Drug WarRant Saturday, November 26, 2005 Afghanistan: International Prohibitionists Reject Proposal; Reporters Remain Stupid Earlier this week, I mentioned the Senlis Council's well-researched and eminently commonsense proposal to license opium production in Afghanistan for medical needs and turn the black-market problem into a legal crop that would support the farmers while reducing the power of the criminal black-market. So far, there's been very little response to the actual proposal, although this Australian article noted how quickly international prohibitionists rejected the idea without even adressing its merits. Afghanistan's anti-drugs establishment is showing a united front against the Senlis Council's proposal. Minister of Counter Narcotics Habibullah Qaderi reportedly dismissed the plan as unworkable two months ago - before its feasibility study was even released. And the Afghanistan branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in September branded the council's approach as simplistic, saying its message would be "disruptive and confusing". Right. And your message to your farmers is...? Part of the Senlis proposal was based on a report from the International Narcotics Control Board... In its 2004 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board stated its alarm at the low consumption of painkillers in developing countries. In 2003, six countries used 79 per cent of the world's morphine. Developing countries, which account for 80 per cent of the world's population, consumed only 6 per cent. The board's president, Professor Hamid Ghodse, raised the issue in May at the 58th session of the World Health Assembly, describing it as a "chronic shortage". The Senlis Council proposed increasing supply to lower the cost and make it more available in developing countries. But after their report, the Interntaional Narcotics Control Board changed its tune and claimed there was actually a surplus, and that the lack of morphine availability in developing countries was a question of their countries being unwilling to spend the money, not the high price(!) It's almost comical watching these prohibitionists work. One of the arguments against the proposal (this was used by the spokesperson for the INCB) was that increasing the legal supply would increase the risk of diversion of opiates to the black market! Right. We don't dare divert crops from the black market to the legitimate market because some of that might end up back in the black market! How's the war going? In the meantime, some articles have been touting a degree of success in Afghanistan as the number of acres planted with poppies has been reduced (although yield has increased). However, more balanced articles (like this one in the NY Times) report something different. The director of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said that despite the advances "the future doesn't look so good." "The threat is definitely there that the country will become a narco state," he said in an interview. "We need a stronger commitment to eradication and stronger support for farmers so that not only are they won over to the reality that law enforcement works, but that the alternative for them is not humanitarian disaster but jobs and income." According to the report, most of the profits go to a very few traffickers, warlords and militia leaders rather than to the impoverished farmers, who are often heavily in debt to the warlords. Of course, nobody has any good alternatives for the farmers (except the Senlis Council, whose proposals get rejected out of hand). And the amount of development assistance available really only makes temporary differences... He said, though, that cultivation went down only in those few areas where development assistance was available, and he feared the eradication effort was faltering. "There is a risk that opium cultivation will not decline further," he said. What was the problem with the Senlis proposal again? Stupid Reporters. In a related story, a new UN survey came out regarding drug use in Afghanistan, and the press has been tripping over itself in its eagerness to appear illiterate. Note this version from Canada.com: The opening line: KABUL (AP) - Almost a million Afghans use illegal drugs, the United Nations said Thursday ... The headline: Afghanistan has almost a million drug abusers, UN survey says Which is it? Users or Abusers? Do you need a dictionary? Now take a look at the Reuters report (with information supplied by the United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN)): Results of Afghanistan's first nationwide survey on drug use, released on Thursday, show high levels of abuse throughout the post-conflict country [emphasis added] "Use" or "Abuse," folks? Make up your mind. The survey, conducted by the ministries of counter narcotics and public health over 2005, revealed that there were at least 920,000 drug users in Afghanistan, including about 150,000 who take opium, 50,000 using heroin and 520,000 taking hashish. [...] The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also expressed concern about the number of regular drug users in the country. "The survey shows a rather high number of drug addicts in a population of around 24 million," Doris Buddenberg, UNODC representative in Afghanistan, said. Oh, now we're talking about addicts? Well, that was the UNODC spokesman talking. How is the reporter covering it? One of the current problems is the lack of medical facilities for the treatment of drug users. There is only one hospital in the capital with facilities to treat addicts. [emphasis added] Treatment of drug users??? What would that entail? Drug User = Drug Abuser = Drug Addict. What kind of crap reporting is this? Prohibitionists adjust goal line Over the years, prohibitionists have always wanted to hoodwink people into believing that prohibition actually works, so they have come up with some goal of "winning the war" by a certain year. Weren't we supposed to be drug free America by 1994 or something? We've had several of those "goals" that we've completely passed. The truth is that prohibition doesn't work, so any goal set by them is impossible to acheive. But perhaps they're getting smarter and moving the goalpost back. A counter-narcotics working group recently had a meeting in Germany... The three-day conference was sponsored by the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and the U.S. Central Command, and included more than 70 representatives from Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the U.S. State Department, the Germany Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NATO, the Drug Enforcement Agency and other agencies. So were are the goal posts now? "We are taking our first step on what I believe will be a very long road. I talk to people ( involved in counter-narcotics ) and they tell me counter-narcotics is a 50-year solution," said Air Vice Marshall Michael Heath, Royal Air Force, Senior British Military Advisor to U.S. Central Command and Special Advisor to Commander on Counter-Narcotics. Drug-free in Afghanistan by 2055. I can't wait. 8:37:49 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Friday, November 25, 2005 Rest Area Stops I've heard of these roadside fishing expeditions before, but this was the first time I've encountered one. I was heading out of town to visit relatives for Thanksgiving on Tuesday morning and discovered that the sheriff had set up at a local rest area (I-55 Funk's Grove Rest Area at mile marker 149, 10 miles south of Bloomington, Illinois). There were two signs on the roadside before the rest area exit. The first one apparently indicated that there was a roadblock ahead (I quite frankly didn't pay attention to it), and the next one said "All vehicles subject to search." The second sign was just 20 yards or so before the rest area exit. The idea is, of course, that they don't actually have a roadblock ahead, but they search the cars that exit into the rest area, figuring that anyone carrying drugs will want to take that opportunity to get off and destroy the evidence before hitting the roadblock. The Supreme Court has ruled against drug interdiction roadblocks, but I can't remember if they've heard one of these fake-roadblock/go-after-those-who-avoid-it situations (anyone have the answer?) As I passed the rest area, I could see cars being stopped as an officer with a dog went around the car sniffing for drugs -- perhaps using the horrible Supreme Court ruling in Caballes v. Illinois for guidance. (I'm wondering if the Caballes ruling will result in an increase in these fishing expeditions.) Of course, Caballes was based on a valid traffic stop. Would this kind of stop also be considered valid for a dog sniff that would, by itself, justify a full search? Now, I can't report this without pointing out the "stupid" factor. Even assuming you don't know about this fake-out technique used by the cops, still -- how stupid do you have to be to assume that the cops are stupid enough to warn you about car searches while giving you an easy way to get off the road before the roadblock? And yet, I suppose that's the reason the sign is so close to the exit -- not enough time to think it through. All you can do is react. Unfortunately, relatives and a meal were waiting for me so I couldn't take the time to stop and check it out -- I would have loved to have had a chat with the officers about constitutional rights. Here's another question for you: In this situation, could I pull into the rest area and stand on the sidewalk with a sign that read "You are not required to consent to a search'? Since the officers have no evidence that a crime has been committed but are simply fishing, would my free speech rights trump laws against interfering with an officer? What do you think? Update: Radley Balko provides excellent background on the status of the Supreme Court thinking regarding these stops. 8:06:43 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Happy Thanksgiving I'll be gone for a few days, and while I should be able to get email, I'll be unable to update the blog. Go to the sites on the left if you get bored -- plenty of good stuff there. If you'd like, read A story for Thanksgiving (Isidro and Teresa Aviles) -- my Thanksgiving post from a couple of years ago. Consider this an open thread. Talk amongst yourselves. 8:02:14 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Operation Meth Merchant update A few months ago, I mentioned the horrible Operation Meth Merchant: Now they've got this thing called Operation Meth Merchant that has bizarrely managed to arrest 32 Indians named Patel for working at convenience stores, following the law, but just not quite understanding the Engliish drug slang used by the undercover cops. The arrests were for selling legal items like sudafed (in legal quantities), while "knowing" they would be used to make meth. The undercover cops would hit convenience stores run by Indians (who often spoke limited English) and casually mention slang terms like "cooking" to refer to meth -- something the foreign clerks didn't even understand. A stupid law, a stupid sting, and a gross injustice. Now the ACLU is taking on the case: 'There are too many unanswered questions about the validity of evidence against these store clerks for the prosecutions to go forward in good conscience. We have launched a full investigation to determine the extent of police misconduct in this ill-conceived operation,'' Christina Alvarez, a staff attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said in a statement yesterday. ...several of the 44 Indian suspects claimed a language barrier confused the process. At least three suspects claim that they were misidentified by the police informants who secretly taped the alleged transactions using hidden microphones or hidden cameras. ...the ACLU has launched an investigation into claims of selective arrest and prosecution based on national origin and race. [...] The accused face up to 25 years in prison, forfeiture of their stores and fines of up to 250,000 dollars. Additionally, many of those charged are potentially facing deportation. ''Ours is but the latest community targeted and blamed in the drug war, a war that has corrupted our institutions to the point where we are willing to send innocent people to prison for the sake of politics and creating a false sense of security,'' said Aparna Bhattacharyya, executive director of Raksha, a Georgia-based South Asian community organisation. ''We welcome a full and thorough investigation into these cases and are committed, in the meantime, to assessing and meeting the immediate needs of the families affected,'' she said. I hope the ACLU prevails and all 44 cases are dismissed. That still would not be justice. The government cannot be allowed to get away with such blatant abuses of citizens' rights. 7:56:09 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Prison costs Check out this AP story from North Carolina: Former judge calls drug war a 'failure' RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina should consider decriminalizing illegal drugs as it tries to stem the need for additional prisons, a former state Supreme Court chief justice said Monday. Burley Mitchell, the state's top judge from 1995 to 1999, said the war on drugs in North Carolina and nationwide has been "a total failure" that has filled up prisons. The money saved if police no longer made arrests and courts no longer handed out sentences could be used to treat drug addicts, he said.[...]Even with double-bunking, the shortfall could reach nearly 2,900 beds in 2010 and 6,500 in 2014, when the projected prison population is 45,312, according to the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. "The state of North Carolina can't build prisons fast enough," said Chris Fitzsimon with NC Policy Watch, which co-sponsored the event. An entire article talking about the costs of prisons and how reducing sentences and changing how we deal with the drug war could save money. And without the usual irrelevant obligatory quote from some sheriff saying "But what about the message we're giving to children?" Hmmm... is this starting to work as a pocketbook issue? 7:42:11 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Monday, November 21, 2005 Stupid Drug Warrior Tricks in Afghanistan We've talked before about the folly of all-out poppy eradication efforts in Afghanistan, but nobody in power appears to understand basic economic principles. With high demand for opium and very few viable alternatives (and no strong infrastructure yet in the country), all that eradication can do is cause the people to oppose the U.S. and their own government. As eradication efforts are stepped up, those criminals who wield the most power or fear will control the distribution and the black-market profits will rise to levels that make the subverting of government officials in a chaotic country like Afghanistan childs play. Smarter solutions exist. Various sources have suggested that we buy up Afghanistan's opium for legitimate medical purposes. And the Senlis Council (via TalkLeft) is proposing that solution again and will present a detailed proposal today at Chatham House in London. And of course, this makes a lot of sense. There are, for example, 130,000 farmers in India who grow opium legally. Why not in Afghanistan? According to the World Health Organization and the International Narcotics Control Board, there is a shortage of essential pain relief medications, particularly in the developing world. Bizarrely, that includes... Afghanistan. The U.S. is spending $780 million on counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan, money that could be spent buying and developing medicines. But there's been no indication from the U.S. or British governments so far that such an idea would even be discussed. All the efforts are focus on eradication, just like in Colombia (and that has turned out so well...) In fact, according to this article, eradication efforts in Afghanistan have recently been expanded to include.... marijuana. "We are taking action as a sign to farmers that we have started our campaign, and that in the future the cultivation of poppies and marijuana will be prohibited in this province," said Shair Jan Durrani, a spokesman for the police headquarters in Balkh. Marijuana is an easy target for officials determined to show their commitment to drug eradication. Since poppies are not now in season, zealous counternarcotics forces can expend their energy on cannabis, which is harvested from October to December. Marijuana earns farmers one quarter of what they get from poppies, but some farmers grew it in order to try to follow the government edict not to grow poppies. The police waited until it was almost ready to harvest. "We've lost a year's work," complained Mohammad Jan. "If the government had given us warning, we wouldn't have planted marijuana. This has completely destroyed our lives." Farmers say they can not support their families if they grow legitimate crops. "If I take my annual yield of wheat to market and sell it, I make barely enough for one week's outgoings," said Fazel Rahman, a farmer in the Chahar Bolak district of Balkh. "We are not allowed to plant poppies or cannabis, but the government is not helping us find other seeds to plant. So we have to leave the country in order to earn our bread. Isn't it in our best interests to have stability in Afghanistan? To have farmers able to make a living? Shouldn't we look at all options? The Senlis Council is the primary international drug policy reform organization, and they're starting to be heard (not much here in the U.S., but elsewhere). Here's hoping that the British, at least, listen to them today. [Thanks, also, to jackl] 9:08:27 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []