In a move that demonstrates a small—and too rare—step toward common sense in lawmaking, Missouri has rescinded [mostly] an 18-year-old law that banned people with felony drug convictions from ever receiving food stamps under the SNAP program. The new law is not a “get-out-of-jail-free,” though. It retains a one-year waiting period following a drug felon’s release from custody, and a third drug felony conviction would still trigger a lifetime ban. But those convicted of one or two drug felonies would be able to get food stamps under the SNAP program after a year, provided that they adhere to court orders regarding drug treatment programs.

The problem with the lifetime ban, argued proponents of the new, more humane approach, is that:

It turned safety net programs into a weapon in the drug war, adding a socioeconomic penalty to the criminal penalties the system imposes for drug crimes.

That approach fails to account for the realities of life in poverty, The Sentencing Project’s Director of Advocacy Nicole Porter said. “There has been a move to modify the ban ever since the 1990s in recognition that it was unfair to people who had already completed their sentence and were living in the community to deny them the ability to participate in the social safety net.” But “poor assumptions about people with prior convictions” have guided lawmakers in the handful of holdout states. The bans are “one way that people who are opposed to the safety net at all have been able to narrow the net and to marginalize people,” she said.

Relaxing the lifetime ban is a nod to the growing evidence that the war on drugs isn’t working. It also demonstrates that punishing poor people doesn’t help, either.

Calling the ban a “lifetime sentence,” The Sentencing Project notes that, when the national law—which gave states the ability to opt in or out—was enacted by Congress in 1996—with very little debate—the ban was intended to show that Congressional representatives were “tough on crime.”

As Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the sponsor of the amendment, argued, “If we are serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating the Nation’s drug laws.”

Conspicuously absent from the brief debate over this provision was any discussion of whether the lifetime ban for individuals with felony drug offenses would advance the general objectives of welfare reform.

During this year’s Missouri hearings on the bill to lift the ban, people with prior drug convictions testified that the food-stamp ban has made it harder for people to climb out of poverty. Some also questioned its fairness, noting that the ban did not apply to convicted murders or sex offenders who are released from prison.

The old law resulted in some ludicrous situations, Think Progress reports:

Johnny Waller, who served five years decades ago for selling marijuana as a teenager, said, “I can go buy a firearm but I can’t get assistance to buy a sandwich

As is so often the case, Missouri is late to this remediating effort. Until Missouri Governor Nixon signed the new bill into law in June 2014, Missouri was one of nine states holding out for the punitive lifetime ban (Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming). The bans were imposed as part of welfare reform under President Clinton, but over the 18 years since they have been repealed in 16 states and modified in various ways by another 25.

The sponsor of the new law in Missouri, Sen. Kiki Curls, D-Kansas City, said food assistance would reduce the chances that a person with a drug problem would relapse and return to prison. “I think it gives folks an opportunity to succeed.”

Not much encouraging comes out of the Republican-dominated Missouri state legislature these days, so this development is refreshing. I doubt that this law passed for purely humanitarian reasons. I’m guessing that legislators just decided that Missouri shouldn’t be—once again—left behind and viewed as a backward state—that’s not good for business, after all. But whatever the reason, this is a small step in a better direction. And in Missouri, that’s newsworthy.

The post “I can buy a firearm, but I can’t get assistance to buy a sandwich” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The global war on drugs launched during U.S. President Richard Nixon’s 1969-1974 administration has been an abysmal failure, and all nations should immediately de-criminalize currently illegal drugs. Of course, I’m not holding my breath. But at least I’m in good company. For the past six months, Mexico’s ex-president Vincente Fox has called for the same. He knows a thing or two about the destructive nature of the U.S. war on drugs because it has made life a living hell for his country. Nearly 50,000 people have died from Mexico’s drug war alone since current President Felipe Calderon launched a crackdown on drug cartels in 2006. In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released its report on the War on Drugs. It concluded that “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.”

The economics

President Nixon’s first drug fighting budget was a modest $100 million. President Obama’s budget for the war on drugs for fiscal year 2011 is projected to be $15.6 billion. Over the last 40 years, the United States has spent over $1 trillion to eradicate drugs and drug use, yet the United States remains the world’s largest consumer of cocaine, Columbian heroin, Mexican heroin and marijuana.

According to the website Visual Economics, some uses of that trillion were as follows:

121 billion to arrest non-violent drug offenders

450 billion to lock people up in federal prison, where half of all prisoners are serving sentences for drug offences.

49 billion for securing our borders from drug trafficking

33 billion for the “just say no” marketing campaign for America’s youth and other prevention programs

20 billion to fight gangs in their own countries such as Columbia and Mexico

215 billion for an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system and lost productivity because of drug abuse.

The social costs of prohibition

During the era of alcohol prohibition (1920 to 1933) the ban resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations, including the American Mafia. It generated rampant corruption among politicians and the police force, and it made criminals out of otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens. The war on drugs has had similar effects. So far, it has cost taxpayers a trillion dollars, made drugs more dangerous, created powerful criminal syndicates, increased violent crime, and corrupted law enforcement at all levels. Like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, anti-drug laws have had a pernicious effect on everyday life, both here and in other countries.

American drug policies have failed to stem the tide of drugs coming into this country, or slow the use of drugs by American consumers. That’s because many people—criminals, bankers, advertisers, politicians and law enforcement—are being enriched by the ineffective war on drugs and have no desire to see it end.

Who is getting rich from the war on drugs?

First, drug dealers get very wealthy shipping and selling illegal drugs. Second, local law enforcement agencies receive billions of dollars per year in federal grants to fight the war on drugs. Law enforcement also subsidizes its budget with a portion of the cash, and other goods found during raids, that they can, in any way, link to narcotics trafficking. Because of the war on drugs, they can seize private property at will. Asset forfeitures—houses, cars, guns, computers—and federal grants are used for payroll, and the purchase of surveillance equipment, high-powered weapons and paramilitary gear. Local police departments are becoming militarized both through the federal war on drugs and Homeland Security grants to fight terrorism.

The growing legal-industrial-imprisonment complex feeds on the war on drugs, employing thousands of judges, prosecutors, criminal-defense attorneys, bail bondsmen, and prison guards who make their living from the prosecution of drug cases. For corporations operating privatized correctional facilities, the drug war is a cash cow providing a steady supply of non-violent drug users to fill prison cells. Half of all prisoners are drug offenders.

Banks, including Bank of America, Citibank, and other big players, take in hundreds of billions of dollars annually from narcotics traffickers. In effect, they money launder for drug cartels. Drug money not only provides banks with large commissions, but also provides much needed liquidity. According to a 2009 article in the Guardian,

Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organized crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drug profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result. . . .

“In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor,” he said.

Credible journalists and scholars, such as Alfred C. McCoy and Peter Dale Scott have written extensively about the long involvement of the CIA in drug trafficking. And some of us may remember the now proven assertion (by an inspector general’s investigation of the CIA) that the CIA engaged in cocaine smuggling as part of its covert operations supporting the Nicaraguan Contras.

The war on drugs involves the world’s largest banks, drug cartels, and the U.S. intelligence community. Despite spending a trillion dollars, the drug trade continues to prosper because it is protected by powerful interests. The drug war is not about ending narcotics trafficking or protecting Americans from drug use. The truth is that it is one of America’s most lucrative industries. According to UNODC (The UN Office on Drugs and Crime), the global market for illicit drugs is worth more than $300 billion annually.

Lessons we can learn from Portugal

October 1, 2000, Portugal became the first Western nation to pass full-scale, nationwide decriminalization. Although use of drugs is still illegal, and dealing in drugs is still a criminal offense, it abolished criminal sanctions for personal use of all narcotics — including marijuana and “hard drugs” like heroin and cocaine. If individuals are caught with drugs, they are sent to a group of health professionals, where they are given the opportunity, if they wish, to have government-provided treatment.

According to Glenn Greenwald writing in 2010, Portugal’s drug-decriminalization program has been a resounding success. Drug usage has decreased, including in key demographic groups, like 15-to-19-year-olds. Where usage rates have increased, the increases have been far less than in most other European Union nations, which continue to use a criminalization approach.

Portugal, whose drug problems were among the worst in Europe, now has the lowest usage rate for marijuana and one of the lowest for cocaine. Drug-related pathologies, including HIV transmission, hepatitis transmission and drug-related deaths, have declined significantly.

Challenging the U.S. war on drugs

While the United States is publically staying the course in Latin America with its failed “war on drugs” policy, other countries—Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico—are open to exploring the idea of drug legalization. Even some liberal factions of the UK government have raised the idea. Back home, Colorado and Washington State have ballot initiatives this fall for legalizing marijuana. As sane and humane decriminalization and legalization polices begin to take hold at home and around the world, it may become harder and harder for the United States government to defend its bloated, ineffective, and corrupt drug policies.

The post The U.S. war on drugs: ineffective, bloated, corrupt appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Benzodiazepines may be the most dangerous drugs in the world. Benzos, as they’re commonly called, were introduced as anti-seizure medications in the mid-1970s. One of them—Klonopin—has since become the drug of choice for millions, second only to OxyContin or opiods in general.

Benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed in the US, with 100 million prescriptions written in 1999, according to the DEA.  Benzodiazepines mimic the action of a substance [GABA] that occurs naturally in the brain, whose effect is to quiet or tranquilize the body.  In fact, 40 percent of human brain cells respond to GABA. The long term use of benzodiazepines produces both dependence and tolerance, which cause the naturally occurring chemicals in the brain to lose their potency and become ineffective. Withdrawing suddenly is therefore risky, because the body has lost its ability to quiet itself in situations of panic or anxieties that naturally arise, even in safe settings. Withdrawal can include extreme anxiety, paranoia and agoraphobia and can be quite long lasting.

The effects of benzodiazepines have caused some to label drugs, such as Kllonopin, “the most dangerous drug in the world.” Since its original introduction as an anti-seizure medication in the mid-1970s, klonopin has become the drug of choice for millions, second only to OxyContin or opioids in general.

Singer Stevie Nicks has publicized the dangers of Klonopin by describing her own detox from the prescription drug as “hellish” and worse than withdrawing from cocaine or heroin. In fact, Nicks was introduced to Klonopin at The Betty Ford clinic, with the intention of assisting her with new-found sobriety! Recovering addicts and alcoholics have all too often been helped off of one drug addiction by being introduced to a new one, all with the best of intentions, of course.

Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have died as a result of potent drug cocktails prescribed to them by the Veterans Administration, which included benzodiazepines. Anna Nicole Smith and Mariel Hemingway both were found to have multiple drugs in their systems at time of death, including benzodiazepines. Emergency rooms now see three times as many visits for benzodiazepine related problems – eclipsing heroin and cocaine.

Treatment with benzodiazepines is clearly recommended for short term use only – dependence can form in as little as two weeks. In addition, there is a great danger of drug interactions being fatal.

So why is it  commonly prescribed for extended time periods? Psychotropic drugs represent a huge profit center for big pharma, running into the billions of dollars for the industry every year. This provides an incredible incentive for drug companies to “push the envelope” when drug sales representatives are presenting their products to the medical and psychiatric professions. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies frequently downplay potential dangers of particular drugs, while emphasizing what a marvelous job they can do for patients. Americans can surely trust their MDs and psychiatric professionals to take into account the fact that they are being exposed to sales pitches from commissioned sales persons.

Trusting in the discretion of professionals gets called into question when you take into account that pharmaceutical corporations purchase favorable articles in professional journals. The editor of one of the most respected medical journals, “The Lancet”, has publicly stated that science journals are being co-opted by drug companies pushing their drugs. When peer-reviewed journals cease to be a reliable source of information for professionals, patients are placed in danger by the very system that is supposed to “first, do no harm”.

The situation described in this article is yet another example of corporate greed run amok. The simple fact  is that while some industries exist to perform necessary functions, they not be run simply to provide a good “return on investment” for stockholders. The story of powerful and wealthy corporations that buy their way into further profits through lobbying and campaign contributions is becoming so commonplace that it is difficult to pique the interest of the general public. The story of the dangers of Klonopin and other benzodiazepines demonstrates that the public grows cynical at the risk of its own health and very life.

The post Benzos: more dangerous than the conditions they treat? appeared first on Occasional Planet.