Thursday, March 31, 2005

Why the Market Argument is Bogus in Raich While waiting for the Supreme Court decision in Raich, it's still fun to do a little speculating. So I was interested to read Mike's post at the Ashcroft v Raich category of the Crime and Federalism blog, discussing the government's market argument. While Mike disagrees with the reasoning of the market argument, he claims that it will prevail with the Justices (9-0 or 8-1). Here's how he describes it: Congress has chosen to enter the broader market of regulating controlled substances.  Once of these controlled substances is marijuana. Every time a person purchases medical marijuana, he does not turn to the illicit drug market.  Because fewer people purchase drugs illegally, demand for illegal drugs decreases. This decreased demand causes the prices to go down.  In a similar vein, Judge Posner observed: "[L]aw enforcement activity raises the cost and hence price of illegal drugs and as a result of the price increase reduces their consumption." Since the price of illegal marijuana has decreased, people who could not have afforded marijuana, can afford the reduced price.  Thus, there are more drug users. Congress has a legitimate interest in keeping drug prices high (as part of its scheme to keep drug usage low). Therefore, Congress may regulate non-commercial marijuana use to keep prices high, and thus demand, low. Strangely, this is a fair representation of the government's market position, which I find completely absurd. Here, for example, is an exchange during the oral argument: JUSTICE KENNEDY: If we rule for the Respondents in this case, do you think the street price of marijuana would go up or down in California? MR. CLEMENT: I would be speculating, Justice Kennedy, but I think the price would go down. And I think that what -- and that, in a sense, is consistent with the government's position, which is to say, when the government thinks that something is dangerous, it tries to prohibit it. Part of the effort of prohibiting it is going to lead to a black market, where the prohibition actually would force the price up. And there is a sense in which this regulation, although not primarily designed as a price regulation -- the Controlled Substance Act, I think, does have the effect of increasing the price for marijuana in a way that stamps down demand and limits the -- and in a way that reduces demand. And I think that's all consistent with Congress' judgement here. Yep, very similar. The thing is, for Mike's prediction to hold, it seems to me that the Justices would have to have very thick skins considering how ridiculous they'll look. Consider this. For the market argument above to hold true, you must accept the following: The government's strategy requires that medical marijuana patients purchase marijuana from criminals. If grandma in her wheelchair doesn't go out to the corner and score some pot, then Congress' legitimate interest will be undermined. If the government's strategy requires more people to use marijuana to keep the prices high (so they can reduce consumption), then any success would automatically be a failure. If they keep consumption high, thereby raising prices, then consumption will be reduced, but that will lower the price, which will increase consumption. Oh, No! Surely, the Supreme Court Justices must have a little bit more sense of self-worth than to actually write an historic commerce clause ruling in support of such a ridiculous circular argument? I would hope so. Now this doesn't mean that the government can't legitimately use the argument in other situations that price increase is a desired means toward reducing consumption. For example, they could argue that crop eradication increases prices, thereby reducing consumption. But they can't legitimately argue that they need people to use illegal marijuana in order to keep prices up, to reduce consumption. At least, not without educated people laughing in their faces. 6:18:16 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Anslinger, I mean, Walters, hits a new low One of yesterday's entries on the drug czar's blog: The Red Lake Shooter and Drugs Some disturbing content on the Red Lake shooter's blog has come to light. Jeff Weise, the teenager who allegedly shot and killed 9 people at Red Lake High School, Minnesota wrote, "I'm nothin' but your average Native American stoner. I'm mellow half the time, mostly natural, but mostly drug induced as well. I'm not a junkie, or an alcoholic, MJ is my gal' of choice." Here's the article referenced (annoying registration required). John Walters, do you really want to go there? "Disturbing content..." Oh yeah, let us connect the dots and say that marijuana caused him to shoot up the school? Of course, this was a long article and you found that little reference from one of his older writings buried in it. Let's get a sampling of a few other things in that article. He was taking large doses of the anti-depressant Prozac, which has been connected to violence in other youths, some said. He frequented a neo-Nazi Web site and admired Hitler. ... "My mom used to abuse me a lot when I was little," he wrote on one page. "She would hit me with anything she could get her hands on, she used to drink excessively too. She would tell me I was a mistake, and she would say so many things that its hard to deal with them or think of them without crying." ... On July 21, 1997, Weise's 31-year-old father committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest; some members of the band have said he was involved in an armed standoff with police when he did it. ... On March 5, 1999, his mother was a passenger in a car driven by Elizabeth May Jourdain. They were in Shakopee and it was about noon when Jourdain ran a red light and slammed into a tractor-trailer making a left turn. Jourdain was killed and Joanne Weise suffered a serious injury that left her brain-damaged. After recuperating from her injuries, she had to be placed in an assisted-living home where, Jeff would later write, she "had to re-learn how to tie her shoes." ... "On anti-depressants. Seeing a therapist... That's about it. I got a brand new pair of cuts on my wrists that are gonna turn into beautiful scars some day." -- An excerpt from Weise's profile at yahoo.com Oh sure. It was the marijuana. Harry J. Anslinger, a liar and a racist who was one of the prime contributors to marijuana being illegal today, used to spread false stories about a young man who killed his entire family while on pot. Walters must just be trying to emulate his idol. 9:42:09 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

We put our freedom in their hands The Las Vegas Review Journal is justifiably suspicious about this atrocity: Editorial: Metro cop planted drugs in suspect's car Sheriff says suspensions will suffice While officers were in the process of arresting local resident Mark Lilly last July on suspicion of selling harmless legal substances and claiming they were narcotics, an official police spokesman now admits, canine officer David Newton placed real controlled drugs in Mr. Lilly's vehicle. He has since contended he did so "as a training exercise" for his dog. It seems pointless to ask whether contaminating active crime scenes is an accepted time, method, or location for a canine "training exercise." A better question might be what Officer Newton was doing carrying narcotics to an active crime scene in the first place. Has he been charged with possession of those narcotics? Were they of a quantity that would get anyone else automatically charged with "possession with intent to sell"? Police next expect us to believe officer Newton "forgot" he had placed the drugs in the car, whereupon officers Kevin Collmar and David Parker searched the car, found the planted drugs, and charged Mr. Lilly with possession of actual controlled drugs without proper licenses or prescriptions. Read the whole article. It's really bizarre. It's also scary. And regardless of whether the officers were corrupt or somehow criminally stupid and negligent, suspension is insufficient. There can be no tolerance when it comes to the issue of law enforcement officers planting drugs on people. We put our freedom in their hands. Any one of us could find ourselves in prison for years based solely on a corrupt officer planting drugs. In particular when you have multiple officers testifying against you (as in this case) - what court will believe you're innocent? You have to make it clear. In this case, Sherriff Bill Young should be fired for not firing the officers, and then they should be fired. Period. [Thanks to Scott for the tip.] 12:22:35 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []