|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, April 24, 2004 |
Another drug task force that should be disbanded
Via Last One Speaks -- a story that both of us missed when it happened -- fortunately the ACLU is on top of it:
DENVER -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado today filed a lawsuit against the Denver North Metro Drug Task Force on behalf of a local woman who was forced to strip naked in the parking lot of her condominium in full view of her neighbors while male law enforcement officers conducted an unjustified, humiliating, and degrading "decontamination" ritual that had no legitimate purpose. ...
The ACLU's client was forced to stand naked in the pool, apply the cold water to her body and then dunk her head into the water. At least two male firefighters standing inside the small "enclosure" monitored the entire process while holding a hose and a brush. A third male law enforcement officer, watching through a gap in the tarps, issued orders directing each separate step of the "decontamination" ritual. Numerous additional male officers stood in the parking lot nearby where they could observe the woman naked as she shook and shivered from cold, fear, and humiliation.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Denver, seeks a declaration that the SWAT team violated the woman's Fourth Amendment rights by forcibly breaking into her home and carrying out the search as a "no-knock" raid without legal justification. The lawsuit also contends that the authorities violated the Fourth Amendment by inviting a private videographer with no law enforcement function to accompany them into woman's home to film the events.
Interestingly, this is the same task force that decided that people don't have the right to privacy in what they read. In 2000, they went after the Tattered Cover Book Store to find out what books its customers were reading -- they thought if they could prove that an individual was reading about methamphetamine, then they could tie them to an alleged meth lab. Fortunately the book store won.
This is a drug task force that is completely out of control. They seem to believe that they are a law unto themselves, answerable only to themselves.
And that is the problem with drug task forces in general (which usually include a combination of local, state, and DEA officers). There is a breakdown in accountability -- they often defy local or state rules and procedures, and with current federal drug policy goading them toward excess and financially rewarding them for numbers of arrests, abuse is almost guaranteed. Additionally, they are trained to use military-style techniques against U.S. citizens, not as a last resort, but as standard operation. This dehumanizes targets and makes all of us potential "enemies" (while we're actually their employers).
This 2002 Alternet article on task forces (which was focusing on Tulia, another task force disaster) notes:
"These task forces," says Will Harrell, executive director of the Texas ACLU, "have one motive and one motive only: to produce numbers lest they lose their funding for the next year. But no one questions how they go about their business." ...
Task force cops have even started talking like businessmen. Witness this Wall Street-flavored assessment from one Texas task force's quarterly report: "Highway seizures were off a bit this quarter, but crack sales are still strong."
The more you look into drug task forces, the more you realize that the shoddy police work exhibited in Tulia -- shady narc, iffy suspect IDs, a lack of corroborating evidence -- is the norm rather than an aberration. "Everybody's talking about Tom Coleman," says Barbara Markham, a former task force agent turned whistle blower. "Well, there are whole task forces of Tom Colemans out there." A very scary thought given an undercover cop's ability to send someone to jail for life solely on his word.
Not convinced? -- here's some excerpts from a 2002 Drug War Chronicle article on task forces (a Texas focus again, but the problem is national), which also includes a long list of specific abuses and then goes on to note:
"You don't need these kinds of units," said Harrington [director of Texas Civil Liberties Project]. "They need to abolish these task forces all together. They are structured so you can't avoid this sort of abuse. What in heaven's name was the point in creating all these regional task forces?
Money, of course.
"These things need to be abolished," he told DRCNet. "They are ridiculous and dangerous. They botch things up, they're unprofessional, and they're violating peoples' rights with serious consequences."
And there is something people can do, he said. "There is growing grassroots pressure to de-fund and de-legitimize these task forces. These things are funded at the county level, so if people agitate at the county level that can be very effective. If the counties don't ask for the federal money, that's the end of it."
Got a drug task force forming in your community? Just say no.
10:59:06 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 22, 2004 |
Outrageous! Party this Saturday.
Check out ProtectLiveMusic.org a project of the Drug Policy Alliance. It's a good awareness site of some of the drug laws in particular that are targeting the music industry (just as Anslinger targeted musicians in the early days of criminalization). There are action items where you can make a difference.
This Saturday, April 24, is their Day and Night of Outrage, complete with some wonderful music, in clubs around the country.
7:52:31 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
9th Circuit Commerce Clause Medical MJ Ruling to be Appealed to the Supremes
On Tuesday, John Ashcroft's " Justice" Department asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Raich vs. Ashcroft, which found that the federal ban does not apply to those who use cannabis for medical purposes on their doctors' advice, obtain the medicine without buying it, and get it within their state's borders. The government contends there should be no medical exceptions to the federal anti-marijuana laws.
The December 16, 2003 decision in Raich vs. Ashcroft (Ninth Circuit Case No. 03-15481) was the first time a federal court had found a constitutional limitation to application of the Controlled Substances Act, the federal law that prohibits all use of marijuana. The court ruled that patients who grow their own or receive it free do not affect interstate commerce. Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce is the basis for federal drug laws. The December ruling applies to California and the six other states in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction that allow medical cannabis use: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Of course, there's no certainty what will happen with the Supreme Court, and yet I find myself welcoming the battle. It's a good case. Properly narrow. After all, they grew the pot themselves, didn't sell it, and used it in accordance with their state and local laws -- it's hard to defend the federal interest.
I really want to see the Supreme Court tell John Ashcroft that the Constitution isn't about giving him the right to do whatever he wants to us.
[Thanks to Hillary with ASA.]
Update: Learn more about the case at Angel Justice.
4:51:12 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 21, 2004 |
Another great column
Wow! In today's Chicago Sun Times, by Neil Steinberg: We've Lost War on Drugs, Must We Lose Our
Rights?
Next week in Washington, D.C., opening arguments begin in a federal lawsuit that you might not have heard about. A few months back, a new
law tucked discreetly into a government spending bill cut off federal
funds to any public transit system that accepts advertising that
advocates certain changes in the nation's drug laws. If the Chicago
Transit Authority accepts an ad from a group trying to improve the
terminally ill's access to medical marijuana, the CTA will lose its
federal funding.
Whatever you think of U.S. drug policy -- words like "failed" and
"Draconian" automatically leap to my mind, but you might think first
of "expensive" and "futile" -- you probably, one hopes, feel the
matter should at least be discussed, and that people have the right to
air their views and buy ads to disseminate them.
We've lost that right, another collateral victim of our lost drug
war. The warm glow associated with being "tough on drugs" has caused
politicians to fall over themselves passing inane and excessive laws,
such as this law, or the one cutting off college grants to anyone with
a drug conviction -- which means you can murder someone and get a Pell
grant to go to college, but that ounce of pot will bar you for life.
Your tax dollars at work.
8:31:06 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Is that a metabolite in your hair?
Excellent OpEd in yesterday's Cincinnati Post by Paul Armentano:
Imagine if it was against the law to drive home after consuming a single glass of wine at dinner. Now imagine it was against the law to do so after having consumed a single glass of wine two weeks ago.
Sound absurd? No more so than newly proposed Congressional legislation by Ohio Rep. Rob Portman mandating that each state enact laws sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance."
While the expressed purpose of this legislation, the "Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004," is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from our nation's roadways, the reality is that this poorly worded proposal would do little to improve public safety. Rather, it would falsely categorize sober drivers as "intoxicated" simply if they had consumed an illicit substance, particularly marijuana, some days or weeks earlier.
This is bad law. It is also improper at the federal level (it's actually closer to federal blackmail against the states).
Get active!
- Go to MAP's Focus Alert and write some letters to the media. Letters that get published are worth more than advertising, and MAP will help you do it.
- Tell your Congressman about this. It's quick and easy.
8:25:18 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Economics for Dummies
This one cracked me up. Last One Speaks was covering the fact that Jamaica and Cuba have apparently been hoodwinked by our government into thinking asset forfeiture is smart government (!), and one of the quotes included:
As the US President's National Drug Control Strategy for 2004 states, "The drug trade is not an unstoppable form of nature but rather a profit-making enterprise that can be stopped."
How is it that everyone in our government managed to sleep through basic economic theory?
8:02:45 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
More important incremental medical marijuana victories
I just received this from Americans for Safe Access:
San Jose, CA. Eighteen months after a brutal DEA raid on a medical marijuana collective in Santa Cruz, California, the seriously ill collective members finally got the protection from future raids and harassment they have sought since filing suit against the federal government one year ago. After reconsidering his earlier decision in the high profile case County of Santa Cruz et al. v. Ashcroft, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California has granted Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and denied the government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Today’s ruling will protect the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) while the lawsuit is pending, and allow the collective to resume cultivation.
The Drug Policy Alliance, along with the law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP, the Santa Cruz City Attorney and co-counsel Prof. Gerald Uelmen and Ben Rice, represent Plaintiffs in this case. “In the face of overzealous federal law enforcement, for the first time a court has applied the law in a way that protects the right of a group of sick people to grow and share their medicine without fear,” said Judy Appel, Director of Legal Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Today’s decision affirms the right of WAMM's members to cultivate and use marijuana for medicinal purposes free from federal interference,” stated Neha Shah Nissen, an attorney with Bingham McCutchen. “The federal government can no longer ignore the will of the people of the State of California and the City and County of Santa Cruz to protect the health and welfare of terminally and chronically ill individuals."
“We applaud the Court’s decision and we are profoundly pleased as we prepare to replant our garden,” said Valerie Corral, co-founder of WAMM. “But we also steady ourselves for a tug of war with the present administration’s unwillingness to honor the democratic process.”
This is yet another example of the reach of the 9th Circuit decision in Raich v. Ashcroft. Clearly, because of that case, the Judge re-evaluated and determined that WAMM had a good chance of winning their case against the government.
One more little step in the move in the courts toward reigning in the illegal actions of the feds and their harrassment of medical marijuana in the states.
7:32:57 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 |
Happy 420
Today might be a day to read something fun, so I thought I'd point out one of my older satire articles -- if you're a recent visitor to Drug WarRant, you may not have seen this before.
So move ahead to the year 2043 and the government's war on burgers.
8:23:27 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Stupid DEA tricks
From the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, SC:
You have to admire the gumption of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and its associates in the Horry County, Atlantic Beach and North Myrtle Beach police departments. Officers from the agencies came up dry Thursday in their drug-paraphernalia raid on the 4:20 Superstore in Atlantic Beach, having apparently been given bum information. At that point, most other government folks ( a line of work not known for creativity ) would have said, "Well, that didn't work out," and left the scene.
Instead, the drug agents said, "Hey, we have those drug-sniffing dogs from the NMB canine unit with us. As long as we're here, why not search some cars at random?" Not even the knowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case with potential to ban warrantless, no-probable-cause random canine searches of motor vehicles could deter these intrepid law enforcers from seeking something to show for their efforts.
The random searching of cars netted the DEA three arrests (and hopefully three lawsuits) as a result of this clearly illegal fishing expedition. [Note to DEA. Add "reading the constitution" to the training of DEA agents.]
8:18:28 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 19, 2004 |
Potpourri
Sorry about the light posting the past few days. I went to see Dana Beal speak at the University on Friday (I'll be posting some about his talk later this week) and I spent the weekend in Chicago without internet access.
For those who are in my area, please note that Mobilizing Activists and Students for Hemp (M.A.S.H.) is having their Spring Hempfest this Friday, April 23 on the Illinois State University Quad. There will be tiedying, and hemp activities, and speakers, and hemp educational materials. I'll be speaking around 3 pm. (Unfortunately, I'll have to speak through a bullhorn -- the only amplification allowed on the quad on school days -- I hate those things, but I like speaking, so...) Stop by if you're in the area, and be sure to introduce yourself to me. I love meeting my readers.
Posting will be hit and miss this week, but here's a few things to read:
 There's a great article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune: On Streets, Drug Trade the Only Game in Town by Rex W. Huppke. It's a powerful look at the economic structure of the poor inner city, and why simple drug enforcement not only fails the city, but actually makes inner city problems worse.
Debra Saunders at The SFGate notes that murderers are not only treated better than pot smokers when it comes to student financial aid, but also food stamps. Yep, another inane federal regulation lets murderers get food stamps, but not felony drug offenders who have done their time. Assemblyman Mark Leno is trying to pass a bill to allow California to opt out of that federal stupidity.
Doug with MapTalk noticed this little gem in an article about Iraq plans:
The parties also agreed that coalition and Iraqi security forces, supported by the residents, "must move to eliminate remaining foreign fighters, criminals and drug users from Fallujah."
Remove the drug users? Yeah, that's good use of resources when soldiers and citizens are getting killed. Or maybe "removing" means executing?
Marlana sent me this article about the fact that Springfield, Missouri does not have a law against posession of marijuana, a pesky situation that they're working on resolving so they can help out the county with prosecutions. (Important note for those living in Springfield, MO -- it's still illegal in the county and the state, which includes the city). So they're working on passing a law. I'd like someone to ask them the important question (even if the law is a technicality): Why should it be made illegal?
Scott sent me this article that takes my indictment of the connection between the war on drugs and failure in the war on terror, and goes a step further.
TalkLeft has all the info on KDrink the one that puts the coca back into the soda.
Also check out TalkLeft's coverage of DTAP, an innovative new treatment program.
9:21:46 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
