RTFA: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/01/31/geo…

NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) — George Obama, the half brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, has been arrested by Kenyan police on a charge of possession of marijuana, police said Saturday.

RTFA: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c7_1232290490

This footage was prepared recently by a citizen-journalist / advocate in Vancouver. Contrary to what one might think, it’s a pretty good PSA for crack addicts wanting to manage their addiction … and it’s apparently legal, too.

When it comes to drug legalization, there are a few approaches. Harm reduction, for example, makes the argument that the purpose of public policy is to reduce harm, and that any policy that creates more problems than it solves isn’t actually successful. There’s decriminalization, which is essentially driven by voter initiative. There’s rescheduling, which seeks to alter the definition of a drug so that it no longer meets certain criteria for enforcement. There’s the medicinal movement, which seeks to alter access to certain drugs on the basis of their beneficial qualities. One of the features that all of these techniques share is that they directly address currently illegal drugs, and attempt to directly argue that these drugs should not be illegal.

…and then there’s this guy from Vancouver, who has created a Jonathan Swift-esque Modest Proposal, of sorts. Essentially, our Vancouver Videographer has created a tutorial that illustrates how to take plain coffee, combine it with a household cleanser, and end up with a super-pure, smokable form of caffeine. Essentially, his challenge to policymakers is this: criminalize coffee. Naturally, after coffee is criminalized will inevitably come the next food that can be purified, and so on… This is the argument of absurdity (reductio ad absurdum); how ridiculous could we theoretically make policy before policy has become too absurd to take seriously?

Some people will doubtless be shocked that the Vancouver Videographer suggests selling it on the school playground with the name “black magic,” but he insists that it must be sold with the disclaimer that it is legal to sell. Of course, anyone who is shocked by the suggestion is clearly missing the point of the video. In A Modest Proposal, Swift never advocated for cannibalism, and he would probably have been disgusted if people actually ate the children as a result of his proposal. On the contrary, people ought to be shocked by what is currently criminalized.

Personally, I love this message, but I’m not about to freebase some coffee. I would suggest that a more direct route to smokable caffeine would be to purchase chemically pure caffeine, rather than using the coffee method depicted in the video. I’ve heard that United Nuclear is a good source, but I’ve never purchased from them, and I make no warranties. Although this does have me thinking about some possibilities, let me reiterate: making freebase caffeine isn’t the point of the video.

I’d venture that all anyone really needs to hear are the words “freebase caffeine” and they are less than an hour from actually making it a reality. The knowledge is already out there, and a video tutorial isn’t a necessary step to making your own freebase caffeine. Any process that can be explained in 120 seconds is childishly simple, so it’s not like this video is the groundbreaking source of some “great new technique.”

What is groundbreaking, however, is the suggestion that we could criminalize everything simply by showing how easy it is to transform it into a “scary form.” Hot peppers, for example, are well known for their accompanying endorphin rush – perhaps peppers aren’t too far behind coffee? In fact, someone could just walk down the aisles of a supermarket and identify which products, fruits, and vegetables have any conceivable potential for becoming “scarier.” Why not create an act stipulating that nothing, whatsoever, can be sold in a store unless it has first been confirmed that it could never be made into a scary form?

Because it is absurd.

If it is plain to see why this line of reasoning is absurd, then we need to work backwards to figure out where this absurd line of reasoning began, and then remedy the situation so that it is no longer absurd.

[UPDATE 2009-01-20]
Since there is question about whether or not anyone has ever done this, I submit for your evaluation the following Erowid report:

I recently bought a bottle of ’stacker 2′ pills. I really like these pills taken orally but I find that the excessive amount of caffeine (200mg) is a bit much for me. It also contains several vitamins, herbs, etc–but most importantly, ma huang extract (standardized 25mg ephedrine). I decided to do what the cigarette companies do to tobacco in order to convert the nicotine salt into a freebase–soak it in ammonia. I opened up one of the capsules onto a glass dish, added 5ml household clear ammonia via medicine dropper, ‘cut’ with razor blade until capsule contents were fully saturated, and let soak for approx. 1 hour. Next, I evaporated the ammonia in the microwave, scraped up sticky goo (light brown in color, almost rubbery but sticky when rolled into a ball), and smoked through my trusty bowl. That was bout two hours ago. Since then, have taken about 7 hits of the pharmaceutical-tasting lump…

Obviously, RTFA. I take two things from this report:
1) the guy lived
2) the caffeine was hard to disambiguate from the ephedrine (which he also freebased).

So, this doesn’t strictly mean it’s safe to do, but there is more that you can read about the topic…

[/UPDATE]

RTFA: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122843683581…

The Americans who voted in 1933 to repeal prohibition differed greatly in their reasons for overturning the system. But almost all agreed that the evils of failed suppression far outweighed the evils of alcohol consumption.

The change from just 15 years earlier, when most Americans saw alcohol as the root of the problem and voted to ban it, was dramatic. Prohibition’s failure to create an Alcohol Free Society sank in quickly. Booze flowed as readily as before, but now it was illicit, filling criminal coffers at taxpayer expense.

Some opponents of prohibition pointed to Al Capone and increasing crime, violence and corruption. Others were troubled by the labeling of tens of millions of Americans as criminals, overflowing prisons, and the consequent broadening of disrespect for the law. Americans were disquieted by dangerous expansions of federal police powers, encroachments on individual liberties, increasing government expenditure devoted to enforcing the prohibition laws, and the billions in forgone tax revenues. And still others were disturbed by the specter of so many citizens blinded, paralyzed and killed by poisonous moonshine and industrial alcohol.

Supporters of prohibition blamed the consumers, and some went so far as to argue that those who violated the laws deserved whatever ills befell them. But by 1933, most Americans blamed prohibition itself.

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

…is there any relief for a war-tattered nation such as these United States? The Wall Street Journal continues:

But there’s nothing like a depression, or maybe even a full-blown recession, to make taxpayers question the price of their prejudices. That’s what ultimately hastened prohibition’s repeal, and it’s why we’re sure to see a more vigorous debate than ever before about ending marijuana prohibition, rolling back other drug war excesses, and even contemplating far-reaching alternatives to drug prohibition.

Ahh yes – the silver lining in the economic depression. Perhaps we COULD stand to tighten the Federal belt a little. Perhaps it DOES make sense to eliminate a few of these Federal programs…

Of course, I’d like to point out that with Alcohol, the only legal vehicle for enacting prohibition in the first place was a Constitutional Amendment. On that basis, it’s tenuous at best to prohibit other drugs without action of the same magnitude.

RTFA: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200…

A proposal to decriminalize the possession of marijuana has the support of about half of Massachusetts voters as the election nears, according to a new poll.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters supported Question 2 on the ballot, while 32 percent opposed it, and 16 percent were undecided, in a Suffolk University/WHDH-TV (Channel 7) News poll taken earlier this week.

The poll also found strong opposition to Question 1, a proposal to repeal the state income tax, and a nearly equal split among voters on Question 3, a proposal to ban dog racing in the state.

Law enforcement officials have mobilized to oppose the marijuana decriminalization proposal, making significant progress in swaying people to their side, said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University.

In an August poll, 72 percent of those surveyed had supported decriminalization.

“The ‘no’ side has gained momentum over the past two months,” said Paleologos. “The issue is whether the brass and blue will be able to move enough additional voters to their side in 12 days.”

Election season is heating up!

…but this article raises an interesting question: why should law enforcement oppose 3/4 of the popular will on a certain issue, and attempt to influence an election to maintain the criminality of that issue? Does this make sense to anyone? I’ll grant that police officers are citizens, and are therefore entitled to their vote. However, it seems like the police should want to create a law-abiding society, and should not oppose a movement that would make it easier to achieve this end. If that strong of a majority don’t think something should be a crime, then maybe it just shouldn’t be a crime!

Of course, this issue cannot simply come down to a moral question of whether or not it should be legal. Other factors are likely to include funding for certain programs, rates of incarceration, and other entrenched interests.

The bottom line is: bring this issue out of the dark! Decriminalization will prevent money from funding violent crime. Bring this financing into the light, choke out the illegal dealing, and reduce crime in this country!

RTFA: http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=134

After the raid, and after the story had been published by the LAT, Abdollah was contacted by Sarah Pullen, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles office of the DEA. Pullen requested that the face of the agent wearing the Blackwater t-shirt be blurred because he was an undercover agent and the photo might jeopardize his apparent anonymity. At the same time, Pullen assured Abdollah that the “undercover” agent was in fact an employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration and has never been an employee of Blackwater. Pullen also felt it necessary to explain to Abdollah that the request to blur the agent’s face and the fact that he was wearing a Blackwater t-shirt was completely coincidental. In a subsequent conversation with the DEA, Abdollah was told that the agent was not undercover for the raid, but does routinely engage in undercover operations.

Rebecca writes in with a pointer to Kris Hermes’ follow-through on the DEA/Blackwater connection. Thanks for fact-checking!

So, it seems the DEA story is:
1. he wasn’t undercover, but he wasn’t wearing a DEA uniform either (i.e. not “over-cover”)
2. he’s sometimes undercover, so his face needs to be blurred from the public
3. He isn’t connected to Blackwater, but he’s wearing their shirt
4. It’s illegal by Federal law to have marijuana, but no arrests were made

I have to admit: I don’t work for Google, but I wear a Google shirt once a month. Why? I got it from a job fair, since I’m in the industry. Early on, speculation at BoingBoing was going down this path, and it is definitely plausible. I detect striking parallels between the DEA and Blackwater-Iraq, so I could imagine this fellow getting recruited by Blackwater (and by the DEA).

I do have a suggestion for the DEA: next time you want to keep your agents undercover, don’t dress them up in a private merc shirt, don’t give them a conspicuous gun, and don’t drop them off at a raid to perform custodial work. That way, you won’t have to force the LA Times to disappear the evidence in a shady and suspicious sequence of events. …and you won’t have to explain that he’s only undercover some of the time, but not this one time that he got caught on camera.

Here’s another suggestion: only engage in actions that are legal, only tell the truth, and if the law REALLY has your back, then accomplish this agenda as if you were legitimate (i.e. drop the terrorist tactics). I call bullshit on Pullen’s story. Four contradictions don’t make a right.