Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Being part of the problem TalkLeft notes that Edwards Calls for Crackdown on Meth Labs. Edwards said he and presidential nominee John Kerry would propose legislation to limit consumers to two standard packages per day of cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine, an ingredient used in Sudafed and other drugs. Bulk sales of cold medicines would be more closely monitored to track suspicious sales. They also would propose spending $30 million annually for 10 years to fund law enforcement efforts and help farmers buy better locks to secure ammonia tanks where drug dealers steal the ammonia they need to make meth. After a few commenters at TalkLeft said that they appreciated Edwards' comments, since Meth labs are a growing scourge in the midwest, I had to speak up. My response was essentially: Sure, talking about criminalizing cold medicine is going to resonate with some people, but it's false pandering and is not going to result in positive long term effects. It's not that drug reformers don't care. We care, and we want people to stop using meth and creating dangerous meth labs. It's that prohibition and enforcement aren't the answers. You say "People shouldn't use meth." Great. I agree. Is a law going to do that? No. We've had drug laws for decades and yet 46% of the country has used illegal drugs. There's a very complex equation that revolves around the drug war. When enforcement against one drug increases, people who use drugs look to other options. Is it a coincidence that meth appeared during one of the harshest crackdowns in illegal drugs in our history (including crackdowns on safer, pharmaceutical amphetamines)? Alcohol prohibition resulted in an increase in dangerous backyard stills, which sometimes poisoned their customers (one brewing method involved car radiators), and often blew up or caused fires. Entire towns were destroyed. Sound familiar? The answers lie in harm reduction, regulation, and oversight, not in increasing the profits to black market criminals through prohibition. If you support prohibition, you are part of the drug problem. One person claimed that my last line was "Glib and memorable, but purposely divisive and thereby tragically counter productive..." Interesting. Glib and memorable, true. But is such an approach counterproductive? Or is it possible that such a memorable statement could actually wake some people up? For too long, drug policy reformers have been hampered by fighting two forces. Drug Warriors and their self-interest and propaganda Masses of people who are open to the idea of reform, but don't consider it to be a critical issue (after all, it's just about some hippies who want to smoke pot, it's not like it's life or death, right?) This second group has been let off the hook, and therefore have let others get away with murder. Didn't reform the Rockefeller laws this session? Oh, well, there's other important stuff for the legislature to do. Even tacit and passive support of prohibition means that drug policy reform has a much harder time countering the drug warriors, so more people die of drug overdoses who could have lived; violence from black market economies increases; and on and on. So what do you think? Glib and counterproductive? Glib and memorable? Should it be permanently added to the banner of Drug WarRant? If you support prohibition, you are part of the drug problem. 11:22:21 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

No arrest Well, Loretta failed to get arrested today, but she had an interesting discussion with a marshall: While I was standing there waiting on Kev to get back and hating cops in general a Federal Marshal walks over to me and smiles politely and says hello. I returned his gesture and greeting all the while wondering what was about to happen and bracing for a head cracking or some such brutality. Shockingly though, he began to tell me that he was the Marshal who was in charge of transporting Jonathan Magbie to the jail. He said he was called to the courthouse to pick him up and was expecting just another regular person convicted for smoking pot to be there waiting on him. He said when he saw Magbie and his condition he was shocked and upset that a person like that could be sent to jail. He said he felt like the lowest piece of scum on earth for having to drive him to jail and that he felt deep down that something horrible might happen. He told me when he read the story in the Post a few days later he broke down and cried like a baby. He said he felt responsible to a degree but that as a federal marshal he had to do what he was told. ... He then told me that pot should be legal and that most people even on the federal side as well as regular civilian police officers felt that way as well from what he could tell. I told him of my plans to enter Judge Retchin's courtroom and unfurl my banner at 2 pm and asked him what I could expect from the Marshal's. He said that I would be escorted out if I didn't get too rowdy and the charge would be disrupting court. He said that if I refused to leave the courtroom or resisted then I would be charged with contempt and arrested. He said if he were assigned to that courtroom today that he would see that I was handled gently and treated with respect. ... He smiled, thanked me for having the courage to speak out and said with a wink "If anyone asks I told you to move on." The judge was gone for the day, so she's going to try again tomorrow. 10:32:17 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []