Why, it was just yesterday that I was telling you…

(DEA) Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana

Q. Does marijuana have any medical value?

…The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.

And now today when you go to that same link…

Q. Does marijuana have any medical value?

And the AMA reference is gone.  Congrats to the folks at LEAP who spearheaded the campaign to harass the DEA about it.  (Though if you want to believe it was the fast response of the loyal frontline battle grunts in the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs™ known as “Stashers” that provided the “bump” that put the DEA over the edge, well, I’m not going to disabuse you of that notion.  Whatever keeps you writing to your government is fine with me.)

But the rest of the document needs some serious fixing, too…

…The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.

See?  The AMA in 2009 recognizes “smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” So the DEA removes that current reference and replaces it with a contrary reference from a decade ago.  (I often win arguments this way, like my trivia contest where I guessed there were nine planets, the 49′ers had the most Super Bowl trophies, and Bill Clinton was the president.)

But it is nice to know that the DEA recognizes that decade-old reference from the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 Study: Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science Base.  For it, too, recognizes the “Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation”.  It also rebukes the DEA’s statement that “smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition” when the study concludes, “for certain patients, such as the terminally ill or those with debilitating symptoms, the long-term risks [of smoked marijuana] are not of great concern.”

It’s nice that the DEA cites the 1999 IOM study, especially when they claim:

Q. Is marijuana a gateway drug?

* Yes. Among marijuana’s most harmful consequences is its role in leading to the use of other illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine.

…while the IOM study says, “There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.”

…In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate.

And not only that, I also hear it can cause increased heart rate.  But not cancer; in fact, cannabis users show a reduced risk of head, neck, and lung cancers compared to non-using controls.  And not respiratory problems, at least not seriously debilitating problems like emphysema and COPD.  And not a loss of motor skills in any permanent or even long-lasting way.  Sure, you don’t smoke a blunt and then go see how well you’ll do on the driver’s test, but a couple of hours later and you’re no worse to drive than anybody else.  But I do hear that it can cause an increased heart rate… an increase about the same as walking up a flight of stairs.

…It’s also important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. …. The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelman, [when asked] “Will it help lead toward marijuana legaization?” Mr. Nadelman said: “I hope so.”

I’m not sure what “legaization” is, but maybe there is a shortage of “L’s” at the DEA.  Anyway, let’s look at this tactical maneuver.  According to the DEA, Ethan Nadelmann and the rest of us “legaizers” are following this strategy:

1. Scenario: All (currently illicit) drugs are illegal.
2. Goal: Legalize all (currently illicit) drugs.
3. Tactic: Convince voters that they should make one (currently illicit) drug available to very sick or disabled people under very strict conditions.
4. Premise: Once voters are accustomed to sick people using one drug, they’ll decide that all people should be able to use all drugs.

How exactly does that work?  How is it that Joe Q. Public sees a cancer patient smoking a joint and decides, “You know, if they put up an initiative to put meth-flavored lollipops in the 7-Eleven, I’ll vote for it!”

The very notion that medical marijuana is a “Trojan horse” is both an insult to the public’s intelligence and an endorsement of the legalization we seek!  Are they really suggesting that the only way they can keep the public from rejecting prohibition as a policy is to make sure people in pain don’t smoke pot?  The fact that they think a public exposed to a non-punitive, regulatory solution to drug control will be inexorably drawn to more of those non-punitive regulatory solutions for more people and other drugs just shows you how bankrupt prohibitionist ideology is!  They can’t support it with reason, they can only support it through the barrel of a cop’s gun.

OK, maybe it’s not an overt lie, just a failure to update their website in lieu of last week’s reversal by the American Medical Association of their position on medical marijuana:

(DEA) Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana

Q. Does marijuana have any medical value?

…The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.

In case the DEA didn’t read it:

“short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” Furthermore, the report urges that “the Schedule I status of marijuana be reviewed with the goal of facilitating clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.”

Our friends at LEAP have an action alert for Attorney General Holder to direct the DEA to clean up the FAQ sheet. Go there now!

(Huffington Post) A group of civilly-disobedient hemp farmers and business leaders were arrested Tuesday morning while digging up the lawn to plant industrial hemp seeds at the headquarters of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

David Bronner, the president of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a more than 60-year-old company that does tens of millions of dollars of business annually, was among those arrested.

Bronner buys the hemp used in his soaps from Canadian farmers. He was arrested outside the DEA museum, which shares space with the headquarters.

“Our kids are going to come to this museum and say, ‘My God. Your generation was crazy. What the hell is wrong with you people?’” he said as Arlington County Police handcuffed him and walked him to a waiting car.

Wayne Hauge and Will Allen, farmers from North Dakota and Vermont respectively, brought shovels and seeds to the protest, where they were joined by representatives of Vote Hemp, which advocates for federal legislation that would allow states to craft their own hemp policies.

Currently [eight nine] states — Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, [Oregon,] Vermont, and West Virginia — allow industrial hemp production or research, but federal law, which requires nearly-impossible-to-obtain-permits to grow hemp, trumps those state laws. A bill introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) would allow states to craft their own policies.

Of all the insanities in the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs, the ban on industrial hemp is the looniest.  We have the Drug Enforcement Administration enforcing a ban on something that is not a drug!  They’ll tell you that by strict interpretation of the law, hemp does contain THC, so it has to be banned, even though the THC contained in hemp is so minute that you could literally burn a field of the stuff and not catch the slightest of buzzes.

They’ll tell you that if hemp were legal, growers of illicit high-THC pot would hide their crops in-between the rows of hemp.  Any farmer can tell you that what you’d get is cross-pollination; the hemp would ruin the high of the pot and the pot would ruin the strength of the hemp.

Then they’ll tell you that if hemp were legal, law enforcement would be burdened trying to determine which fields were hemp and which were pot.  This doesn’t seem to be a problem for the police in China, Australia, Canada, or most of Europe, however, as they seem to be able to tell the difference between a tall, reedy hemp plant and a short bushy pot plant without much difficulty.  Maybe our American cops are just too stupid to handle basic botany.

The ban on hemp remains for two reasons.  One is to protect the entrenched business interests that would stand to lose market share to legal hemp crops.  Hemp can produce anything you can make from a tree or a barrel of oil, and do it cheaper, make it better, and cause less environmental damage along the way.  Hemp paper resists oxidation far better than wood paper.  Hemp pressboards are as strong as steel and save our forests.  Hemp seed oil has the highest energy value of any seed oil crop – all current diesel engines can run on hempseed oil with no modifications required.  Hemp seed is one of nature’s highest protein foods and a source of important anti-oxidants.  Hemp cloth is impervious to mildew, repels water, and holds heat better, and requires no pesticides.  Can you begin to imagine all the companies that would lose money if forced to compete fairly with hemp?

And the second reason is psychological.  If hemp is legal, cannabis is just a plant.  It’s a subtle thing, but under the current framework, the government can tell us cannabis is an evil drug.  But if hemp is legal, then sometimes cannabis is an evil drug and sometimes it is just a plant.  Once cannabis is sometimes just a plant, it is harder to scare people into thinking it can be evil.

We are approaching the 400th anniversary of the first colonial hemp plantations in North America.  Hemp is our American heritage – this country exists because of hemp and our entire history is infused with its cultivation and use.  The forces that combined to ban hemp in the 20th Century have stolen our very birthright and declared nature itself to be illegal.

This latest examination by National Public Radio continues the theme of “medical marijuana is a hoax” that is perpetrated by so many in the mainstream media.

More than a dozen years ago, California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana for people with serious illnesses. Many used it to relieve pain or other symptoms — and that’s still true. But medical marijuana has now become a thriving business in California that serves a lot more than just sick people.

Serves a lot more than sick people?  I guess that depends on your definition of “sick”.

Doctors don’t actually write prescriptions for marijuana. They give written recommendations that are often based on less-than-rigorous exams…. It’s not what most California voters had in mind when they approved Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law. Back then, it was billed as compassionate relief for people with cancer, HIV-AIDS, or glaucoma.

I like that NPR now has the power to time-travel and read minds.  How the hell do you know what California voters were thinking of when they passed Prop 215?  The language of the initiative was pretty clear:

(California Secretary of State – Official Text) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. [emphasis mine]

It’s that “any other illness” language that differentiates California from the other medical marijuana states that have stricter lists of conditions which qualify for medical marijuana.  Are we to believe Californians saw that language on the ballot and didn’t consider that “any other illness” was a pretty broad term? It’s funny to me how these people don’t even bat an eye at ads for powerful hepatoxic pharmaceuticals to treat insomnia, appetite, nausea, anxiety, depression, minor aches and pains, and “restless legs syndrome”, but people using safe effective marijuana to treat those disorders are somehow not sick enough.

“I think 215 was a complete sham. I think this was a hoax,” says Ron Brooks, a federal drug agent in San Francisco.

“And I would encourage any citizen to do this. Stand near a dispensary and watch who goes in,” Brooks said.

“And tell me how many people look sick and dying. How many people look like they are suffering from catastrophic illness, and how many kids are standing around the corner where people buy marijuana inside the dispensary — and resell it to the kids outside for a profit,” he adds.

See, in DEA school, they train these agents to be able to identify someone with migraines, irritable bowels, epilepsy, arthritis, degenerative disc disorder, fibromyalgia, insomnia, anxiety, depression, asthma, or “restless legs syndrome” on sight alone.  No, not everyone who visits a dispensary is suffering from a catastrophic illness and are sick and dying.  Some just have “any other illness” and it is medical marijuana that allows them to live their life better.

What they don’t train them on at DEA school is rudimentary economics.  Explain to us how someone makes a profit selling to school kids when the medical marijuana in the dispensary is as expensive or more expensive than what they can buy from the dealer in their high school?  Even if this scenario were true (and it is not) you have to have two adults committing a crime – one adult showing ID to buy and one adult who’s registered at the dispensary to sell – in order for it to work, instead of the system in every high school in America where two kids buy and sell from each other without every checking an ID and no adult ever knows about it.

They also don’t teach much statistics at DEA school, or Agent Brooks would know that in every medical marijuana state for which there is data, teen use of marijuana has declined at a rate greater than national decline since implementation of medical marijuana in that state.

Also consider that dispensaries are at the center of diligent state and federal attention and the last thing these businessmen want to do is lose their livelihood over a sale to a minor or to an adult who’d divert medicine to a minor.

NPR is usually a good source of unbiased news but they whiffed on this one.  They also interviewed a film editor who claimed his examination wasn’t “medical” enough.  Yes, you can find people who have medical recommendations who will tell you that they aren’t that sick or don’t find the exam rigorous enough.  But they aren’t doctors.  Doctors are deciding whether these people should have medical marijuana and the law gives them great latitude in making that determination.  It doesn’t say they have to give them a full physical, colonoscopy, brain scan, and blood test and it doesn’t say they have to believe the person is catastrophically ill.

Since marijuana is “the safest therapeutically-active substance known to man” and is “safer than many of the foods we commonly eat”, they haven’t much reason to deny medical marijuana to anyone who claims to need it.  We let people buy toxic acetaminophen over the counter in any amount they choose, to use anytime they choose for any ailment they choose without ever seeing a doctor or undergoing an examination.  We let people buy toxic alcohol and use it any way they like and it’s most definitely not for medical purposes.  Maybe the people who voted for Prop 215 knew exactly what they were voting for – requiring doctor’s visits for something safer than aspirin, acetaminophen, and alcohol as a politically-possible method of legalizing it.

(Los Angeles Times) During one of the raids, officers shot a dog believed to be a pit bull, but the circumstances of the shooting remain unclear, a law enforcement spokesman said.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles Police Department, Torrance Police Department and Culver City Police Department took part in the raids.

Law enforcement agencies have been cracking down on pot dispensaries for some time, but officials did not immediately say what prompted these raids.

“What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue, simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism; we’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with,” said presidential candidate Barack Obama in a March 2008 interview.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Given the limited resources that we have, our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that’s inconsistent with federal and state law,” said Attorney General Eric Holder in a March 2009 statement.

Click here to view the embedded video.

(Mercury News) LOS ANGELES—Federal and local agents are raiding at least two marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles but authorities won’t say what they’re seeking. Officials say more than 20 people from various agencies served a state search warrant at around 11 a.m. Wednesday at the Organica Collective in Marina del Rey.

Los Angeles police, the FBI and DEA were still searching the distribution center three hours later.

DEA spokesman Jose Martinez says agents also served the warrant at the Overland Gardens Collective in West Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office says a residence also was named in the warrant.

Well, at least President Obama is fulfilling his other campaign promises, like getting us out of a protracted Middle Eastern war.  Oh, right, Afghanistan.

But at least he’s bringing us health care reform.  No, wait, better not use that one.

At least he’s holding the past administration accountable for… no, can’t go there.

Reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington and refusing to have any lobbyists in his administration… uh, no.

Protecting the Constitution from the serious abuses of the previous administration, like warrantless wiretapping… no again.

Bringing Wall Street excesses to an end… ‘fraid not.

Ending the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the military… uh-uh.

Wait, I know!  Cash for Clunkers!  There we go!

At NORML, we are a non-partisan organization, and with these new DEA raids, it makes it so much easier for me to move from my personal support of the Democratic Party to political independence.  I’ve had it.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  At least with a President McCain, I would have known straight up that he hates medical marijuana and would allow DEA raids to continue instead of being sold a bill of goods about not “circumventing state laws” and then circumventing them anyway.

(AP) EL PASO, Texas — The eight bullets that leveled Jose Daniel Gonzalez Galeana outside his home just doors from the city’s police chief were fired at close range and left little doubt about their message.

Gonzalez, a Juarez cartel lieutenant shot on his quiet El Paso cul-de-sac this spring, was working for U.S. officials as a confidential informant, sources told The Associated Press, and experts suspect his slaying may be the first time assassins from one of Mexico’s violent drug gangs have killed a ranking cartel member on American soil.

Cartel-affiliated hit men have violently, and fatally, disciplined low-level, American-based drug dealers in the U.S. But El Paso police said Gonzalez was a lieutenant in the Juarez cartel, which traffics in marijuana, cocaine and heroin. The cartel was once among the most dangerous in Mexico, but has recently lost some standing because of arrests, deaths and infighting.

El Paso police don’t yet have an official motive in Gonzalez’s slaying, but chief Allen said detectives are working on the assumption that a cartel colleague discovered he was discussing their illegal activities with federal agents.

How many gangland-style executions will have to take place on American streets before we get serious about legalizing these murderers right out of business?  I hear a few people complain about taxing and regulating marijuana as a legal substance because then the big bad ol’ government will have its hands on it, but last I checked the IRS doesn’t send hit men out to quiet residential neighborhoods to deliver a “message” about delinquent tax payments.

(http://www.isria.com/pages/17_July_2009_70.php) The US anti-drug agency supported the Mexican government’s position of rejecting any dialogue or pact with organized crime.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) approved the Mexican government’s position of not negotiating with drug traffickers or criminal groups, whose only possible destination is prison.

Mexican President Felipe Calderón “Is right not to make agreements with criminals. Criminals must be put in prison, period,” declared DEA Head of Intelligence Operations Anthony Placido.

“From our point of view, President Calderón is a hero who is fighting head to head with criminals, said Placido, adding: “We are going to help.”

At the same time, Placido expressed the DEA’s concern over the violence carried out by the drug cartels who feel threatened by the operations undertaken by Mexico’s police and military forces.

The DEA officials described drug cartels as a threat to both Mexico and the United States, adding that the increase in violence reflects the advances of both countries in “interrupting the activities” of these organizations.

The DEA may inadvertently be speeding an end to the prohibition by encouraging the Mexican government to not negotiate with the cartels. Apart from legal, low-cost marijuana sales to adults, the only thing that could bring about an end to the cartel murders is a deal made with the Mexican government to turn a blind eye to cartel operations.

While the government refuses the possibility of this, the murders will continue and the pressure on non-smokers in the U.S. to demand an end to the murders in any way possible will continue to grow. The DEA’s support for the Mexican government’s position will serve to minimize the possibility of the government rescinding on this. The only element left now is for non-smokers in America to see that the prohibition is causing the cartel murders.

Reputable organizations need to be encouraged to conduct sound research into the connection between the prohibition and the cartel murders, with the purpose of generating studies proving a statistically significant correlation between the two. Findings like this from reputable sources will make front-page news across the country and become a powerful weapon in generating support amongst non-smokers for bringing an end to the prohibition.

Widespread knowledge of this connection among the general public will give non-smokers a compassionate reason to support an end to the ongoing suffering and brutal murders of so many people. It’ll also reveal to them just how the prohibition is putting their own families in danger, not only from errant SWAT raids but also from being the accidental target of home invasions and revenge killings by the cartels.

Three THOUSAND people alive right now will be tortured, murdered and beheaded by the cartels before Christmas as a direct result of the federal marijuana prohibition.

Yesterday I had written this in a post about Mexican officials seeking Asylum in the US:

How tragic – we fund the Mexican cartels because we prohibit a plant that Americans demand, then we supply 90% of the firearms and ammunition the cartels use to terrorize police, but when the police run to us in fear for their lives, we won’t grant them asylum.

Which got me a prompt email from Stasher Tom:

You stated that the US supplies 90% of the firearms to the Mexican cartels, this is not true.  The US at the most supplies 33% and as little as 14% of the firearms used by the cartels. Russ please retract this misstatement, please do not muddy this movement for liberty with unevaluated quotes from anti-gun groups.

And I thought, hold on, I’m usually really careful with the numbers.  Did I unknowingly slip up?  I don’t recall gathering quotes from the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence or any other “anti-gun” group.  I’m actually quite a fan of guns and the 2nd Amendment (it’s that Idaho DNA – where I’m from, “gun control” means “use both hands”), even though I think we do a poor job keeping them out of the hands of the violent and mentally ill and our culture has a huge defect revealed in our love for shooting each other (according to the CDC, the ratio of US gun homicides to International gun homicides is 15.7:1)

So what’s the truth and what led your intrepid reporter to the “90%” quote?  Read on…First of all, there was February story from the New York Times entitled “U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels” where I think I first picked up on this theme:

George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges he sold hundreds of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers, knowing they would send them to a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa.

Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels.

Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico.

What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses — makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.

The Mexican authorities say they seized 20,000 weapons from drug gangs in 2008, the majority bought in the United States.

In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Over the two years leading up to his arrest last May, he sold more than 700 weapons of the kind currently sought by drug dealers in Mexico, including 515 AK-47 rifles and one .50 caliber rifle that can penetrate an engine block or bulletproof glass, the A.T.F. said.

In March, we then get a joint statement to Congress from the ATF and DEA that gives us the money quote:

Because firearms are not readily available in Mexico, drug traffickers have aggressively turned to the U.S. as their primary source. Firearms are routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of both U.S. and Mexican law. In fact, according to ATF’s National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S.

This figure is pretty damning, but notice the caveat “that could be traced“.  Not all weapons are traceable, and not all weapons were turned into the tracing center.  This little detail got left out as the “90 percent” figure made the rounds.  In fact, the hearing with the ATF and DEA wasn’t even gaveled closed before Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. Dianne Feinstein were ignoring the detail (thanks, FactCheck.org):

SEN. DURBIN: ”According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America.”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: ”It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that.”

The politicians and the news media then repeat the claim.  On March 26, Secretary of State Clinton was on the CBS Early Show and said:

“We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America.“

President Obama mentioned it during a press conference with the Mexican President on April 16:

“A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”

The news media repeated the claim, including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, NBC, and others.  Then Reuters printed “Mexico cartels go bargain gun shopping in Houston” at the end of May, which at least bothered to add the important detail:

Mexican drug gangs looking for weapons powerful enough to stop a vehicle, penetrate a bullet-resistant vest or confront an army detachment need look no further than the Houston area’s 1,500 gun shops, where merchandise is priced to move.

Guns like the Barrett M-82 sniper rifle, the AK-47 and Bushmaster .223 are among those favoured by cartel hitmen that slaughtered some 6,300 people in Mexico border cities like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana last year.

For example, the Belgian-made FN 5.7-calibre pistol is known to gangs as a “cop killer” because it can fire a round through a Kevlar bullet-resistant vest. It goes for $800 in the Houston area, compared to $1,500 in a border store, Webb said.

According to ATF gun-tracing data, 90 percent of the traceable weapons used in Mexican drug violence originated in the United States with Texas, Arizona and California the largest suppliers.

So the detail that’s important – guns that were submitted for tracing and could be traced – needs to be considered in light of all the guns, traceable and untraceable, submitted or not, that are seized in Mexico’s drug war.  FOX News decided to look at that and decided that the US share of Mexican drug war guns was 17%, not 90%:

There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one:

It’s just not true.

In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

FOX goes on to explain how guns come from illicit sources like China, Russian gangs, South American drug cartels, and the Mexican Army itself when its deserters took their firearms with them.

However, FOX is playing a little fast and loose with the details as well (and I am shocked, d’ya hear, shocked!)  In the Newell testimony FOX cited, he mentions 11,055 guns submitted in those two fiscal years of 2007-2008:

We can report that our efforts are paying off. Mexico has increased the number of firearms it has submitted for tracing from 3,312 in FY 2007, to 7,743 in FY 2008…

In fact, 90% of the firearms recovered in Mexico, and which are then successfully traced, were determined to have originated from various sources within the continental U.S.

Where FOX goes wrong is saying that “Close to 6,000 were successfully traced”.  This is a reference to the guns that could be directly traced to a specific US state.  When contacted by FactCheck.org, ATF reiterated that over 90% of the guns that were turned in for tracing could be traced back to the United States:

At our request, an ATF spokesman gave us more detailed figures for how many guns had been submitted and traced during those two years. Of the guns seized in Mexico and given to ATF for tracing, the agency actually found 95 percent came from U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 93 percent in fiscal 2008. That comes to a total of 10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years, or 36 percent of what Mexican authorities say they recovered.

So what we have here is this:  Mexican authorities seize 29,000 guns in the drug war.  11,055 of those guns are turned into ATF, 10,347 come from the US = 93.6% of Mexican drug war guns turned into the ATF come from USA. This leaves roughly 18,000 guns that are not turned into the ATF.  Now you might assume that Mexico only turns in obviously American guns to ATF for tracing, but this has not been confirmed.  How many of the remaining 18,000 guns came from the US is not known, but I’m willing to bet it is a non-zero number.

It’s a slippery stat, since we don’t really know exactly how many guns the Mexicans seize, we don’t know what guns the Mexican cartels still hold and where they came from, and we don’t know if the guns seized are an accurate representative sample of all Mexican drug war guns.  What we do know is that when our officials examine a sample of 38% of all seized guns, 93.9% of them come from America.  We do know that at the very least, 35.7% of all guns seized in the Mexican drug war are from the US, with an unknown number of the remaining 62% of unexamined guns coming from the US.  If even one out of four of the unexamined guns comes from the US, a fair estimate, I think, if over nine in ten examined guns are American, then over half of all Mexican drug war guns come from the US.

No matter how you slice it, the Mexican drug cartels are getting a large portion of their guns – at least one out of three and maybe half – from the United States.  I don’t present that as a “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” position; I present it to rebut the politicians’ and media’s 90% claim and FOX’s and the NRA’s 17% claim.

Allen Stanford was ‘US government informer’ via The Telegraph (UK)

When the news is this bad, you’ll just have to read it in the foreign press..

Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan financier and cricket promoter accused of a $8 billion (£5.6 billion) bank fraud, is at the centre of allegations that he worked as a US government informer, according to the BBC.

A Panorama [a weekly current affairs program in the UK] investigation has suggested that Sir Allen was shielded from an earlier inquiry into his activities because he co-operated with a US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) attempt to track money laundering by Latin American drug cartels.

Panorama claimed some US officials were aware of Sir Allen’s cartel links as long ago as 1990. It reported that Sir Allen, paid a $3.1 million (£2.05 million) cheque to the DEA in 1999 after that sum was invested in his bank by another Mexican drug gang, the Juarez cartel of Amada Carillo Fuentes.

According to Panorama, whose investigation will air on Monday, Sir Allen was initially investigated by the SEC over suspicions he was running a Ponzi scheme in the summer of 2006, but the inquiry was over by the winter of that year.

The BBC claims the decision to close the investigation followed a request by another government agency.

Panorama says it is aware of “strong evidence” that Sir Allen was a “confidential agent” for the DEA as far back as 1999 and turned over details of money laundering by clients from Colombia, Mexico and Ecuador.

My mother used to day that when you wrestle with pigs you’re gonna get dirty, and the DEA has “ponzi scheme” all over it’s shirt. This man was allowed to bilk $8 Billion dollars from Americans just so the DEA could have it’s money mole. So, you can just add $8 Billion to the cost of the drug war for this year, just feel lucky that you didn’t take Sean Hanity’s advice and buy gold from Stanford Financial.

There is a dirty little secret that could cost all the drug warriors their positions, and Mexican President Calderon mentioned it but few took notice. There are large numbers of police, DEA agents, accountants, judges and attorneys who are neck deep in corruption. We never hear about them, we never even get so much as a whiff that the US government is as corrupt as the Mexican government. But they are, and Calderon knows it, and you should know it too. When America wakes up to see the legions of Police that have been bought we will begin to understand the true cost of this war and what it has done to us.