|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Friday, April 9, 2004 |
Highway robbery
This is from an important organization you should visit called FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights):
Today a new FEAR member called and related his story. He was driving across the South with a group of friends on their way to Las Vegas on vacation. They were stopped by cops in Texas for some obscure traffic infraction -- driving in the passing lane, as I understand it. The police searched and found cash money, and seized it. A drug dog was brought and he alerted to the money -- that was the official excuse for seizing it. No one was arrested or even cited for the traffic infraction. The hapless vacationers stayed in Texas for days fighting the system to try to get the money back. All they got was the "run around." The local authorities kept claiming they were on the verge of giving it back, and then decided instead to turn it over to the Feds for forfeiture under the Federal Adoption* program. (*This program, called "Equitable Sharing" by the Justice Department, allows state and local police to seize property -- even if they couldn't forfeit it under the requirements of their state's forfeiture law. The local agency gets up to 90% of the profits of the federal forfeiture.)
They must have been drug dealers -- what other reason would there be for carrying cash on your way to Las Vegas? (Note: Cocaine contamination spreads between bills from banks' bill-sorter belts, so its most likely that the cash in your wallet would test positive for cocaine. The drug dog could have alerted to that, or it could have been one of the 80% or so times that drug dogs false alert.)
Although some laws have been passed to reduce forfeiture abuses, this kind of thing goes on all the time.
It is unconscionable to have schemes that allow law enforcement to seize assets and keep the profits for their budget. It makes corruption way too tempting.
For those who haven't been following asset forfeiture, here's the quick primer:
- Law enforcement identifies something they want (cash, car, plane, house)
- They tie it to a drug activity (sometimes that tie could be "only drug dealers would have that much cash")
- They do this neat little trick that essentially involves charging the property with being part of a drug crime. This means several things:
- They don't need to actually charge the owner of the property or prove that the owner was involved in anything illegal
- The property, not being human, is not afforded the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, so instead, you have to prove that the property is innocent.
- The Fourth Amendment rights of the property owner are conveniently bypassed.
- If the state has laws to limit asset forfeiture abuse, law enforcement will get a federal agent involved and make it a federal forfeiture, thus avoiding those pesky state laws. The feds will take a small percentage and give the rest back to the locals who seized the property. The feds like to encourage this kind of corruption and love sticking it to the voters who tried to end the abuse in their state.
10:10:42 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 8, 2004 |
Porn -- the new Drug War
From Eugene at the Volokh Conspiracy, this analysis of Ashcroft's new crackdown is worth reading. Some strong parallels with the drug war.
Note that I'm not asking whether porn is bad, or whether porn should be constitutionally protected. I'm certainly not asking whether we'd be better off in some hypothetical porn-free world (just like no sensible debate about alcohol, drug, or gun policy should ask whether we'd be better off in some hypothetical alcohol-, drug-, or gun-free world). I'm asking: How can the government's policy possibly achieve its stated goals, without creating an unprecedentedly intrusive censorship machinery, one that's far, far beyond what the Justice Department is talking about right now.
I guess the question is, is Ashcroft really delusional enough to believe he can somehow create a drug-free or porn-free world, or is he just willing to destroy lives and the constitution to look like he's doing it?
Bonus question. Did I add this post just because I'm trolling for search engine traffic?
6:33:55 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Happy D.A.R.E. Day!
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 8, 2004, as National D.A.R.E. Day
Well, I guess we should celebrate! So let's observe D.A.R.E. day with some appropriate reading.
Update: fixed a link
10:41:54 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Who's more credible? Mark Souder or Peter Jennings?
Check out Grass Roots Buzz with an excellent post on drug warrior Mark Souder's outrageously outraged comments on Peter Jennings' Ecstasy exposé.
klotlikar also rightly points out that we should be contacting ABC to thank them for airing the Jennings special. You can do so directly at ABC's site or through Drug Policy Alliance's Action Alert (or both).
10:19:20 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 |
Mark Kleiman gets it wrong.
Mark A.R. Kleiman talks about his report (pdf) on drug dealing, drug control, and terrorism.
He has valuable information that is worth reading, but in the end, he completely misses the forest for the trees.
In his post, he states:
One issue I was careful not to address in the report was whether the links between drugs and terror constitute a sufficient reason for making cocaine a licit commodity on more or less the same terms as alcohol.
There is no doubt that cocaine dealing contributes to terrorism in Colombia, and that it does so only because it is illicit. Whatever contribution cocaine dealing makes to the terrorist threat domestically is similarly tied to its illicit status. Therefore, if terrorism were the only thing we cared about, we probably ought to legalize cocaine.
However, since it isn't -- since we also care about the damage long-term, heavy cocaine users do to themselves, and since the number of long-term, heavy cocaine users would likely soar under legalization on the alcohol model -- the question becomes whether the gains in terrorism control, added to the gains in reduced domestic crime, law enforcement costs, and incarceration levels, are enough to counterbalance the losses on the addiction side.
My judgment is that a world with legal cocaine would probably be, on balance, somewhat worse than a world without it. But if a convincing case were made that cocaine trafficking was, or could become, a significant source of funding to terrorist groups threatening the United States, that judgment might have to be revised.
There are so many holes in his argument. Let me try to point out some of the biggest.
- Mark talks about what long-term heavy cocaine users do to themselves, but there's no indication about how large a group that is. The government certainly hasn't been interested in noting that (just like other drugs) some abuse cocaine, but there are many people who use cocaine without problems (other than its illegality or uncertain purity).
- There's no evidence "the number of long-term, heavy cocaine users would likely soar under legalization" as Mark says. This is an improper assumption that is constantly made in the drug war. In other countries that have liberalized or legalized drugs, abuse has generally gone down. It's also possible (although he avoids discussing it) that casual use would increase without an increase in addictive use (those with addictive personalities have no problem scoring the drug of their choice under prohibition). Without criminal dealers, there's less push to "enslave" new addicts. With every drug we've seen, increases in use and abuse have come from prohibition, not legalization.
- Also look at the longer version of the quote: "the number of long-term, heavy cocaine users would likely soar under legalization on the alcohol model." Even if you don't agree with my last point and assume this to be true, what requires us to use the alcohol model? Can we not come up with different approaches to different drugs? Must they all be treated the same (either jail, or on the shelves of your convenience store)?
- Mark says "the question becomes whether the gains in terrorism control, added to the gains in reduced domestic crime, law enforcement costs, and incarceration levels, are enough to counterbalance the losses on the addiction side." Even assuming I'm wrong on the addiction side (which I'm not), it seems clear to me that the gains in all those areas above are more than enough to weigh on the side of legalization.
- However, if you still can't see the scales tipping, add the following items into the equation (all of which are part of the prohibition model):
- Veronica and Charity Bowers and all the other Drug War Victims. Or do you contend that the death of innocents is OK in the quest to keep people from damaging themselves with drugs? ("Stop hurting yourself or I'll shoot this innocent bystander.")
- The destruction of Columbia, its land, its people, and its ecology in the name of eradication.
- Political unrest in all of Latin America.
- Official corruption caused by drug war profits internationally and locally.
- Tulia.
- The breakup of families, destruction of the inner city, loss of productivity, and increase in welfare that accompany a policy of incarceration.
- Racist sentencing policies (crack/powder).
- The destruction of civil liberties that have accompanied the drug war.
- The increase in government lying to the people in order to justify the drug war.
So on the one side of legalization, you have this huge pile of benefits. On the other side, you have the unsupported assumption that an unknown additional number of people will, because of legalization, choose to harm themselves by improperly using the drug.
Care to revise your judgment, Mark?
Update: Minor edits made for clarity.
10:08:13 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Go Read...
 Last One Speaks with more on the DEA's efforts to make sure you die in excruciating pain.
TalkLeft with the Supreme Court case regarding the use of drug sniffing dogs on cars with little justification.
the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police argued that police should be allowed to use dogs to sniff any vehicle stopped for a traffic violation.
Are there any more rights we can give away?
Check out the comments on that post as well. I got a bit incensed by a commenter who stated:
There is no stopping point to the creativity of smugglers, so why would you condone a stopping point for police who combat them.
Note also that according to the coverage of this case in The Guardian:
Police often look for a way to turn a traffic stop into an all-out search, and drug dogs can be a convenient pretext, [Meczyk, one of Caballes' lawyers] said.
In Illinois, in traffic stops where a dog indicates drugs or other contraband in a car, eight out of nine searches turn up nothing, Meczyk said.
Eight of nine.
9:33:10 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, April 4, 2004 |
Keith Alden released
I received this information from Americans for Safe Access:
Keith Alden, who has served more than a year in
Federal prison for a conviction of cultivating
marijuana was released on bail on
Thursday night from Federal Prison Camp Sheridan. He
had to come up with his own money for the bus trip to
his home in Sonoma County.
The 9th Circuit court heard Keith's appeal on Feb. 2,
2004. Appellate Judges Alfred T. Goodwin, A. Wallace
Tashima and Richard R. Clifton ruled that the case was
vacated and deferred pending the issue of the mandates
on two cases: U.S. v. Stewart, No. 02-10318, and
Raich v. Ashcroft, 03-15481.
Keith was one of those prosecuted in Federal court for growing marijuana who was not allowed in court to defend himself. As CalNorml wrote:
In accordance with federal law, Judge Martin Jenkins rigorously excluded any mention of medicine, illness, medical marijuana or Prop. 215 at the proceedings. The court smiled condescendingly as Alden struggled with the rules of evidence and strove vainly to defend himself against the US government Leviathan.
Naturally he was convicted. His release now is further evidence of the importance of the Raich v Ashcroft ruling in the 9th Circuit.
6:14:59 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Oops. We almost killed you. Sorry. Here's some fruit.
LastOneSpeaks has the story of another bad bust which could have easily become another unfortunate one of my Drug War Victims.
From the Post:
An 84-year-old Brooklyn man says he and his wife - who uses a walker - were terrorized by cops who invaded the wrong apartment looking for a drug dealer.
As a result of their terrifying two-hour ordeal, Martin Goldberg said he has facial bruises and his 82-year-old wife, Leona, is in the hospital with an irregular heartbeat.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the cops went to the right apartment in the wrong building of the Sheepshead Nostrand Houses in Sheepshead Bay.
Goldberg's response about the NYPD after the incident:
"Not going to change. They'll do the same thing over and over again."
The police are trying to fix their little mistake. They've now sent the Goldbergs a big basket of fruit for Passover. How nice.
5:39:03 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
