Drug WarRant Saturday, October 1, 2005 Reading Material Drug War Chronicle's Phil Smith is in Afghanistan, reporting in person on the drug war there. You can read his dispatches here. Washington Post reports about a Congressional dog and pony show (sans pony). Congress is considering more funding for law enforcement dogs, so they watched them sniff explosives and marijuana. As jackl notes, dogs can only be trained to do one or the other (a point neglected by the Post), meaning that every dog trained to sniff pot, is one that isn't making us safe from terrorists. Mary Jane's Last Dance -- an offensive operation in Philadelphia targeting drug paraphernalia in Spencer's Gifts in the mall. Detectives took shot glasses, dishes, bowls, Frisbees, CDs, magnets, sneakers, headbands, stationery, lighters, pins, bracelets, key chains, cookie cutters and dozens of other "marijuana" merchandise from the Oxford Valley store. The pieces to one chess set were various sized marijuana leaves. Via Cannabis News and NORML: Marijuana use, as indicated by the presence of cannabis metabolites, is not associated with crash culpability among injured drivers, according to data presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Coffee with... Gary Storck Wisconsin's top medical marijuana advocate speaks out. Vets Against the (Drug) War -- Outstanding article about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition [Thanks to Scott, dmac, and others] Also: It's fun when they fight. Souder and the Drug Czar are at odds again. Loretta Nall Announces Run for Governor of Alabama. That's one I'd love to see! 3:17:57 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Good cops and moral? cops I'm a huge fan of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). A great group of dedicated people who perform an incredibly important service. Their speaker's bureau arranges for cops against prohibition to speak to Rotary Clubs and other similar organizations. Having a cop speak against the drug war to a group like that is priceless in terms of impact. This article describes such a talk by LEAP V.P. Peter Christ. The article also includes reactions from local cops to Peter's visit (Naturally, they're less enthused about making changes.) One item in the article that caught my eye: No matter what the justifications, however, Clifton Heights Police Chief Walter Senkow objected to legalization on a moral basis. "At that point, we're telling our kids, it's okay to abuse their bodies," Senkow said. Moral basis? Since when is it the responsibility of the Police Chief to guard our morals? Is Senkow prepared to arrest people for not honoring their mother and father? Or for not keeping the Sabbath holy? Or for not loving their neighbor? Or for not being pure in heart? Since we don't have specific laws for those things, does that mean that we're somehow giving a bad message to our kids? The Police Chief is actually ready to discard an idea that might make his work more effective, because of his need to give a particular moral lesson (while ignoring many others). Perhaps he should leave that to families and churches, and focus on effectively serving and protecting. Turning to law to provide a moral example has a major drawback. Laws are created by politicians. Now think about it. Do you really want to look to politicians for your moral foundation? 10:44:01 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Thursday, September 29, 2005 If wishes were horses, beggars would ride There's been a rather entertaining exchange going on in the comments of my Drug War Victims page. One of the interesting characters visiting that page is Jake, a real gung-ho drug warrior who referred to the victims as "sh*tbags" and thanked God for Nixon creating the DEA. I think Kaptinemo is having way too much fun debating him. Jake recently posted: So then... what's your solution guys? You want drugs to be legal? Okay. Let's make all other crimes legal too. You know, i don't think stealing should be a crime. Just because we don't like a law... doesn't mean we should just disgard it. That paragraph would be a great one for a class studying logical fallacies. The Kaptin points out that Jake is guilty of conflation (combining disparate items into one). The statement also fits into the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy (as do many drug warrior arguments) -- arguing something completely irrelevant, or to an irrelevant thesis. [I thought about referring to red herring, but that often implies intentional misdirection. Aristotle referred to Ignoratio Elenchi as ignorance of what makes a refutation, which seems appropriate for Jake.] There are, I believe, two Ignoratio Elenchi arguments in Jake's single statement. Can you find them? Of course, such a ridiculous argument is also fun to counter in reverse: Why not have a 2 year minimum prison sentence for parking meter violations? Why not have no-knock guns-drawn middle-of-the-night raids for suspected tax fraud? Why not seize the cars of those who exceed the speed limit? Why not bust people for possession of Twinkies? (Do you want your children raised in a world where people get fat from eating Twinkies?) There's another ignorant response I often see on bulletin boards when I'm wandering around the net (bringing us to the title of this post). Someone in the discussion will rationally talk about how we can reduce violence, corruption, cost, overdoses, disease, etc. by ending the drug war. And then some Jake will say: It seems to me that you would eliminate all the problems of the drug war if everybody just stopped making, selling, and using drugs. Sigh. Yes, that's true. And if wishes were horses... Perhaps you have the ability to change the course of the stars in the sky. Because unless you do, the notion of completely eliminating drug use is a fantasy -- a fiction, and has no place in a rational discussion. This means the debate has to start with: "Given the fact that there will always be some people who make, sell, and use drugs regardless of what we do, what should our policy be?" When you start to look at the realities of the arguments, and toss away the irrelevancies and impossibilities, then you'll generally find that drug policy reform is the only logical approach that you can take. I think that part of the reason that people resort to the arguments of ignorance is that they can't handle the thought of "druggies winning." They have decided that certain drugs are bad and those who use certain drugs are also bad. Therefore, those bad druggies must suffer. Then someone comes along and calmly and logically explains how ending prohibition would solve all sorts of problems, and a circuit in their head explodes. "But... but..." they whine in their head, "but... that would mean that the druggies would win! NOOOO!" And they promptly yell "Well, why don't you just legalize murder while you're at it?" 9:33:14 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, September 28, 2005 God and Crystal Meth Read it You and I are just happy it all worked out. But this story has got to be giving some prohibitionists a crisis of faith. 6:27:30 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Silly bill names Souder, Sensenbrenner, and Blunt (that's frightening by itself) have introduced H.R. 3889, the Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act. Wow. Just pass a bill and eliminate Meth? Amazing. Let's pass some other bills. How about the Cancer Elimination Act, or the Toxic Waste Elimination Act, or the Crooked Politicians Elimination Act? 5:30:50 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] More trouble in Afghanistan Afghan minister quits after 'drug war rift' with Karzai Oops. 5:21:42 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Kate-Gate This is old news now, but I wanted to at least weigh in on the "news" that Kate Moss used cocaine. A surprise to absolutely nobody, yet somehow requiring shocked horror as a reaction. As far as I'm concerned, the best response came from Sarah Doukas, director of the Storm agency: "I know Kate, and I have represented her for the last 18 years. Over this time she has consistently demonstrated herself to be a professional and exceptional model and a loyal, special and dear friend to me and countless others," Doukas said. Does anything else matter? 5:10:00 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, September 27, 2005 When good things make you sad Make no mistake about it. Senator Richard Durbin is one of the good guys, and I'm proud to have him as my Senator. He was the only one to stand up to DEA head Karen Tandy in her confirmation hearing (proving she was unfit to serve). He also introduced the Truth in Trials Act to assist medical marijuana patients facing federal charges. So I was pleased to finally hear back from him regarding H.R.1528: Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005, sponsored by James F. Sensenbrenner (WI-5), an odious bill that would, among other things, make me a felon for not snitching on college students who have pot. As part of an action alert, I had written him asking him to oppose the bill if it made it to the Senate. I finally received a reply. And sure enough, Durbin opposes Sensenbrenner's bill. But am I satisfied? Not by a long shot. Here's the letter. Dear Mr. Guither:   Thank you for your message regarding Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act, HR 1528. I appreciate knowing your thoughts.   I understand your concerns about this measure. On April 6, 2005, Representative James Sensenbrenner introduced HR 1528, which primarily addresses drug distribution involving minors by expanding mandatory minimum sentences.   Opponents of the legislation argue that it virtually eliminates the ability of federal judges to give sentences below the minimum sentence recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines. They also argue that the measure is punitive because it requires a 10-year minimum sentence for anyone 21 or older who gives marijuana or other drugs to someone under 18 and that the legislation further widens the disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine offenses. These provisions could cause severe hardships and injustice and contribute to the growing population within our nation's prisons.   I am concerned that this bill prohibits consideration at sentencing of a defendant's need for education, vocational training, or medical care. To achieve the long-term goals we seek, tough punishment must work in tandem with smart prevention and early intervention.   This measure is pending before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Similar legislation has not been introduced in the Senate. However, I will keep your thoughts in mind in case the Senate considers legislation involving mandatory minimum sentences. Thank you again for contacting me.      Sincerely,      Richard J. Durbin      United States Senator RJD/el P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Obama and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions. We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details. So why am I disappointed? Because he refers to Sensenbrenner's bill as if it is something to be taken seriously, although he is "concerned" about some of the provisions and notes that "opponents of the bill" make certain points. I wanted him to say: Dear Mr. Guither:   Thank you for your message regarding Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act, HR 1528. I appreciate knowing your thoughts. You should know mine. My esteemed colleague, Representative James Sensenbrenner, is an ass. The fact that he is in Congress is a travesty. The fact that he is chair of a committee should be a point of extreme embarrassment to the Republican leadership. It seems that every time he proposes a bill, he violates his own oath to support the Constitution of the United States while traitorously destroying the freedom of his own constituents. There's no way in Hell that I'd let a bill even similar to his make it through the Senate. It's time to reform the laws that don't work, not make them worse. Thank you again for contacting me.      Sincerely,      Richard J. Durbin      United States Senator Now I understand why Senator Durbin couldn't write a letter like that. There are ways you do things so you don't piss people off, and public officials just can't be that blunt. But why did he feel the need to say: "tough punishment must work in tandem with smart prevention and early intervention"? Why is it that one of the better people in Congress is unable to tell the truth about drug policy? Is our society so afraid to face reform? So paralyzed by the years of propaganda? How long will it take before politicians can actually say that they favor reform, without including the obligatory tough talk? Note that Senator Durbin invited me to join him and Senator Obama for coffee and donuts if I'm ever in Washington, DC. I don't get there often, but I'd love to take advantage of it. I'd like to ask him a question: Senator Durbin, why do you feel there is this need for "tough punishment"? Do you have any evidence that tough punishment works? Do you really think the country would have been better off if Senator Obama had been caught indulging in his youthful indiscretions (cocaine and marijuana) and spent time in prison? Yes, I'm proud of Senator Durbin. He's one of the best we've got. Unfortunately. When I deal with a sado-moralist like Souder, I get feisty. When I get a letter from Durbin, it just makes me sad. 6:16:42 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Go check out Last One Speaks Libby has been blogging up a storm recently, with some great stuff on the Senlis Council, the Salon article on the Utah attack, the effectiveness of meth reaction laws, and DEA delays. 8:05:29 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] I'm not sure quite what to make of this... ... or how much to believe, but in a special to the World Tribune.com: Cannabis new drug of choice to finance Al Qaida ABU DHABI -- Saudi security sources said Sunni insurgents have been smuggling illegal drugs from Iraq to Saudi Arabia to finance insurgency attacks against coalition forces. The sources said the drugs being smuggling now tend to be cannabis. "In the space of one year, border police intercepted 10 tons of cannabis coming from Iraq," a Saudi source said. "In the past, the [smuggled] merchandise used to consist of alcoholic beverages and prohibited drugs." So let's see, we go to Afghanistan and it becomes the largest source of opium in that part of the world. We go to Iraq, and it becomes the supplier of marijuana to Saudi Arabia. The notion that we have the power or capability of stopping the production, distribution, or consumption of illicit drugs anywhere is laughable. And, of course, regarding the claim that Al Qaida is being financed by the marijuana, remember that marijuana has nothing to do with it. The black market has everything to do with it. [Thanks to John] 8:00:58 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Action Alert: Allow Research Regular readers of this site have heard me complain ad nauseum about the delaying tactics of the federal government to prevent even the proper investigation of medical marijuana. Here's a chance for you to get your Representatives into the act -- an action alert from NORML. Members of Congress are now rallying support to send a letter to DEA head Karen Tandy, asking the DEA to end the monopoly and approve an application to grow research marijuana submitted by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. This is where you come in: contact your Representative and urge him or her to support that letter! Let your Congressperson know that it is not acceptable to let politics stand in the way of legitimate scientific research. Marijuana should get the same consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as any other medicine seeking approval! 12:39:55 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Monday, September 26, 2005 Jury says NO I mentioned this case briefly back in July. As part of a drug sting, police in Great Barrington, MA lured and arrested 19 young people for selling drugs (most were first time offenders and many were for small amounts of marijuana -- one was just for connecting the officer with someone who could sell). The state has onerous 1,000 feet school zone laws (very difficult to know when you're in a school zone) and the DA chose to apply the school zone mandatory minimums. The first trial, for Kyle Sawin, ended up in a mistrial in July. They went back to trial and on Friday the jury found him Not Guilty. Apparently both juries were concerned about the severity of the 2 year mandatory minimum, and felt that the sting looked more like entrapment: Juror Jonathan Nix said that the panel was split when deliberations began, but that as it grappled with the issues surrounding the case, its members concluded that not enough evidence existed to convince them with certainty that the earliest transaction occurred. "On the other two (sales), we felt that there was enough coercion to warrant an entrapment finding," Nix, of Becket, said. From the Berkshire Eagle's editorial: The Draconian nature of the school-zone law simply cannot be ignored. It makes no distinction between first and habitual offenders or the amount of drugs sold. It ties the hands of judges, who should be allowed to consider the differences in drug cases brought before them. It is clearly designed to protect school children, and while the Taconic lot is within 1,000-feet of two schools, the undercover operation took place in summer. It's obvious unfairness will loom over any of the trials brought because of the Great Barrington sting. First-time drug dealers should be penalized through some combination of probation, counseling and community service that will set them straight without ruining the lives of the young people charged. However, the district attorney's all-or-nothing strategy, built as it is upon a bad law, means they will escape punishment and the counseling they clearly need. Juries can send important messages -- to District Attorneys and to lawmakers. This was a community that believed the law was improperly inflexible (a community petition to drop the school zone charges had gotten a lot of signatures), and that believed the DA and police had overstepped. The jury agreed and refused to convict -- twice -- despite having sufficient evidence that the drug sales had taken place. Remember the power of the jury. [A roundup of articles on the case from the Berkshire Eagle is here. Thanks, Adam] 9:11:25 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []