the Office of National Drug Control Policy likes to forward — “community voices” straight from the halls of political power.

Indeed, I have always operated under the assumption that there were drug war extremists in our midst. But I don’t view that as a negative at all. The drug reform movement is open to all, and that stands in stark contrast to the veil of secrecy and deception that animates Beltway drug policy domestically and internationally.

So what have I been doing here? On Thursday, I did a press teleconference on our newly minted report (largely authored by yours truly) on “California Drug Policy Heroes and Zeroes,” the text of which should be available online here. Then I moderated two wonderfully informative panels: one on methamphetamine and the other on steroids and other performance enhancers. What I’ve discovered is that I’m a pretty poor timekeeper, as I have the tendency to actually listen to what the panelists are saying. At the same time, I quickly learned that it is best to let the panelists speak without lengthy framing and other introductions beforehand. These are the sort of little lessons one learns only through experience.

I also had the pleasure of dining with some of our interns from the Oakland office. One of the drawbacks of dining here in Long Beach is that the restaurants seem to close fairly early, with some going to a “late dinner menu” consisting largely of greasy pub grub. P.F. Chang’s did serve until 11, and my opinion of the establishment has increased considerably on that basis alone.

Besides the methamphetamine panel and the steroids panel, I was a participant in a panel on random student drug testing and one on “our right to (use) drugs.” Mr. Sabat was not present at the student drug testing panel, for better or worse. The panel was fairly large, including a young gentleman from Dare County, North Carolina, who fought the good fight against his school district’s implementation of a random student drug testing program using federal grant dollars. I believe his website is http://www.drugtestcrisis.com. The gist of my presentation: there is a strong basis in modern conservatism to oppose random student drug testing on many levels. There is an innate conservative antipathy to government overreach, especially when it comes to their children. Random student drug testing essentially disregards the very notion that parents should be involved in both the discipline and education of their children.

Further, there is the dichotomy between the way the law protects the political class and they way it allows government to run roughshod over ordinary people. The United States Supreme Court invalidated drug testing of politicians and those seeking political office, but has allowed its use for any student participating in a non-competitive extracurricular activity. Many school districts have expanded drug testing to include those who drive to school or park on campus, meaning that in many suburban schools over three-quarters of students are on the drug testing rolls.

On the “right to drugs” panel, I basically highlighted the obvious: any reform must operate in the reality of the political process, where even the most inroads is a major achievement. Despite political obstacles, I argued that drug reformers must continue to push the envelope — including more focused advocacy surrouding non-medical marijuana use. Marijuana sentencing reform should be every bit as important as other sentencing reform measures, as three quarters of a million persons are brought into the criminal justice system annually on a marijuana-related offense (60,000 in California alone). Also, much more needs to be done on increasing syringe access at every level, as no person should be deprived of his or her life simply because of thier use of illicit substances. Ideally, syringes should be made available over the counter to any adult who needed them for whatever purpose. Unfortunately, the paraphernalia laws that are part of larger prohibition see to it that tens of thousands are consigned to their death — all in the name of saving them from themselves.

Then I talked about “emerging issues,” including the hysteria surrounding steroid use in sports, criminalization of the non-authorized use of prescription drugs, the advent of “intellectual doping,” and the right not to use drugs (including informal pressure on parents to medicate their children with drugs that are prescribed “off label” and have no proven safety or efficacy for pediatric use). Even though those issues are already here, they will surely be the subjects of increased government intervention.

Ultimately, reformers need to be cognizant of the fact that government recognizes that we are the most medicated society in human history. As such, it will continue to simultaneously encourage the use of certain drugs while punishing people for the use of other drugs. Control over individuals can be realized through increased internal and external surveillance.

Needless to say, there is much work to be done.

Posted by Nikos Leverenz.

Link To Original Article