|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, October 22, 2005 |
Asa Hutchinson gets it half right
Former director of the DEA Asa Hutchinson is running for Governor of Arkansas. In this article, he starts off on the right track:
"Past drug offenses should not automatically disqualify someone for student aid," Hutchinson, a candidate for governor, told the Arkansas Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. The group met in a fall conference at the Radisson Hotel in downtown Fayetteville.
Applicants for student loans are asked if they have used drugs in the past and, if so, are ineligible for loans, Hutchinson said. That's a mistake, he said. [...]
"It's a mistake to put people right on the same track that lead to drug use in the first place by considering them unredeemable," he said. "If you deny people access to jobs by denying them the education they need, they will have little recourse in their mind other than going back to drugs."
Good for him. But I didn't really expect him to get it, and sure enough...
"However, if someone commits a drug offense while receiving a student loan, he should lose it," Hutchinson continued. "Chances are that if he has a drug problem while going to school, he will drop out and not repay the loan."
Notice the conflation of "drug offense" with "drug problem." And the statement completely ignores the reality of how financial aid works. If a student's grades fall, he or she will lose their financial aid -- no need for this provision. The whole point of denying financial aid for a drug conviction is to punish the good student. That's right. They're after the low income students who get good grades despite using pot, but had the bad luck to get caught.
I have worked with thousands of students. Each one is different. Some can't handle the stress, or the alcohol, or the freedom to watch soap operas all day. Some succeed despite the problems of the world being thrown at them. I have seen straight-A students who were leaders in student organizations and graduated with stacks of awards and honors despite smoking pot every single day they were in college.
Asa gets the big picture wrong. The HEA financial provision should be repealed in its entirety.
9:31:51 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Supreme Court?
Truth Laid Bear is putting out a call to bloggers to take a stand on Miers, so here's mine:
I am neutral on the Miers nomination.
Not much of a stand, I realize, but here are my reasons:
- I'd like to see what actually happens in the confirmation process, on the off-chance that we might learn something about her.
- I have to look at this specifically from the perspective of drug policy, and it's really hard to anticipate how a future justice will rule in these areas (take a look at the schizophrenic if not psychotic behavior of the justices in Raich). TalkLeft has said some encouraging things about her regarding criminal justice on one side -- her apparent loyalty to the executive branch is a potential downside. Everybody else wants to see how she'll vote on abortion -- I want to know what she thinks of the fourth amendment.
- So far, the Miers nomination has been quite entertaining, and I'd hate to see it end.
8:52:33 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
You cannot waive my rights
Via TChris at TalkLeft comes this:
The [Connecticut State Supreme] court ruled 3-2 that opposition to a search by one resident invalidates permission granted by another, which is contrary to most case law on the issue nationwide. Defense lawyers predict the ruling will be troublesome for police, and could apply not only to attempted searches of homes but also to searches of businesses and cars with several occupants.
Although this was a ruling in relation to the state constitution, it has relevance to an upcoming Supreme Court case dealing with the same issue. (Georgia v. Randolph, Scott)
The Supreme Court has already ruled in US v. Matlock that if two people control a home, the one at home can give consent to search, and the absent one is out of luck. So if you have a roommate and you're not there, your roommate can consent without a warrant and anything found can be used against you. However, Georgia v. Randolph, the issue is when both are home and one consents to the search while the other refuses -- ie., can the officers "shop around" for someone in the house that will give consent?
The New York Court of Appeals in People v. Cosme ruled:
"an individual who possesses the requisite degree of
control over specific premises is vested in his own right
with the authority to permit an official inspection of
such premises and . . . this authority is not circumscribed
by any 'reasonable expectation of privacy'
belonging to co-occupants. Whether the principle is
characterized as an 'assumption of risk' or a relinquishment
of the 'expectation of privacy' guaranteed
by the Fourth Amendment, the fact remains that where
an individual shares with others common authority over
premises or property, he has no right to prevent a search
in the face of the knowing and voluntary consent of a
co-occupant with equal authority."
My view is that nobody else can waive my rights and consent to a warrantless search of my person, house, papers or effects, simply because they are a roommate, spouse, or otherwise share a location with me. I get that notion from the Constitution of the United States, which says, in part:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the 4th Amendment in Georgia v. Randolph, but they haven't had a very good track record with that amendment.
Regardless, if you share your home with someone, you might want to stop by Flex Your Rights with your roommate(s) and maybe pick up a copy of "Busted" while you're there.
3:18:58 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Small Town Texas Justice
For a fascinating, yet disturbing weekend read, check out Crackpot Crackdown by Jordan Smith in yesterday's Austin Chronicle.
Jackson County's DA Has Convicted 28 Black People on Drug Charges Via Manufactured Evidence and Railroaded Trials. Now a Small-Town Exile, Her Family, and a Few Neighbors Are Fighting Back
It's a story of racism, a district attorney who runs the county, and drug convictions with absolutely no evidence.
11:17:02 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Dept. of Justice Prison Report
The new Department of Justice US Prison Population report (pdf) is to be released tomorrow. Here are some of the key figures in the report (thanks to Common Sense for Drug Policy, and jackl):
State Prison Inmates in 2002:
- 21.4% were drug offenders -- 265,000 out of 1,237,500.
- 31.5% of all women in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 25,100
out of 79,800 women total.
- 25.1% of all blacks in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 126,000
out of 501,700 blacks.
- 27.4% of all Hispanics in state prison were serving time for drugs --
61,700 out of 225,000 Hispanics.
- 14.8% of whites in state prison were serving time for drugs -- 64,500 out
of 435,100.
Federal Prison Inmates 2003:
- Total: 158,426 Inmates
- Drug offenses: 86,972
- Violent offenses: 16,688
- Property offenses: 11,283
- Public-order offenses: 42,325 (includes immigration and weapons)
- Other: 1,158
10:48:07 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
On recent deletions
At Drug WarRant, I always welcome those who have opposing viewpoints. In fact, it's often refreshing to have someone actually have the guts to debate us about drug policy reform. (Note how recently we had a discussion that went on for hundreds of posts with "Jake.")
So I feel the need to explain why I have deleted some comments recently. We have had a commenter here for quite some time who is quite involved and supportive in drug policy reform. Then another commenter recently showed up using the same name, with a very different viewpoint -- ie, a series of random disconnected inflammatory comments, including insults thrown at other commenters here at Drug WarRant. As I did not feel at the time that this second person had any intention of actually discussing anything, I deleted most of his comments.
In the past day, he has actually asked some questions and made some posts that were relevant, and so those will stay. As long as he is actually discussing and not disrupting, he is welcome.
It still leaves the question of two very different commenters with the same name -- perhaps one of them will choose to make a slight alteration.
10:37:28 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 21, 2005 |
Jury Duty
Earlier this year, I mentioned Jeff Trigg's experience with jury duty, and how telling the truth (that he believed in the principle of jury nullification) caused him to be excused. (Parts 1, 2, and 3 )
Now Baylen Linnekin has gone through a similar experience in being called for jury duty for a drug case.
Read his story. What would you have done?
6:40:39 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Fighting Drug Abuse Requires Ending Prohibition
A nice little overview article at About by Andrew Somers is now online: How do we end the War on Drugs?. The recommendations:
- End the black market by ending prohibition.
- Regulate the manufacture, sale, and distribution of soft substances using the alcohol model.
- Use taxation, and spread the revenues so generated to education and treatment efforts.
- Provide addicts with clean supplies to demolish the black market, and greatly increase the availability of treatment options for them in a non-criminal setting.
7:42:04 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 20, 2005 |
Read The Agitator
Radley Balko's got a ton of excellent posts right now about the horrors of the drug war:
 Because what we need is more killing
In April of this year, the Pinellas County, Florida SWAT team tossed three flash-bang grenades into a home suspected of nonviolent drug offenses. The devices woke up and startled one resident of the home, 3 year-old Kamau Walker. Shortly thereafter, cops put three bullets into the back of Kamau's father, Jarell Walker, as he lay prostrate on the ground, killing him. Cops contend Walker was reaching under the couch for a gun, though the only gun found was hidden in the cushions of a couch on the other side of the room. Eleven months earlier, St. Petersburgh police (also in Pinellas County) put 14 bullets into the truck of 17 year-old Marquell McCullough, killing him. Cops later conceded they had pursued the wrong man.
Outrage ensued. A new policy has been issued this week. It's worse.
Militarizing Mayberry
SWAT teams in a town with a population of 2,701? Madness!
Militarizing Mayberry Ct'd
Lawsuit filed against drug task force for terrorising two women over a hunt for marijuana. Good.
Wrong House
Wrong House Part II
Wrong House Part III (a follow-up on the Bel-Aire, Kansas Sunflower Debacle)
Painkillers
The DEA's war on pain relief is especially damaging to low-income areas.
11:38:24 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
We refuse to learn
Surging Mexican violence draws comparisons to Colombia.
In describing the surging drug violence along the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere in Mexico, Flores and other law enforcement officials and analysts are increasingly referring to Colombia, where the Medellin drug cartel and other criminal organizations waged war on the government and killed hundreds of people during the 1980s.[..]
The threat in Mexico is rising because of a shift in the drug trade, U.S. anti-drug officials and drug-trade specialists say. Mexico - and not Colombia - is now headquarters for the Western hemisphere's most important drug traffickers.
"Since the fall of the big Colombian cartels from Medellin and Cali, the power center in the Latin American drug trade has shifted to Mexico," said Ron Chepesiuk, journalist and author of "Drug Lords: The Rise and Fall of the Cali Cartel."
"The violence is getting worse, I suspect, because the Mexicans are playing a bigger ... more lucrative role in the trade."
We've seen this for so many years. If you push down somewhere, it pops up somewhere else. Prohibition has absolutely no impact on the availability of drugs -- it just costs money, destroys lives and land, creates wealthy super-criminals, and corrupts law enforcement. Can't anybody do a cost assessment?
No. Take a look at Uribe. If anyone should have a first-hand awareness of the costs of prohibition, it's him. And yet at the recent Summit of the Heads of National Drug Law Enforcement Agencies (see this article by Dan Feder), President Uribe talked about increasing efforts, not only in Colombia, but in neighboring countries.
One point of interest (worth reading in Feder's article) is that Uribe did feel compelled to address calls for legalization (could they be getting louder?). He, of course, dismissed such calls, but his justifications were absurd and contradictory. He even admitted that he tended away from the use of "cold reason" when thinking about it.
It seems to me that the future of Latin America depends on a choice of two directions:
- The countries pull together all their spine and refuse to allow the U.S. to continue its destructive drug war inside their borders, or
- Latin America eventually self-destructs (along with the Southwest border of the U.S.)
Of course, it doesn't help that in many cases, the drug war is actually a cover for political agendas, access to valuable resources, and military positioning.
11:05:28 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 |
LEAP is on a roll
Another good article about prohibition -- Law officers calling for end to 'war against drugs' by Lisa Hoffman with Scripps Howard News Service, which has been picked up by a few media outlets. Again, this features members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who are doing an incredible job of getting the message out there.
This one shows, by contrast, just how bankrupt the arguments of the ONDCP are. After the article shows some very good points from LEAP about the failure of the drug war and noting that...
"This is not a tie-died group," said Mike Smithson, who runs the group's speakers bureau.
... the ONDCP sputters into the picture with the usual hand-picked manipulated statistics, emotional non-sequitors, and ad hominem attacks...
Perhaps not, but they are misguided and far out on the fringe of the drug issue, said a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy.
"It's simply an irresponsible message to put out there," said Rafael Lemaitire, deputy press secretary for the anti-drug office.
By any measure, Lemaitire said, the drug war - which employs police work, public education and treatment to attack the problem - has been effective in driving down drug use in America. In 1979, at the peak of the drug epidemic, 14 percent of the U.S. population said they had used drugs in the past 30 days. Now, that number is 6 percent.
And, he said, everyone knows at least one person whose life was ruined by drug use, and whole neighborhoods and communities besieged by drug-related crime. To give up on the battle would mean more misery, criminality and despair, he said.
"It's ludicrous to think that any law enforcement person would want to put people and communities at greater risk," Lemaitire said.
Hmmm.... imagine, in a democracy, a federal agency whose purpose is to lie to the people through both informal and coordinated media blitzes, to interfere with the election and lawmaking process by campaigning against local voting initiatives and state/local bills, to attempt to stifle and suppress contrary factual speech, and to promote and support policies that are contrary to the common good of the people. Meet the ONDCP.
Anyway, contrats to LEAP on all their recent coverage (Norm Stamper in the LA Times, Howard Woolridge's ride, etc.). This is a very important organization to support, and they do great work with their speaker's bureau. If you've got connections with a local Rotary Club or similar organization, why not try to arrange to get one of their speakers. It's a great way to reach local leaders who may be more likely to open their minds to the subject when an ex-cop is talking.
7:47:19 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, October 17, 2005 |
In your face, Karen Tandy
Via Cannabis News, Marijuana less cancerous than tobacco.
This United Press International article by Steve Mitchell, Senior Medical Correspondent, reports what we had a preview of before -- that this whole business of prohibitionists touting that marijuana has higher numbers of carcinogens is irrelevant. The truth is that marijuana use does not increase your risk of cancer at all.
What made this article particularly interesting is that the UPI Senior Medical Correspondent, through a combination of analysis and reactions from others, called Karen Tandy what she is: a liar.
Karen Tandy, the DEA's administrator, wrote in an article titled, "Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us," which appeared in the March issue of Police Chief magazine, that the drug is hazardous to health and does not help patients. [...]
Tandy did not claim marijuana caused cancer, but she implied it by saying, "marijuana smoke ... contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into malignant cells."
She also said marijuana can cause anxiety and depression, particularly in teens. However, a study released last week from Canadian researchers found a synthesized version of a marijuana compound actually promotes development of new brain cells in rats, and this in turn was accompanied by a reduction in anxiety and depression.
Other risks of marijuana cited by Tandy included impaired cognitive function, such as short-term problems with perception and memory.
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told UPI that Tandy's assertions "run up against the known science," which indicate the toxicity of the drug is minimal. [...]
He noted that Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a psychiatrist in El Cerrito, Calif., had conducted a study with medical-marijuana patients and did not find evidence they developed cognitive impairments, paranoia, anxiety or other mental problems after they began using the drug.
"The government has insisted there are no pros and there are only cons of marijuana, but this is totally lacking in science and totally lacking in any realistic credibility," Melamede said.
He predicted medical marijuana ultimately will be permitted in the United States.
"It's unavoidable that it will eventually triumph because it works," he said. "The government is lying and it will eventually win out in the end. It's just a matter of how many people have to suffer between now and then."
Good reporting UPI.
Wait, did I just say "Good reporting UPI?" What's happening?
11:12:37 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Lester Grinspoon at Mother Jones
A very nice interview with Dr. Lester Grinspoon at Mother Jones today.
He talks about Marinol, Sativex, medical marijuana and the contrary pressures from pharmaceutical companies and patients regarding the legalization of marijuana.
One of the most interesting parts: he often talks with medical marijuana patients who are concerned about flunking work drug tests -- he tries to get their doctor to prescribe Marinol. Even though Marinol doesn't work as well as marijuana, the patient can continue to use marijuana and not worry about the drug test. The same will be true to a greater degree with Sativex, which will lead to a practical solution of legalization countered by the financial pressure of the pharmaceutical companies to push prohibition harder.
Also interesting -- even though he's an ardent proponent of medical marijuana, he sees no way long term to legalize medical marijuana without legalizing it for recreational purposes.
11:03:03 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Man tasered 19 times, medical examiner not sure of cause of death
Link
From what I can tell, 21 year old Patrick Lee was tasered up to 19 times, plus police used pepper spray and other "physical force." Two days later, he died of cardiac arrest.
Blood testing at the hospital revealed the presence of both marijuana and LSD in Lee's system.
"Mr. Lee's death is a tragedy we should all learn from," [medical examiner Bruce] Levy said. "Mr. Lee's death is also a sober reminder of the dangers of the abuse of illegal controlled drugs."
Ah, yes, it was the "presence" (no idea how much) of drugs that caused Lee's excited delirium, which led to his death. Not the 19 tasers.
I've also heard that aspirin will kill you if you take a couple and walk in front of a bus.
[Thanks to scottp]
5:18:27 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Marijuana Arrests at Record High
Via NORML,
Police arrested an estimated 771,608 persons for marijuana violations in 2004, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprised 44.2 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.
"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor marijuana offenders," said NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre, who noted that at current rates, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 41 seconds in America. "This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal justice resources that diverts law enforcement personnel away from focusing on serious and violent crime, including the war on terrorism."
Of those charged with marijuana violations, 89 percent - some 684,319 Americans - were charged with possession only. The remaining 87,289 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses - even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, approximately 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger. [...]
The total number of marijuana arrests in the U.S. for 2004 far exceeded the total number of arrests in the U.S. for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
What a waste of resources, of lives, of integrity.
4:39:35 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Conference in Hartford
Trinity College in Hartford, CT is hosting a drug conference this Friday and Saturday, organized by City Councilman Robert Painter. (See article in the Hartford Courant.)
While the blurb on the conference page...
The conference is organized to bring law enforcement groups; state agencies; state and city representatives; and national experts with creative talent, to meet the drug scourge head on.
... would lead you to believe that this is the same old one-sided "How can we make prohibition work better" conference, the reality is much more interesting.
Look at some of the people who they've invited to speak and lead sessions:
There's also representatives from the Department of Justice, DEA, local police, a variety of social agencies, treatment centers, etc.
This is an amazingly impressive job by one community to really hear all the sides.
Could this be one more indication that, as a country, we're breaking through that block, and starting to allow the public discussion of prohibition alternatives?
9:40:35 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, October 16, 2005 |
Wow!
Let those dopers be by former police chief Norm Stamper, in today's LA Times.
This is a must read. It is also a must-send, to all your discussion lists, to your friends.
A bold plan for the legalization of all drugs (with which I agree in almost all particulars) boldly stated by a law enforcement officer in a major metropolitan newspaper that gets national distribution. That's hard to ignore.
I'm not going to even quote from it. Go read all of it.
5:08:08 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
