|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, January 31, 2004 |
A National Police Force?
Yesterday's Denver Post had some additional detail on the case of the marijuana stolen by the Feds (here's my recap of the case), and the Post article included this:
Department of Justice attorney Michael Hegarty argued that the officers who went into Don Nord's apartment in Hayden on Oct. 14 were all deputized Drug Enforcement Administration agents acting "under the color" of federal law.
Through this they claim they don't have to follow the state judge's directions and are exempt from his contempt citation. And the fact that they were serving a state warrant? What color is that?
 This points out a growing concern that I'm having regarding an emergent federal takeover of state and local law enforcement activities.
You see, the Constitution gives police power to the states and none to the federal government. The feds have developed certain police functions over the years through the Commerce Clause, regulating interstate commerce, treasury functions, etc.
However, in recent years, primarily through ploys in the drug war, you have the huge growth of the joint federal and state task force. These task forces are usually developed in part through federal grants and the money is very attractive to state and local police. Once the task forces are started, it's almost impossible to shut them down because of the fear of losing funding.
In 2002, there were 207 local and state task forces through the DEA alone. All of them received funding from the DEA, and 153 of them received extra funding from DEA headquarters, including state and local overtime payments. (Other joint forces have been developed in immigration and terrorism operations.)
Eventually, these joint forces end up under the thumb of federal agencies, even to the point of actually disobeying or circumventing the courts and laws of their own states.
The Colorado case is just one example. For years, this kind of thing has been happening in asset forfeiture cases. As detailed in a powerful series of reports in the Kansas City Star back in 2000:
Police and highway patrols across the country are evading state laws to improperly keep millions of dollars in cash and property seized in drug busts and traffic stops.
Most states don't want law enforcement agencies to profit so easily from such confiscations -- they see it as a dangerous conflict of interest. For that reason, they have passed laws blocking seized property from going directly back to police, and many states designate seizures to be used for other purposes, such as education.
But a yearlong examination by The Kansas City Star reveals that police agencies in every one of more than two dozen states checked by the newspaper have used federal law enforcement to circumvent their own laws and keep most of that money for themselves.
The founding fathers left law enforcement to the states for good reason. Partly as a check on abusive centralized power of the Federal Government, and partly because law enforcement is, and should be, a local issue.
A report (pdf) from a Task Force of the American Bar Association on the Federalization of Criminal Law notes:
A lessening of citizens' perception about their power to have an impact on critical crime
issues should be avoided. Confusion of state and federal authority can
leave citizens uncertain about who bears the responsibility for dealing
with crime, while at the same time dissipating accountability for one
governmental authority or the other to seriously confront the problem.
On the whole, state law is easier to modify (and so more easily
accommodates new local conditions) than is national legislation. Public accountability in the state and local segments of government is higher.
As a result, the movement of the crime debate to the federal level may
leave local citizens with the belief that they have less power to influence
the debate about the response to crime and therefore less control over
crime's immediate impact upon them.
Or, as in the case in Colorado, less control over law enforcement itself, with the Federal government holding the strings of our own police officers.
2:48:21 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 30, 2004 |
What's the special of the day?
TWO policemen flanked the doors of the Purple Haze cafe in Leith at 4pm, as Scotland's first ever cannabis cafe prepared to open its doors.
The cafe had earlier been swamped with camera crews, photographers and reporters as owner Paul Stewart outlined his proposal for the cafe.
As the doors opened, around 30 prospective punters, who had gathered outside in the freezing cold, began filing in. The police handed each one a letter explaining that the possession of cannabis was still an offence.
So began the first day in the UK of cannabis downgraded to Class C, as reported by the Edinburgh Evening News. Although the classification provides for a fair amount of decriminalization, marijuana is still illegal, and people can be arrested for possession. This is somewhat dependent on the philosophy of the local police.
After a few hours a distinctive smell began to come from the cafe doors.
After nearly three hours of business, police officers moved into the cafe and began charging customers, many of whom had been there since it opened.
Insp Phillip later said three people had been charged and added their details would be passed on to the procurator fiscal. He said he was satisfied the "appropriate" action had been taken.
Among those caught was Mr Stewart, who will now face charges of allowing people to take drugs on his premises.
He vowed to fight the charges, saying that human rights lawyers had already contacted him offering to represent him.
"It was a good night, although with the glare of the media and all the police attention there were bound to be a few teething problems," he said afterwards.
"We will be challenging these charges, as I feel they are totally illegal. I was very happy with the way the Police handled the event, though, and there was no trouble when they charged people.
It'll be interesting to see how things settle. That's what will matter. The greatest fear of the drug warrior is that marijuana will be used commonly and the sky won't fall. (Much like this summer in parts of Canada when it was temporarily legal to possess cannabis.) Then the slumbering masses of matrix population may just wake up and wonder why we've been spending so much of our resources incarcerating people for smoking pot.
10:29:51 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
This man wants your bong.
Take a good look. Scary, intense, powerful U.S. Attorney for Nebraska appointed by George Bush. According to the Lincoln Journal Star, he calls his work "part of the United States' push for narcotics 'demand reduction.' When U.S. officials ask countries such as Mexico and Colombia to fight drug supplies, he said, officials there ask Americans to fight demand."
Wednesday's announcement followed a months-long narcotics investigation of shops that sell water bongs, hookahs and other items used to smoke, conceal or consume illicit drugs under the premise of tobacco use.
Yep, that's right. Mike Heavican, after months of investigation, discovered stores were selling pipes (something customers discovered by looking in the window).
Eric Sterling, who oversees the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a Maryland-based national civil liberties organization said:
"The goods are out there in the public eye, so it requires absolutely zilch investigation.
"It's easy, cheap and headline-grabbing."
Heavican disagreed:
Many drug dealers, addicts and users would not seek "the carrot of treatment" without "the stick of prosecution."
Huh?
Thanks to TalkLeft for the tip, and now, if you don't mind, I'll finish this post with excerpts from an earlier post of mine from September: Chong Bong Gone Wrong
I asked my friend George how this affected him:
"Well, you know, I like to toke up a little on the weekends, particularly when I'm watching the Sci-fi channel. But now that you can't buy bongs, I guess I won't be able to anymore. It really sucks, 'cause I've got a whole ounce of BC Bud that I'm going to have to throw out.
"But hey, I understand. They've gotta fight those terrorists, and I heard there's some kind of connection there. I guess the terrorists use the bongs for, uh, something."
To help all those drug users who no longer can smoke their pot, I am going to break the law and offer special marijuana pipes online. DEA, and Mike Heavican, come and get me.
These pot paraphernalia pipes are pictured at right. Now, some people say that these items can be used for bizarre purposes like eating, making pies, or target practice for expert archers. But I'm here to tell you that their purpose is for smoking pot.
So, here is the link to purchase your own Apple Pipes.
(Note: some assembly required, pen shaft and aluminum foil screen not included)
12:00:35 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 29, 2004 |
Awards
I was very honored to have been nominated at Wampum for Koufax Awards for Best Single Issue Blog and Best New Blog. I didn't make the finals in either category, but no matter -- there's some really great blogs to check out and vote for. Do so here.
However, all that pales in comparison to the newest honor I've received from the 2004 Blogroll Predictions at Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness:
(6) Most Likely To Conduct a Daring, Tunneling Jailbreak on Behalf of Tommy Chong: Pete at Drug War Rant.
Now that's cool!
7:31:31 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Around the web...
 Via Vice Squad, Art Garfunkel is fighting the charges.
Via TalkLeft. Read Senator Durbin's response to Ashcroft's unwillingness to even discuss American freedom:
Attorney General Ashcroft's response today is an unfortunate over-reaction to a reasoned and measured effort to mend the PATRIOTAct. Three months ago I asked senior officials at the Department of Justice to work with me and my staff on changes to the PATRIOT Act that reflect the very real concerns of many Americans. After 90 days of silence, today they issued a veto threat. This extraordinary reaction to a bill that hasn't even had a hearing in the Senate demonstrates that the Administration fears that this reasonable bipartisan approach is likely to succeed.
Go Dick!
Today's the day. Great Britain has reclassified and downgraded marijuana. See TalkLeft's post and my earlier posts.
Good article. Great headline: No Child's Urine Left Behind
Interesting drug war discussion going on at John Kerry Internet Town Meeting. Why not join in? Maybe we can increase the candidate's awareness.
Eugene Volokh has commented on my student organization's conflict with the university regarding their free speech rights. (I mentioned it back in November) Relevant documents are available here.
7:17:10 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 |
Businessman shot in botched raid
In Wednesday's Gazette:
58 year-old Streamwood man Robert Kennigil was shot four times Tuesday night by federal agents serving an internal revenue service audit at his home office. He was pronounced dead at Mercy Hospital two hours later. Mr. Kennigil was the owner of a mail-order sports clothing company.
Treasury spokesman Mark Connell said the agents were following up on an informant's tip that Robert Kennigil had falsified deductions on his tax returns and only fired when they saw Kennigil reach for an eraser.
Julie Sechrist, accountant for Kennigil Sportswear angrily denied the charges. "I've been doing Robert's books for 25 years," she said, "and every deduction has been legitimate. He was fanatical about accuracy." And she scoffed at the notion that he was reaching for an eraser. "He does his taxes on the computer. What good's an eraser?" She also questioned the need for agents to handcuff his wife and 10-year-old daughter for almost an hour while they searched the office files. "They were legitimate dependents," she said.
Connell expressed sympathy for the family, but defended the agents' actions. "This is certainly a tragedy," he said, "but unfortunately we live in a dangerous world, and IRS agents are put in time-sensitive situations every day from those who would defy the nation's tax laws. This was an unavoidable incident that simply points out the need for stronger laws and stiffer penalties for tax fraud."
It's a pretty ridiculous story that I invented, isn't it? Now, take a look at the true stories of Drug War Victims. If it wasn't for the actual tragedies of their deaths, wouldn't those stories be just as ridiculous? Think about it. Do something about it.
Note: I'd like to give a big thanks to homunculus. I don't know who you are, but I appreciate the work you've done to help raise awareness of the drug war victims. Everytime you post the link on metafilter, hundreds of new people find out, are rightly outraged, and spread the word further on their own web pages and discussion groups. Thanks again.
10:47:56 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 27, 2004 |
Worth its weight in gold
Disgusted Vet wrote and pointed out that the price of gold has dropped to $406.70 an ounce. At this rate, gold may soon be cheaper than marijuana. (23% of those polled at Marijuana Prices Directory claim to have paid over $300 for a good ounce)
10:36:49 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Comment on Drug Court and the War on Drugs
Over at What happens when you tell a lie? (Marijo Cook's Salonblog), there is an interesting post: Drug Court and the War on Drugs, about a pretty amazing judge named Seth Norman.
Judge Norman, along with probably every other criminal court judge in the country, was fed up with the War on Drugs by 1995. From his point of view, the War was causing overcrowding in the jails, a massive increase in the number of cases on his docket, and little in the way of improvements in the situation on the streets. Statistics showed that 80% of the cases he was hearing involved drugs or alcohol in some way, and 60% of the people in those cases had a chemical dependency. Most of them were repeat offenders.
The piece goes on to explain how the judge set up a valuable and unique treatment program despite enormous obstacles.
However, Marijo then talks about some of the "necessary" coercive elements of the program, including "fall in love -- go to jail" rules, and other methods of force to get the addicts to focus on their treatment.
This may sound heartless or patronizing, but remember that if the addicts were left to do what they wanted, they would eventually die.
And she concludes:
So, the War on Drugs may not be a total loss after all, if more Judges around the country can follow Judge Norman's example with DC4. Providing treatment instead of simply locking addicts up is showing good early results in managing the drug problem and proving to be cost effective as well. The DC4 treatment program is only a part of a Drug Court system which includes education for first-time offenders and outpatient treatment for those on probation, but for the hardest addicts, this residential program sponsored by a judge and the jails is providing the best chance out there for a return to normal life.
Here I have to take major exception.
The War on Drugs is a total loss.
Coerced treatment is only positive to the extent that you view it as a lesser evil within the failed drug war.
I know there is a lot of support in portions of the drug reform community for coerced treatment, but once you take away the drug war (which we need to), then coerced treatment makes no sense, whether for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, or obesity.
Take away the black market -- the dealers looking to hook someone, the fear of admitting addiction, the legal consequences, the full time occupation of the addict to find the money for their next fix, and you can handle treatment of those addicts who need it through a combination of voluntary methods ranging from counseling to maintenance programs without coercion (see Free Heroin).
I admire the fact that Judge Norman cares. That he's trying to do something for addicts. But I don't accept coerced treatment as even a partial justification for the war on drugs.
In his North Carolina Law Review article, Judge Morris Hoffman wrote
"The moral authority of our most cherished institutions comes from their voluntary nature: the value of advice from a priest, a teacher or a loved one depends in large part on the fact that we are free to ignore it. But judges' pieces of 'advice' are court orders, enforceable ultimately by the raw physical power of imprisonment. It is precisely because of the awesomely enforceable nature of our powers that we must be so circumspect in exercising them. It is one thing for a co-worker, family member, doctor, or clergyman to confront someone about a perceived drug problem; it is quite another thing for a judge to compel drug treatment. Drug courts not only fail to recognize this important institutional distinction, but their very purpose is to obliterate it."
[More from Judge Hoffman at Unitarian Universalists for Drug Policy Reform]
Update: Corrected Marijo's gender. Sorry about that!
10:14:59 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Drugs and Alcohol
ONDCP to link drugs and drinking in new ads that debut in the Superbowl.
The beer and liquor industries are not amused.
Of course, these ads as usual will probably not work. Oddly enough, the ONDCP will be allowed to experiment with high priced controversial issue ads on the Superbowl using our tax money, but PETA and MoveOn will not be allowed to do the same thing using their own donated funds.
9:27:41 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Federal Tyranny
Libby at Last One Speaks points out a good article at alternet: States Rights vs. Federal Tyranny by David Morris
So here we are. Conservatives dominate all three branches of government. They are using their control of the legislative and executive branches to assert their authority to police individual behavior.
Read through the recent posts at Last One Speaks for some excellent coverage on the prison industry.
9:16:50 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 25, 2004 |
Free Heroin
If you're going to read one article this week to gain a new perspective on the drug war, you must read this one by Dan Gardner in today's Edmonton Journal.
It's about one of those notions in the drug war that has been so ingrained into our consciousness by the drug warriors that we have a hard time wrapping our minds around the most effective reform.
My friends will tell me, "OK, I can see what you're saying regarding legalizing marijuana, but what about the hard drugs? What are you going to do about heroin?" My response: "Give it away for free" is meant to shock them. However, it's also the truth. It is, in fact, the only approach for some heroin addicts that has historically been shown to be effective. In some cases, it is the best approach to reduce crime, increase the life-span of addicts, reduce new addictions, and eliminate the profit incentive for dealers.
Conservative Switzerland set up the first modern experiment with heroin prescription in the mid-1990s, producing results so promising the Swiss expanded the program and made it a permanent facet of health care. Holland followed with a more rigorous study that ended in 2001 -- again producing positive outcomes and government approval to continue the research. Germany, Spain, Italy and Australia have planned or launched their own projects. The United Kingdom is working on a scheme to expand the prescription of heroin by individual doctors, even general practitioners.
Whether courageous or outrageous, the idea of prescribing illicit drugs to addicts has spread with astonishing speed, leading the media and the public to assume it's a revolutionary new idea. It's not.
The continuing prescription of drugs such as heroin to addicts -- or "maintenance" as the practice is often called -- is actually a very old medical technique that was dropped in North America when drugs were criminalized early in the 20th century. The story of how this medical technique met its demise is the story of how law enforcement snatched the issue of drugs away from medicine, turning what had been a health issue into a crime problem. It's the story of how the cops beat the doctors.
This article gives an amazing detailed history of heroin maintenance efforts and the political pressures that have often forced governments to scrap effective programs.
By 1920, as historian David Musto wrote in The American Disease, "advocacy of maintenance was repressed as sternly as socialism" in the U.S. Doctors and pharmacists were arrested. Clinics doing the same work the Swiss and Dutch would experiment with 70 years later were raided and shut down. A total ban on heroin in medicine followed.
Desperate addicts looked elsewhere for drugs, and a criminal black market in narcotics blossomed.
Finally, in recent years, some countries have again been gradually looking at maintenance for extreme cases, and finding phenomenal success. Of course, people like our drug czar have never let facts stand in their way.
Opposition to such clinics has been fearsome. John Walters, the White House's top anti-drug official, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that patients at these clinics, far from being "productive citizens," are "demoralized zombies seeking a daily fix."
In response, Barends points through the window of a meeting room where a seemingly ordinary woman in her late 30s talks with a counsellor. "Does that look like a zombie to you?" he asks, grinning.
Heroin use is an odd thing. Most people who take the drug do so for a short time, or sporadically, and never become addicted. Of those who get hooked, most stop using the drug without any formal treatment within a few years. Of the rest, most can ultimately be helped off the drug with treatment or at least be stabilized with regular doses of heroin's chemical cousin, methadone.
Just a small fraction of users ultimately falls into the classic profile of a broken-down junkie whose addiction keeps a fierce grip as years and decades crawl by. Unfortunately, that fraction tends to be made up of the addicts who are most damaged and alienated. They tend also to be the heaviest users of heroin and the likeliest to commit crimes to pay for their drugs. They are the wretched of the inner cities, the junkies who populate the ghettoes, prisons and morgues.
Dr. Martin Schechter, chair of epidemiology at the University of British Columbia and some of his colleagues, are pushing to add clinics in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.
"In Canada, we are discussing trying things, like safe injection sites, like medically prescribed heroin trials, that we would never have dreamed of talking about five or 10 years ago. And I will predict this will continue, and we will eventually, I don't know when, but the issue of decriminalization and the conversion of drugs into a public health and medical situation will be on the front burner in this country in the future.
"That debate will occur. There is just no escaping it."
Read the article.
10:14:40 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
The case of the marijuana stolen by DEA agents continues.
Walter in Denver has been continuing his great coverage on the bizarre case in Colorado that's pitting a judge against DEA agents.
The latest: The U.S. Attorney's office went to a federal judge to get the charges dropped.
To recap again:
- GRAMNET - the Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team (which included a DEA agent) raided a Hayden, Colorado home in mid-October.
- They seize some marijuana and some pipes.
- It turns out Don Nord is a medical marijuana user and that was his medicine (legal in Colorado).
- No charges are filed against Nord, and the judge orders the pipes and 2 ounces of marijuana returned for his medical use.
- The officers had given the marijuana to the DEA, and the DEA refused to return it.
- The judge cited the officers for contempt and directed them to appear in court at 1:30 pm February 2 "to show why they should not be punished for defying the court order."
- The U.S. Attorney's office is using taxpayer money and sending lawyers to defend the DEA agent against the contempt citation... and now
- The U.S. Attorney's office is trying to get the case moved to federal court and contempt charges dropped.
TalkLeft has also commented on the case, including:
In a society based on the rule of law, the proper response to a court order the government considers to be flawed is to appeal the order, not to disobey it.
9:37:36 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
