|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, March 26, 2005 |
More idiocy
This editorial in the Sentinel and Enterprise (Fitchburg, MA): More cops needed to win drug war
It's an editorial that calls for a strong stance in the drug war and calls for more money to be spent to win it.
Now here's the example that they use in the editorial to demonstrate how serious the problem is:
For people like Paul McNamara, a Fitchburg police officer, the war on drugs in North Central Massachusetts is not an academic exercise.
McNamara found himself fighting for his life one day while working on Fitchburg's STRAIT (Strategic Tactical Response and Intervention team) unit.
A man attacked McNamara and Sgt. Joaquin Kilson on Crestview Lane after they stopped him for having an open container of beer.
"It was a fight for our lives," McNamara told the Sentinel & Enterprise. "It went from an encounter of, 'What's your name,' and 'You know you can't be drinking here,' into hand-to-hand combat very quickly."
McNamara said the man came to Fitchburg to buy drugs, but he must have already been high when he arrived.
"We were on the ground fighting, the three of us, and we didn't know where our weapons or radios went. A woman nearby handed Sgt. Kilson his radio," McNamara said. "It took four or five of us to arrest him."
McNamara and numerous other officers and law enforcement officials literally put their lives on the line every day to fight illegal drug trafficking and use.
As far as I can tell from this story, the only "drug war" danger they faced was the beligerance of a beer drinker, and their own incompetence in losing track of their weapons and radios while wrestling with him.
8:24:15 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Stupid Drug Wars
 Mexico: Arizona Daily Star
Mexico is mobilizing 6,400 soldiers next week to its northern states in response to a vicious drug war that has left nearly 200 people dead this year, officials said. ...
Using Humvees, four-wheel-drive trucks and helicopters, the soldiers will work with agents from the Mexican Federal Attorney General's Office to destroy drug crops in southern Sonora and launch operations against the clandestine runways drug traffickers use on the border south of Arizona.
The military buildup on the northern border will last one to two months, then the extra soldiers will leave, he said.
It comes during a tenuous time when Mexico's powerful drug lords battle for control of lucrative areas along the border with the United States.
OK, let me get this straight. There's violence between rival drug lords due to the profitability of the black market, so you solve that by sending in a bunch of soldiers to destroy crops and then leave? And this will do what to drug prices and profitability? And the violence of the rivals will stop? Hello? Is anybody home?
Afghanistan: New York Times
The American military will significantly increase its role in halting the production and sale of poppies, opium and heroin in Afghanistan, responding to bumper harvests that far exceed even the most alarming predictions, according to senior Pentagon officials. ...
To support the new effort, the Defense Department is requesting $257 million, more than four times the amount last year, in emergency financing for military assistance to the counternarcotics campaign, in addition to the $15.4 million in the Pentagon's budget for fiscal 2005, which began last Oct. 1.
Cato responds:
In "Drug Prohibition Is a Terrorist's Best Friend," Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, explains that "the harsh reality is that terrorist groups around the world have been enriched by prohibitionist drug policies that drive up drug costs, and which deliver enormous profits to the outlaw organizations willing to accept the risks that go with the trade.
"Targeting the Afghanistan drug trade would create a variety of problems. Most of the regional warlords who abandoned the Taliban and currently support the U.S. anti-terror campaign (and in many cases politically undergird the Karzai government) are deeply involved in the drug trade, in part to pay the militias that give them political clout. A crusade against drug trafficking could easily alienate those regional power brokers and cause them to switch allegiances yet again."
2:43:38 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Scientists Still Trying to Discover the Cause of Idiot Reporter and Judge
"News" Article in The Daily Telegraph (Australia) by Angela Kamper:
Chloe died because we all failed her
SMOKING marijuana drove Timothy Kosowicz mad and he strangled an angelic little girl. ...
"This seems to be yet another example of the link between cannabis use and mental illness, a link which from my judicial experience and reading, I regard as well-established," Acting Justice David Patten said.
Words fail me.
[Thanks to Scott for catching this one.]
12:58:17 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Colorado Stories
For some fun weekend reading, check out these delightful articles -- all in Colorado
Putting The Kind In Kindbud in the Boulder Weekly. A fascinating story of the the Colorado Compassion Club and Thomas and Larissa Lawrence, including how they got busted by the feds, some of their techniques for growing medical marijuana, and how Thomas became the first person ever to receive drugs from the Denver police.
Green Butter by Wayne Laugesen (also in the Boulder Weekly) is, to begin with, Wayne's story of accidentally using the "green" butter (laced with pot) on his sweet corn at a neighbor's dinner party. While the author doesn't like pot (he'd prefer to stick with beer), he speaks up on behalf of the CU students who hold a 420 pot party each year (cops are threatening to come down hard on it this year), with an interesting view...
Get it, drunkards? If we don't speak out for the potheads right now, in their time of great need, there will be nobody left to speak for us when they come for our drink.
Students Call on CU to Ease Up on Pot in the Daily Camera -- students are taking a slightly different approach in favor of marijuana:
Student leaders approved a referendum this week calling for CU to acknowledge the drug as a relatively safe alternative to alcohol. Sponsors of the proposal said they want the university to make that distinction in the way it punishes students. ...
Campaign adviser Mason Tvert said violent crimes, such as sexual assault, that sometimes result from alcohol abuse are not found with marijuana use, which makes it a safer choice.
"We do not advocate the use of marijuana, but we are advocating for a better public policy that does not indirectly push kids toward drinking," said Tvert, the director of SAFER, a Boulder-based nonprofit that aims to increase public awareness on the differences between the two substances.
The Colorado Daily covers that story as well in It's Green Prozac:
"There has never been a case of fatal marijuana overdose in history," said Cisneros. "How many more students need to drink themselves to death before our colleges turn to safer, more sensible alcohol and marijuana policies?"
9:36:50 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 25, 2005 |
Raich v. Ashcroft is coming
Via TalkLeft, the word is that the Supreme Court will release their decision on Raich v. Ashcroft either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. [Note: this is not an absolute deadline, but is based on several media alerts.]
Potentially huge.
- Ruling for the government: The end of the commerce clause as a limitation on government (Congress will be able to define whatever it is they want to regulate at the state level), the death knell of federalism, probably an indication that Oregon's assisted suicide law will be shot down next.
- Ruling for Raich: A morale boost for medical marijuana, states will be able to craft medical marijuana regimes that meet federal rules, some other states will rather quickly join the medical marijuana movement. The interesting issue here will be how the Supremes define Raich's allowable activity:
- Will it be specifically tied to the very narrow situation that Raich represented? or
- Will they craft a new line that separates allowable state activity based on a state sub-class or an economic enterprise or something else entirely? or
- Will they bring federalism back and actually overturn some previous case law?
- Technical Weasel-out Ruling This is where the Justices punt and claim that Raich should get relief through the FDA or some such nonsense. (Essentially the same as a ruling for the government).
Regardless of the ruling, medical marijuana will continue to be an issue and will continue to need our support and efforts.
Plans are already underway by some groups for demonstrations tied to the Raich ruling, in case the ruling is for the government:
"If the Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana patients, we'll
need you to immediately swing into action to lobby Congress to end the
federal government's attacks on medical marijuana patients and
caregivers.
To be specific, we need you to organize or attend a protest outside of
your U.S. representative's local district office precisely two days
after the decision is announced -- to urge your U.S. representative to
vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to the Justice
Department's spending bill, in order to prevent the DEA from spending
any money to arrest medical marijuana patients or providers who are
acting legally under state law.
Please visit http://www.RaichAction.org , where you can:
- find out where your U.S. representative's local district offices are
located;
- print flyers to hand out at the demonstration; and
- print talking points about the medical marijuana amendment.
Please email if you want to organize or attend
a demonstration in your area. (Please be sure to tell us the exact
location where you will hold your demonstration, including city and
state.) We will send an alert the day of the decision notifying you
that it's time to act, with the demonstration taking place two days
later."
5:25:14 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 24, 2005 |
Culture War
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's not just a war on drugs -- it's a war on people and on culture.
It happened again on Saturday, this time in Flint, Michigan. From the Drug Policy Alliance:
On Saturday the local police raided a popular nightclub, Club What's Next, and ticketed hundreds of music fans who were attending a dance night known as "Getting Lucky" (the DJs included Halluci-Nate, Sparkimus Prime, White Rabbit, Captain Cheddar and California's Dj Primo.) While some people were arrested for possessing or selling illegal drugs, most people were ticketed for "frequenting a drug establishment," a misdemeanor offense.
That's right. In Flint, Michigan (and many other cities) if you go out dancing on a Saturday night and the police happen to arrest other people at the club for drugs, you could be charged with a drug crime even though you had nothing to do with drugs. These innocent party-goers now face up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. They also face a criminal record with all the legal and social barriers that brings. Several people that were at the club that night told us club-goers were also subjected to strip searches, including full cavity searches - even though they had nothing to do with drugs. Imagine the police walking into your favorite bar or nightclub and making you submit to a strip search for no reason! Imagine spending 90 days in jail or paying a $500 fine for dancing!
The raid on Club What's Next was conducted by Flint's Special Operations and Crime Area Target Team units, along with the Flint Area Narcotics Group and the Genesee County Sheriff's Posse. We're looking into whether or not federal Byrne grant money helped finance the raids. (On a side note, any law enforcement agency that has the word "posse" in it should be suspect).
This is sick. It's un-American. It's an outrageous abuse of power. And it's an attack on young people and music.
Speak out against this abuse of power by taking action here.
You can make a difference. The last time a charge like this was invoked was in Racine, Wisconsin last year, and the outcry caused them to dismiss the charges.
Send the letter at the action alert above and tell your friends as well.
10:00:49 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Shenanigans in Alaska
As you may know, Alaska governor Frank Murkowski has been pissed off at the Alaska Supreme Court and his own state's constitution, because it gives its citizens the right of privacy. See, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't go after adults who possess up to 4 ounces of pot in their own homes, because it's not dangerous enough to justify taking away rights.
Well, what's the fun of being governor if you can't send storm troopers into homes to bust adults who are peacefully smoking a joint?
So now he's trying to get the legislature to declare marijuana to be very dangerous to attempt again to outlaw private possession.
Where to turn? Well if you want someone to lie about marijuana, the first place to go is the federal government -- specifically, the ONDCP. Check out this outrageous phoned in testimony:
Researcher David Murray of the White House's Office on National Drug Control Policy told a Senate committee that marijuana users develop serious cases of psychosis and other problems from inhaling doses of carcinogenic chemicals.
"This is a dirty, dirty drug," Murray said. He testified via phone at the request of Assistant Attorney General Dean Guaneli, who is spearheading the governor's bill.
Dirty?
Then they got the Health and Social Services Committee Chairman to explain how marijuana use causes violence. Check this out:
Fielder said smoking marijuana leads to violent behavior down the road. "If I smoke marijuana, I may not be led to rob a store. But I can lose my job and then be motivated to steal," he said.
Oh my God! Oversleeping then must also lead to violent behavior!
Fortunately, not everyone is drinking the Kool-Aid. There are quite a number of legislators who are not convinced, and callers (as well as some other testifiers) have not been following the Governor's crusade, which is upsetting the bill's proponents.
According to the Anchorage Daily News (which has an onerous registration page with bad html coding), after hearing all sorts of public officials speak (lie) in favor of a bill that would take away the rights of citizens (and was proposed by a public official),
Fairbanks Sen. Gary Wilken sharply criticized the head of the state public defenders agency for testifying against the bill in her official position.
"I'm really disappointed in your testimony today. ... I'm shocked," the Fairbanks Republican told Barbara Brink, director of the agency.
Shocked, I tell you!
And,
[Committee Chair Senator Fred] Dyson charged at the hearing that some of the bill's opponents went too far in calls to his legislative office.
"They've been plugging up our phone lines," Dyson said.
How dare they call their Senator, who has important things to do with his phone lines -- like find new ways to violate the rights of Alaskan citizens?
5:42:24 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
A New Drug War Blogging Community
I'd like to give a big promotion to a new Drug War blogging community -- Nephalim's Drug War Revealed.
It's just getting started, but it's already got quite a bit of great material. Nephalim is one of the few Daily Kos members who has been regularly writing about the drug war, and he's designed this site to have some of the same structure as Kos.
Visitors can register and create their own diaries, which can get promoted to the front page, etc., and Nephalim will have guests writing on the front page as well.
It's a wonderful opportunity for those who would like to write about the drug war on occassion, without maintaining their own site or blog.
I will be doing some writing for Nephalim.org when I have time. In the meantime, check it out, and give Nephalim some encouragement -- a comment at least.
8:07:48 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Busted!
Libby at Last One Speaks reminds me about Flex Your Rights and their excellent video: "Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters." I thought I was pretty well informed, but I learned a few things from the DVD (only $25 at their site). It's an excellent, perhaps essential, part of the education of citizens in a world where the vast majority of people are not even aware of their rights -- and routinely give them away to ever expanding enforcement techniques.
Flex Your Rights is now offering the video for only $5 as a BitTorrent computer download. A great deal if you're set up for that type of download.
7:59:39 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Becker-Posner
I neglected to mention that the Becker-Posner Blog has addressed the drug war, first by Economist Gary Becker and then a response by Judge Richard Posner
These are a couple of highly respected scholars, and so it's nice to see them talk about the failure of the drug war, and to see them apply the tools of their trade to the problem. (I've always felt that economists should be stepping up more to explain to our politicians that drug demand is inelastic -- and what inelastic demand means.)
Becker has the better argument in his call for legalization. Posner is uncomfortable with it (although he agrees that the cost of the drug war has not been worth it, despite what he believes is a "partial victory" in the war), so he tries to talk economics, in which he comes off completely incompetent (he should leave that to Becker, and stick to the legal stuff). Also, as Tbag notes on his blog Posner has some bizarre notions of legal substitutes for illegal drugs (cigarettes for pot? liquor for heroin?). I know what he's trying to say, but it doesn't work very well.
Tbag also has an interesting comment regarding his own views on the drug war...
Without sending my libertarian allies on this issue running for the woods, I'd like to propose government control over distribution.
I wouldn't worry about it, Tbag. I think this is one issue where libertarians would prefer government control over the current system... at least for now.
7:51:07 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 |
Narcs - a bad influence on children
In the Sun-Times today, the article Blagojevich focuses ire on drug-based game has some oddities:
Gov. Blagojevich is using the roll-out of "Narc,'' a new video game set in the drug underworld, to promote legislation that would ban the sale of violent and sexually explicit games to minors.
"These kinds of games teach kids to do the very things that in real life, we put people in jail for,'' ...
The game, to be released today, has automatic weapons, gore and the fictitious officer Jack Forzenski, who spits out lines such as "You have the right to shut the hell up.''
Players can become "narcotics officers'' who arrest dealers and use confiscated dope to change the look and speed of "Narc'' to score more points.
Hmmm... instead of teaching kids to do the very things we put people in jail for, it seems to be teaching them to do the very things that we pay big taxpayer dollars for.
[Thanks, Scott]
10:57:11 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 21, 2005 |
The definition of insanity is doing something over and over and hoping for a different result
The Charlottesville Daily Progress has an interesting article by Liesel Nowak: Tough on crime means losing drug war, critics say
Critics have said that the traditionally harsh penalties in federal court have led to jury nullification, in which jurors rule with their conscience instead of the law, and that the tough-on-crime spirit of the federal system is losing the war on drugs.
Take the recent case of a Charlottesville man. Jurors in a 2004 federal trial acquitted city resident Todd Jones, charged in a violent drug conspiracy, though they convicted two others in the same case. At least one juror believed Jones was guilty.
The article goes on to examine the failure of the drug war.
Since the inception of mandatory guidelines in 1987, drugs have continued to move through society even as an increasing number of men and women are locked up.
"If you want to use the war on drugs analogy, then let's use it. We're losing," lawyer J. Lloyd Snook III said. "If the definition of insanity is doing something over and over and hoping for a different result, then this is insane."
According to the National Office of Drug Control Policy, in 2003 the federal government spent $19 billion on the war on drugs - a rate of about $600 per second. And the Bureau of Prisons reports that 89 percent of federal prisoners were convicted of drug crimes.
Not a bad article.
10:46:04 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 20, 2005 |
Walters on C-Span tomorrow morning
John Walters will be on C-Span's Washington Journal from 9-9:30 am Eastern on Monday morning. (Thanks, Bob!)
If you're going to call in, here are a few suggestions:
- Write out your question and have it in front of you. Otherwise, you'll get so anxious about being on air, that you'll get tongue-tied.
- Limit yourself. Find one specific point that you want to approach and really hone in on that one. Don't try to ask a multiple-part question -- it dilutes your clarity to the audiences and gives him the opportunity to answer whichever part he likes the most and ignore the rest.
- Focus. You won't be given much time, so be prepared to keep it as short as possible.
- Speak to your audience. You don't care what Walters thinks (you're not going to change his mind) -- it's what the listeners get that's important. Don't talk about detailed conspiracies -- stick to the simple points that listeners will understand -- things like:
- Why do you want to throw sick people in jail for following the advice of their doctors?
- Why are you spending federal taxpayers' money to campaign against state medical marijuana initiatives? Are you willing to publish how much you have spent on that?
- If there really is a link between potent pot and treatment as you constantly imply, why won't you talk about it on the ONDCP website where it would be subject to data quality review?
- Remember that it's not about winning -- Walters has a huge advantage in this situation in that you cannot cross examine after he spins his answer in a completely new direction. It's about getting your point across to the listeners through a well-crafted question.
3:50:50 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Is Pot Far More Potent Than in the Past? No.
The Ottawa Citizen comes through in this article by Dan Gardner yesterday.
Gardner takes apart all the claims of massive increases in potency, and shows that it's a combination of different measuring techniques, and the range of higher and lower THC concentrations that have always been available, with a conclusion that there have been some overall average increases in potency due to better horticultural techniques, but not the levels claimed by prohibitionists.
He then goes on to debunk Walters' implied link to increased treatment and emergency room statistics, and concludes with a section on how smokers automatically self-regulat:
Mr. Earleywine notes that surveys asking users how high they get show no change since the 1970s, despite the increase in marijuana potency. "It's just that they're smoking less of it, rather than getting higher."
Oddly enough, this suggests that rising marijuana potency may produce a modest health benefit. "When smoking stronger pot, you smoke less and you have less exposure to tars and respiratory irritants," Mr. Earleywine says, adding with a laugh, "so in some ways it's worth smoking the best pot you can afford."
Then today, Gardner finishes up with part 2: How Science Is Skewed to Fuel Fears of Marijuana in which he takes on the junk science and bad reporting that add to misconceptions about pot.
For example, recent claims that link marijuana to psychosis have gotten some major press, particularly in England. Yet, Gardner notes that the methodology is potentially suspect (subjects were not evaluated for psychosis, but merely asked a series of questions, including: feeling that other people cannot be trusted; feeling that you are being watched or talked about by others; never feeling close to a person; and having ideas and beliefs that others do not share. Some of these could be more a result of the illegality of marijuana than any indications of psychosis.
And even with this suspect methodology, the scientists who ran the study themselves are not happy with the press coverage:
"It is quite clear that media claims that our research shows cannabis use causes psychosis are exaggerated," Mr. Fergusson says.
Science is being subordinated to politics, Mr. Fergusson feels.
Good articles.
3:27:11 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
NM Medical Marijuana stopped by unrelated measure
Interesting article shows how complex and silly state leglislative activities can get.
Medical marijuana was one of this session's most glaring examples of how bills can be delayed, held hostage and even killed as a result of political spats between lawmakers.
In this case, Rep. Dan Silva, D-Albuquerque, admitted this week he was working to hold up SB 795 until the Senate Judiciary Committee heard a bill of his dealing with impact fees on Albuquerque developers.
The connection was Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, the chairman of the judiciary committee as well as the sponsor of the medical-marijuana bill.
The medical marijuana bill died without being heard because they literally ran out of time. Governor Bill Richardson said he would have signed it.
9:05:50 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Women and Families - Invisible Victims
The ACLU, Break the Chains: Communities of Color and the War on Drugs, and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law have released a report on the impact of the drug war on women and families.
"We've gone from being a nation of latchkey kids to a nation of locked-up moms, where women are the invisible prisoners of drug laws, serving hard time for someone else's crime," said Lenora Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Family values ought to mean keeping families together. Treatment can cure drug addiction, but there's no cure for a family destroyed."
While women are still the minority in prison for drug crimes, their numbers are growing fast, and often the ones caught in the net with severe sentences are spouses or girlfriends who
- Get caught in the increased use and severity of "conspiracy" charges, when all they did was answer the phone.
- Don't know enough about the information to trade with prosecutors for a reduced sentence
It's nice to see this issue get some additional coverage -- and it's been helped in part by a very visible source who had not been particularly known as a drug policy reform advocate in the past:
"When one is incarcerated with 1,200 other inmates, it is hard
to be selfish ... So many of the women here ... will never have
the joy and well-being that you and I experience. Many of
them have been here for years -- devoid of care, devoid of love,
devoid of family.
I beseech you all to think about these women -- to encourage
the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing
guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time
offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would
be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in
prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate,
no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for
life 'out there' where each person will ultimately find herself,
many with no skills and no preparation for living." -- Martha Stewart
8:53:31 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Back from the Big Apple
I had a great (and exhausting) week in New York. Walked all over the city with my students and saw some wonderful shows (Glass Menagerie, Spamalot, Play Without Words at Brooklyn Academy of Music, Shockheaded Peter, and Upright Citizens' Brigade) and, of course, ate a lot of fantastic food.
I've mentioned several times the offensive DEA museum exhibit on display in Times Square in New York: Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You (See my earlier posts here and here).
I passed by it several times this week, but held off going in -- I would have just gotten too upset, and there would probably only be some minor functionary there to debate. Several of my students went and were utterly amazed at how ridiculous the exhibits were in attempting to connect drug use to terrorism.
Oddly, the DEA Museum had one of the tougher security checks in the city. Visitors had their bags searched and were checked in detail with a metal detector wand. This was much more than the security at crowded theatres, or at museums with priceless artifacts. As fas as I saw, the only places with such tight security were the NY Stock Exchange and Liberty/Ellis Island. But why?
I heard that the DEA got embarrassed by having part of one of their exhibits stolen from under their noses (but they weren't searching people leaving, only entering). Did they think that much of themselves that they really believed that they were a major terrorist target? Or were they afraid of their own citizens?
Fortunately, the exhibit closed yesterday.
Next stop is Detroit, where it is scheduled to be at the Detroit Science Center from April 2 through October 2. You might want to contact them and ask how a DEA propaganda exhibit fulfills their non-profit mission to educate people about science.
8:32:15 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
