Slog tipper Jason points us to an article in New West—a site seeking to to "promote conversation that helps us understand and make the most of the dramatic changes sweeping our region"—titled "Marijuana, Guns and Oregon." In his piece, Joseph Friedrichs asks lots of questions to "help us understand" the perils of pot growing in pristine rural Oregon:

Is it a criminal offense to grow and sell marijuana in mass production? Yes, it is.

Is it creepy to imagine someone growing dope in a field as opposed to say, a warm garage for personal and/or medicinal purposes? Yes, it is.

It's nice of Friedrichs to clarify that marijuana is still illegal, because it totally is. But I disagree that growing plants in fields is inherently "creepy." Growing plants in a warm, toasty, cozy garage seems far more weird—considering the history of agriculture—if you ask me. But I digress.

Friedrichs goes on to quote the sheriff and a narcotics officer who confirm that armed pot growers are out in the fields of Oregon, and then he ask some more questions, ostensibly to "help us understand."

Chris Gibson, the director of a federal program that targets Oregon’s high-trafficking drug regions, said this week that Oregon’s marijuana raids could culminate up to 215,000 plants worth at least $451 million. Who gets the money when such raids occur? Nobody, at least according to the feds. Who gets to burn one down when such raids occur? Nobody, at least according to the feds.

There are people willing to gun you down while you hike through forests in the West. They grow marijuana.

Is it worth it?

No, getting gunned down not worth it. Obviously. People shouldn't be toting around weaponry in other people's fields. But for someone who uses question after question as a crutch, it's disappointing that Friedrichs doesn't ask a single question that matters. Like, he could have asked, are the feds full of shit when they say "nobody" will "burn one down" after they arrest folks? Or that they have halted the flow of drug money?

More to the point, Friedrichs never asks the basic question—the crux of his article—which is this: Why are pot growers carrying guns in fields, why is this "creepy" thing happening? And what would make it stop? The answers aren't going to come from the cops who bust pot growers. All Friedrichs has to do—to "help us understand and make the most of the dramatic changes sweeping our region"—is pick up the phone and talk to one person who can explain that they're growing pot in fields to lower their chances of getting busted and it's cheaper than renting a warm garage. Once we tax and regulate marijuana, poof, the creepy problem will disappear.

If Friedrich were here, he'd probably say what all the reporters who regurgitate federal drug-war propaganda say: This is a crime story, not an advocacy piece. But you don't have to write an advocacy piece to write honestly about drug crime. Crime stories examine motives. Crime stories determine if police are lying. Crime stories ask if there is a solution to the problem. Crime reporters ask questions. But when Joseph Friedrichs—stupid fucking credulous hack of the day—wrote a crime story about pot, he asked all of the asinine questions and none of the questions that mattered.

On election day voters in the small Colorado ski town of Breckenridge decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Good for them. The NYT reports today that business owners are concerned about the town's image after voters approved the measure—71% voted in favor of it—and that "safety-minded resort managers" are very, very worried. Because no one wants people with impaired judgment hurtling down the slopes.

Right?

The business directory at the Breckenridge Chamber of Commerce website lists twenty-three bars and nightclubs, eight pubs, three wine bars, two liquor stores, and dozens and dozens of restaurants that serve beer, wine, and liquor. The Breckenridge Ski Resort—home of those safety-minded resort managers—lists seventy-six bars and restaurants and five liquor stores (three must not be members of the Breckenridge Chamber of Commerce.) If Breckenridge Ski Resort is like all other ski resorts, there are bars and pubs and restaurants serving alcohol steps from the lifts. Keep that in mind when you read the last few paragraphs of the NYT's story about the decriminalization of pot in Breckenridge:

Whether the new measure will lead to more accidents on the slopes is anyone’s guess.... James H. Chalat, a lawyer in Denver who specializes in personal injury and ski cases, said that of the hundreds of lawsuits stemming from skiing accidents handled by his firm, Chalat Hatten & Koupal, over 29 years, marijuana had been a factor in only one collision between two skiers.

Alcohol, on the other hand, has often been an aggravating cause, with a drunken skier or snowboarder plowing into somebody else, causing injury.

I would've moved those paragraphs up if I had edited that story.

The NYT has a good piece today about a the federal government's Trojan Horse bill to fund needle exchanges. The smart part? Congress is ready to lift a ban on federal funding for needle exchanges, which reduce disease transmission and put drug users in contact with drug-addiction counselors. This is a key mechanism in slowing the spread of HIV in America. The stupid part?

[T]he bill would also ban federally financed exchanges from being within 1,000 feet of a school, park, library, college, video arcade or any place children might gather — a provision that would apply to a majority of the country’s approximately 200 exchanges.

“This 1,000-foot rule is simply instituting the ban in a different form,” said Rebecca Haag, executive director of the AIDS Action Council, an advocacy group based in Washington. “Clearly the intent of this rule is to nullify the lifting of the ban.”

Under a separate bill, all exchanges in Washington within the 1,000-foot perimeter would be barred from receiving city money as well as federal money.

“Let’s protect these kids,” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who introduced the Washington bill. “They don’t need to be playing kickball in the playground and seeing people lined up for needle exchange.”

Hey, Kingston, in cities, everything is within 1,000 feet of "a school, park, library, college, video arcade or any place children might gather." In fact, everything is within zero feet of where something might happen. Obviously, kids don't need to be seeing drug users while they play kickball. But cities do need to contain rampant HIV and hepatitis rates among drug users. And that means needle exchanges in the city. The middle part of the city. Like near kickball fields and buses and trains. You don't want the drug users to drive somewhere to get the needles, right? I mean, junkies behind the wheel is probably a bad idea... If needle exchanges aren't accessible, people won't go to them. And if they don't go to them, then HIV rates in a city rise, and that's not very good for those kids playing kickball when they grow up.

Seattle used to have a needle exchange on 2nd Avenue and Pike Street, which was within 1,000 feet of children. Was it unsightly? Yes—junkies are generally crusty and gross. Could children walking to the Pike Place Market see it? Yes. But were they harmed by it? No—don't be ridiculous.

But we've already seen seen a preview of what would happen to our needle exchange, which is now in Belltown, if a 1,000-foot rule were applied in Seattle. It would leave downtown and find another location—like SODO. Even there, the Seattle Mariners tried to use the city's 800-foot rule to stop a strip club from opening near Safeco Field. They said kids go there. The strip club had a good lawyer and the Mariners lost, after nearly a year of legal proceedings. But needle exchanges don't have loads of cash and cadres of attorneys. And challenging them every time some puritanical business or homeowner wants to push needle exchange out of their neighborhood because a child might be there is a death sentence.

Most of them hate gay people, but they like pot:

Voters approved a referendum making Maine the fifth state to allow retail pot dispensaries, but medical marijuana advocates say it won't become like California, where hundreds of marijuana shops have popped up and come under critical scrutiny.

California, Colorado, New Mexico and Rhode Island allow for places where medical marijuana patients can legally buy pot. Maine voters gave their approval Tuesday, 59 percent to 41 percent.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the voter who's fine with pot stores in the middle of town but, criminy on a cracker, don't let two men enter into a state-sanctioned contract that has no bearing outside their home! I've always looked at drug policy, gay rights, abortion, and death with dignity through the same lens: It's about liberty to do what someone wants in the sanctity of their own body. And I'm guessing that most Maine voters who voted for pot yesterday have a libertarian mind about a woman's right to chose and end-of-life care. But the thought of two men having dirty gay poop sex—I'm sure that's what it's really about—short circuits their logic when they consider gay marriage. At least those are mostly older voters. They'll all be dead soon—unless the medical marijuana keeps them alive.

Via Sullivan.

So says George Will in what Raw Story is calling a "Walter Cronkite moment" in the war on drugs:

Appearing on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, the Pulitzer-winning journalist and longtime icon of America's political right declared that with President Barack Obama's new policy which respects the states right to allow medical marijuana, the United States is "probably in the process now of legalizing marijuana." He added that if there were to be a serious effort to fight the increasingly violent, powerful Mexican drug cartels, "you'd legalize marijuana," the sale of which provides the gangs the vast majority of their funding....

"We have legalized gambling in this country over two generations; it used to be considered a sin and a crime. We, with no national debate and no decision moment—we just did it—we legalized prostitution, as anyone who opens a telephone book and looks under 'escort' can tell you. And we may be doing... We're probably in the process now of legalizing marijuana."

Slog tipper Aaron writes...

I was wondering if you've seen the A&E news feature "Pot City, USA" narrated by Meredith Vieira. It focuses on Arcata, California, the sleepy NorCal town where upwards of 20% of all private residences have been converted into grow houses. It's filled with the requisite adoration of law enforcement, pot bust ride along, and interview with some crazy-looking medical marijuana user. Medical marijuana is presented as being exploited for non-medical purposes which, while true, was not followed up with any discussion of ending prohibition.

From the show summary...

A lot of people think that Humboldt County in northern California is an American paradise. Small towns in the county like Arcata look like they've been plucked right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. But the town has a dirty little secret—law enforcement officials say that over 1,000 homes there may be growing marijuana illegally. Capt. Mark Chapman and the Humboldt County Drug Task Force are determined to take back the town, house by house. Our cameras follow as they make busts and fly over forestlands searching for hidden marijuana groves.

Here's the dirtiest little secret: the only way to end illegal grow-ops is to allow legal ones. The producers of "Pot City, USA" should've interviewed someone willing to point out that out. Once again: no one would be growing marijuana illegally in unoccupied homes or public forests if it were legal to grow marijuana on farms. Part one of "Pot City, USA" after the jump...

The latest Gallup poll on legalizing marijuana records a new high: 44% of Americans back making pot legal while 54% oppose what increasingly looks like an inevitability: "If public support were to continue growing at a rate of 1% to 2% per year, as it has since 2000," writes Gallup, "the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years." In one region of the country a clear majority of Americans favors legalization already:

Looks like we're the opinion leaders on this one, kids.

"Nothing about this on Slog yet?" asks Slog tipper Chris.

People who use marijuana for medical purposes and those who distribute it should not face federal prosecution, provided they act according to state law, the Justice Department said on Monday in a directive with political and legal implications.

In a memorandum to federal prosecutors in the 14 states that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the department said it was committed to the “efficient and rational use” of its resources and that going after individuals who were in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state laws did not meet that standard.

It was at the top of Morning News, actually, but it probably deserves more comment. This is good news, of course. The feds backing away, even slightly, from the full enforcement of our nation's draconian, idiotic, and wholly ineffectual laws against marijuana use—medical or recreational—is always welcome. But it should be pointed out that this action is being taken by the same Justice Department that argues that it had no choice but to aggressively defend DOMA in federal court. Because, you know, DOMA is a federal law and everything. Just like, you know, all those federal laws against the medical use of marijuana.

Seattle Times:

Three people were indicted today following their arrest last week in connection with what authorities say is the largest drug seizure at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Seattle PI:

A port spokesman said Transportation Security Administration workers found an 11-pound bag of cocaine in the checked luggage of a passenger bound for Alaska. After finding the bag's owner at a departure gate, port police determined that he was traveling with two companions and, assisted by police canine Lilly, found two other checked bags with more cocaine, the port said.

Portland-based blogger More Hockey Less War pushes Bryan Denson's SFCH onto the homepage of Oregonian.

Journalist, author and pundit Dan Savage had some fun recently with what he calls a “drug war” story in the Oregonian, and gave Oregonian reporter Bryan Denson the honor of “Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day” not once, but twice in the same week.

I thought that story deserved a link on the front page of OregonLive, and voila!

You gotta love it:

More at More Hockey Less War.

Here's Bryan Denson's stupid fucking credulous hackery, courtesy of the Oregonian. Here's my Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack post about Denson. Here's the stupid fucking long email exchange between me and Bryan about his stupid fucking credulous hackery. In his first of many emails Bryan stated that my original post included "a fantastic number of inaccuracies." I asked Bryan to point out the inaccuracies but he claimed he was too "busy here" at the Oregonian—taking dictation from "the authorities" is time consuming!—to list them for me. (But not too busy to send multiple emails.) Well yesterday, after I posted our email exchange to Slog, Bryan managed to find the time...

I really do have to end this conversation, but I looked over the piece really quickly just now and found that you committed one fantastic error—[you stated that] the story was about the drug war—and then misled your readers about my intentions throughout. It was really quite clever—every sentence after your premise compounds the central inaccuracy. A couple of specific inaccuracies:

1) "Yeah, this war on pot might seem wasteful—particularly when you consider that we've been waging this war for forty-odd years and pot is cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than it has ever been, all
points Denson goes out of his way to avoid considering."

The only way that could be accurate is if your premise was accurate, which it was not. I had no reason to rehash 40 years of the war on drugs to tell a simple story about the failure to trace the Mexican drug gangs' money back to Mexico. And how would you know what I considered or didn't?

2) "The authorities are out there tearing up pot plants and chasing down illegal immigrants at great expense to the public and, hey, that's pretty much all the public needs to know."

Way inaccurate. That's not what I told readers. I did not tell them how much it cost to go chase down the growers and harvesters. (By the way, it ain't much in Oregon, so it wasn't, as you say, "great expense to the
public.")

Bryan's piece is headlined "Oregon battles Mexican drug gangs' marijuana fields," and is illustrated by a photo of what looks like a platoon of heavily-armed troops on maneuvers. The caption identifies these men—men wearing full camouflage and carrying machine guns (!) slung over their shoulders—as police officers, but they're fully militarized cops fighting the war on drugs. Bryan makes himself (more) ridiculous when he claims that his piece has nothing to do with the war on drugs and that I'm somehow misleading my readers when I describe it as one. Um, if these guys aren't fighting the war on drugs with their machine guns and their helicopters, what the fuck are they doing? And how is an attempt to "trace the Mexican drug gangs' money back to Mexico"—an attempt that involves soldiers and helicopters and machine guns—not a war on drugs story?

As for points 1 and 2, my response continues after the jump...

Dear Dan,

It's always a pleasure to be named Hack of the Day by a publication I've never heard of. Many thanks for the honor. I realize you are just trying to entertain readers, so I won't quibble with the fantastic number of inaccuracies in your editorial. But it was especially dishonest of you to suggest that the story was about the war on drugs, no? The piece was about law enforcement's inability to find much more than big pot plantations and a few growers and harvesters—how they couldn't get to the money guys back in Mexico.

Warmly,

Bryan Denson
Reporter, The Oregonian

Yeah, yeah—it's always a "law enforcement" piece when someone complains about a biased, unbalanced report about pot. But the particular kind of law enforcement you were reporting on is a part—
a huge part—of the War On Drugs. Hello? Helicopters? Your report takes us to the front line of the War On Drugs.

And "this is what the government/law enforcement is doing" pieces typically get around to this question: "is what the government is doing working? is it effective?" Not yours. You're not alone, though: there are lots of dumb fucking drug war stenographers at daily papers all over the country who neglect/refuse to ask that question. You're all part of the problem and seemingly proud of it. And, hey, I'd never heard of the Oregonian before i moved to the Pacific Northwest. So we're even.

Anxious to hear about the other "inaccuracies."

Warmly,

Dan Savage

You should stick to sex advice.

Those inaccuracies, Bryan?

Our exchange goes on—and on and on and on—after the jump.

Bryan Denson at the Oregonian—the award-winning Bryan Denson—had a huge piece in Tuesday's paper about heroic efforts to eradicate illegal Mexican "marijuana plantations" on public lands. It's the usual drug war stenography/stupid fucking credulous hackery: only "authorities" are quoted, no comments are sought from anyone on the other side, and nowhere in Denson's 1200-word, 28-paragraph piece—not in one paragraph, not in one sentence, parenthetical, or subordinate clause—is anyone allowed to question the efficacy of America's Never Ending War On Drugs. The authorities are out there tearing up pot plants and chasing down illegal immigrants at great expense to the public and, hey, that's pretty much all the public needs to know. Is any of this shit working? Is pot any harder to find? Is it more expensive? Has a dent been made in demand? How much do all those "helicopter flyovers" cost anyway?Denson isn't telling. But Denson allows some doubt—or pretends to allow some doubt—to creep in at the end:

It might seem wasteful to spend scarce public resources seizing pot plants, especially in a state that tolerates the drug.

Yeah, this war on pot might seem wasteful—particularly when you consider that we've been waging this war for forty-odd years and pot is cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than it has ever been, all points Denson goes out of his way to avoid considering. But while the war on pot might seem wasteful to an informed Oregonian reader—a reader who got informed elsewhere—we must keep fighting the war on pot because "government authorities here" tell Denson that profits from "West Coast marijuana plantations" fund violent Mexican drug gangs. (Kind of like profits from the illegal gin trade once funded violent American gangs in the 1920s?) And gangs are bad. And illegal grows are bad. And violence is bad. Legalizing and regulating and taxing pot would end the violence, put the drug gangs out of business, and stop illegal grows, but Denson doesn't go there. The Oregonian's readers do:

We could just legalize pot so American farmers can grow it without fear, and without trashing the environment while doing so. We can tax that to help close budget gaps, and we could reduce state costs by not incarcerating people who grow it. Seems too easy though...

This progressive defers to the late leading Conservative William F. Buckley and his eloquent argument for the legalization of marijuana. Look it up. A Conservative we can believe in.

Taxing and regulating marijuana would eliminate the blackmarket thereby pushing the cartels out of the massive market, just like alcohol production and distribution were no longer handled by bootleggers & the mafia when alcohol prohibition was repealed. This war has been a collosal 40+ year failure and it has led to countless instances of our freedoms being trampled upon and our tax $ squandered.

If you want to get both sides of the story on the War On Drugs—and there are two sides to this story, despite all the stupid fucking credulous hackery—you have to delve into the comments. Pro-legalization arguments are all over the comment threads when a daily paper writes up a pot bust. Why can't they ever appear in the stories themselves?

John English, an anti-drug crusader in Portland, Oregon, is angry that people want to legalize pot. Here's a piece he posted this morning:

Just as alcoholics are known to be in denial, so too are marijuana users. They’re blinded to what has happened to them since they began using.

There is little hope of reaching them with the truth, unless early on, a radical intervention is done by all their family and former friends. Confronting them with how they use to be, followed by showing them what they’ve turned into … how self-centered they’ve become, how they have become totally hedonistic … abandoning all their former loved ones … is worth a try. [...]

If children are using pot and are out of control, I recommend parents turn their children into police; it’s better that than waiting for them to kill someone while driving, like my friend’s son did, … or move on into other drugs that may snare and enslave them forever.

At the bottom of his article, English attributes his source: "Information comes from 'The DEA Position on Marijuana.'" It's shocking—is it not?—that the federal agency tasked with arresting drug users has plucked data that shows marijuana is dangerous? But there's no doubt that pot can be unhealthy, so let's go along with English and the DEA. (We could counter the claims that more potent pot is actually more dangerous, that pot users automatically become cocaine users, or that pot causes delinquency—but those points are irrelevant.) English insists that pot should be illegal because it's dangerous.

But that's illogical. Alcohol can be harmful, but that wasn't reason enough to keep it illegal. Fast food is tremendously harmful, but it doesn't require a prohibition. There is only one relevant metric in gauging whether pot should or should not be illegal:

Is pot more harmful on its own, or is pot combined with prohibition more harmful? Or to be more specific, which is worse: your teenager getting high in the basement with friends, or your teenager getting high and spending a few months in county jail? It seems an obvious disparity of risk, but lots of people—even reasonable people—scoff at pot legalization because stoned people can be boring. But that's too simplistic even for stoners.