|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Thursday, December 22, 2005 |
Open Thread - Holiday Travels
I'll be gone for about a week starting today, visiting relatives in places that don't have convenient wireless access. So while I'll be able to check email and keep up with the news, I won't be able to use my blogging software much.
Feel free to discuss anything in the comments.
Be safe. Happy Holidays!
9:20:49 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Student financial aid provision possibly on its way to partial reform
Not a very strong headline, but...
Dare Generation Diary reports that reform to the horrid HEA (Higher Education Act) financial aid provision (that denies financial aid to students with a drug conviction) passed the Senate yesterday (as part of the spending bill in that 51-50 vote where Cheney broke the tie).
Now, first of all, there isn't enough praise that can be given to the efforts of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. These folks have worked tirelessly for years, developing partnerships, getting universities to pass resolutions, lobbying directly with Congress, etc. to make inroads in this issue. And they've taken on the worst of the drug warriors (including Souder) to do so.
Unfortunately, the celebration can only be partial. First, the spending bill itself is far from certain to be passed -- since extra provisions were inserted in the Senate version, it has to go back to the House, and the House probably won't be back in session until late January. The bill only passed the House by about 6 votes last time, so expect some drama.
Second, even if/when the HEA reform provision is passed (as I expect it will be eventually), it's still a hollow victory. It only exempts those who had a conviction prior to attending college. Any drug conviction while in college will end financial aid. The entire provision should have been repealed -- this kind of penalty doesn't exist for anything other than drug use. It targets poor people who smoke pot. (Surprise, surprise.) Someone who isn't rich, who gets caught passing a joint at a party, loses their financial aid and ends up not getting an education, regardless of how well they're doing in school. How does that help them or society?
Support SSDP and help them continue their fight against the HEA provision.
8:36:43 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
An editorial gets it right
Yesterday's Lima News (Ohio) and Ft. Wayne News Sentinal (Indiana) editorials discuss the spying business and bring up the 4th Amendment...
It was bad enough when The New York Times revealed that, since early 2002, under an executive order from President Bush, the National Security Agency has been conducting surveillance inside the United States, almost certainly on U.S. citizens, without any sort of warrant approved by any sort of court. It was doubly disturbing that the president defended this practice and said, in effect, "Don't talk to me about laws or constitutions, I'll keep doing it until Congress or a court stops me."
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "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."
This standard has been refined and (especially as relates to the drug war) weakened by the courts over the years. But the requirement to get a warrant remains one of the key distinctions between a reasonably free and civil society and an authoritarian or dictatorial regime. [emphasis added]
Nice to see editors remembering the Fourth Amendment, noting its importance, and recognizing that it's been weakened by the war on drugs.
8:16:28 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 |
Stupid District Attorney
More stupidity.
A Lake Geneva man could face 37 years in prison after he allegedly had marijuana in his system during a fatal crash in Muskego last September.
Brent Ehret, 21, was charged Friday with one count of vehicular homicide with a controlled substance in his blood and one count of causing great bodily harm by use of a vehicle with a controlled substance in his blood. He was also charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
This is one of these new cases of charging someone simply because there were traces of tetrahydrocannabinol in the blood (Ehret claimed he had smoked the day before), without any indication of impairment.
But here's the kicker. Check out this quote by idiot District Attorney Paul Bucher:
"The nice thing about this law is you don't need to prove (someone) is under the influence," he said, adding that Ehret enjoys a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. "You shouldn't be driving under the influence of a controlled substance, period."
???
Does he even have a clue as to the words coming out of his mouth?
[Thanks to Scott]
6:41:31 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Bad law, bad prosecution
In Kenner, Louisiana, a tragedy happened.
Rebecca Doussan (age 26) and her twin sister Rachel were injecting cocaine. Rebecca left the apartment to get some more, and when she returned, discovered her sister drowned in the bathtub, with the water still running and the bathroom door locked.
The autopsy found that Smith died as a result of drowning, associated with the toxic effect of cocaine, [police spokesman] Gallagher said.
Now Rebecca is being charged with 2nd degree murder for supplying Rachel with drugs which ""turn out to be the direct cause of death."
Can someone tell me what the point of this prosecution is?
- Punishing Rebecca? She was punished more by the death of her twin sister than any jail sentence could possibly hope to accomplish. It's also not like there's any question that Rachel took the cocaine willingly.
- Deterrance? How can this law or prosecution thereof provide any deterrance? Will someone think "Oh, I'd better not give my sister drugs because if she dies I could get in trouble."? Even assuming anyone knows about this odd provision, they're not going into a drug experience expecting death as an option, so deterrance is out.
- Providing closure to the crime victim and their family? Oh wait, that's right, this law is punishing the "crime victim's" family.
- Using up excess tax funds lying around by prosecuting and jailing Rebecca?
It's just stupid.
The twins' father, David Doussan of Metairie, said learning his daughter was booked with murder was "like getting hit by a truck again."
"It's indescribable the pain I've been through since the death of my daughter last year," he said.
She "loved her sister dearly and would never do anything to hurt her," David Doussan said. "She would give her arm for her sister."
10:44:43 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 |
The future in Bolivia
Will Washington engage Morales? by Jim Lobe is a very interesting article about the challenges faced in Bolivia-U.S. relationships, with Morales in charge.
Analyst John Walsh notes:
"If he's saying yes to coca for traditional purposes, but no to cocaine trafficking, we need to take him seriously and engage him," he said. "There's no doubt that he has a mandate -- and a very strong one -- to chart a different course on drug policy than the U.S. has always pressed on Bolivia. But we also need to reexamine that policy and how much resentment it has caused there."
Apparently, there are some in the State Department who are smart enough to be willing to show some flexibility in this area, including top Latin American aid Thomas Shannon, who recently replaced hard-liner Roger Noriega.
But the State Department will have to contend with the hard-core drug warriors in Congress as well as the ONDCP and DEA, and the knowledge that if flexibility is shown in Bolivia, everybody down there is going to want some.
"As soon as they start talking about alternatives to eradication in Bolivia, the rest of the drug agenda comes tumbling down, because Colombia and Peru will want the same treatment," Jawahar said.
If the U.S. doesn't work with Morales, we could end up with a growing block of Latin American countries hostile to the U.S. If the U.S. does work with Morales, we could see a complete shift in the Latin American drug war dynamic.
Fascinating.
12:05:51 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 19, 2005 |
Spying on Us
Those of us involved in drug policy reform have seen the continual destruction of the 4th Amendment in the name of the drug war and we have shouted until we were hoarse, as the general population turned a blind eye to law enforcement and the federal government continuing to expand their "tools." And we watched as those tools were turned on the innocent and used to entrench and expand a policy that treats American citizens as criminals.
911 was a tragedy in many ways. In a bizarre twist, it was a tragedy for the future of freedom in this country because of the tastes and lusts of the federal police system. Now there was a new justification for more "tools": terrorism.
The recent revelations of warrantless spying on American citizens by the NSA under the express authorization of the President is horrifying, although unfortunately not very suprising. President Bush has admitted to the particulars...
"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.
Spying on people to protect their civil liberties? Sort of like raping someone to protect their virginity.
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution."
Now in everything I've read so far, including the statements by Attorney General Gonzales, I don't see any way that the program could be considered legal unless (as seems to be their argument):
- The President is, by nature of being President, exempt from all laws (except for those related to blow jobs). And if that's not enough...
- The Congress, when authorizing the use of force against terrorists, by implication revoked all previous law and the Constitution as it relates to the President.
Right.
Sigh
They don't even try very hard to justify taking away rights anymore.
The thing is that the system was already so easy for the government to use. You just go to a secret FISA judge (often referred to as a rubber-stamp judge) and get a warrant (almost never turned down). If you don't have time, start your spying and get the warrant later (within 72 hours).
The spying they are doing simply means that they don't even want a judge looking at it or knowing that they're doing it. Why? Because they're so embarrassed? Or because the judge might balk at the scope of the investigations? Hmmm...
He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.
Links to terrorist organizations. And what does the federal government consider terrorism?
 During the 2002 Superbowl, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) aired two thirty-second ads targeted at young Americans who do drugs. One of the ads asked, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you."
Links to terrorism. Every person in America who has smoked pot?
When Orin Hatch introduced the Victory Act (to add to the Patriot Act) in 2003, it was sub-titled:
To combat narco-terrorism, to dismantle narco-terrorist criminal enterprises, to disrupt narco-terrorist financing and money laundering schemes, to enact national drug sentencing reform, to prevent drug trafficking to children, to deter drug-related violence, to provide law enforcement with the tools needed to win the war against narco-terrorists and major drug traffickers, and for other purposes.
Narco-terrorism. A big new word since 911.
The DEA's traveling museum exhibit: Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You
In the recent attempt to extend the Patriot Act (which already has been used to a great degree for drug investigations), a provision was inserted relating to meth. How was that appropriate?
"When we think about the global war on terrorism, we shouldn't forget about the war on terrorism at home," said Ron Brooks, the president of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations Coalition. [ Link]
The war on terrorism at home. Has a nice ring to it if you're looking for more tools to use on the American citizen.
The thing is, of course, that we have no idea how this spying has been used. And that's the point. We are put in the position of having to trust one source. Without even a friendly judge we don't have anyone looking out for the American people who can say, "Whoa, that's going too far." (Anybody who's been involved in retail sales or auditing knows the critical importance of the two-person rule. That's what checks and balances in our system are all about.)
So we're left to speculate. And given the information above, it doesn't take much to start looking for your tin-foil hat.
Take the case of Marc Emery, for example. A Canadian with many ties, financial and otherwise, to people in the states. A Canadian who sold seeds to a relatively harmless plant. A Canadian that the DEA really wanted to nail. And after months of investigations, they had him arrested.
In her bizarre press release of July 29, DEA chief Karen Tandy left little doubt as to why they singled out Emery's operation. "Today's DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group -- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also the marijuana legalization movement," it begins, adding: "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on."
Gee, I wonder if any American citizens's communications with Marc Emery (including those of a current candidate for Governor of Alabama who publicly and proudly worked with Emery) were part of this warrentless spying?
We need to join with everybody in every part of the political spectrum to stop this intrusion on our rights.
And for those of you who "trust President Bush to do the right thing," I urge you to consider that these powers, if not stopped by Congress and the people, will never be given up by any administration. Imagine your worst nightmare as President and then imagine them with this unchecked power.
5:23:43 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Morales wins decisively in Bolivia
You can bet they're not happy in the U.S. Drug War HQ today.
Link
Evo Morales, a candidate for president who has pledged to reverse a campaign financed by the United States to wipe out coca growing, scored a decisive victory in general elections in Bolivia on Sunday.
Mr. Morales, 46, an Aymara Indian and former coca farmer who also promises to roll back American-prescribed economic changes, had garnered up to 51 percent of the vote, according to televised quick-count polls, which tally a sample of votes at polling places and are considered highly accurate.
At 9 p.m., his leading challenger, Jorge Quiroga, 45, an American-educated former president who was trailing by as much as 20 percentage points, admitted defeat in a nationally televised speech.
Morales has been a strong advocate of developing and marketing legal uses for the coca plant -- the plant that has been used safely for centuries -- for chewing, tea, soft drinks, toothpastes, medicines, etc. (Remember where Coca-Cola got its name and its original kick?)
He said he would welcome cordial relations with the United States, but not "a relationship of submission."
He also pledged that under his government his country would have "zero cocaine, zero narco-trafficking but not zero coca," referring to the leaf that is used to make cocaine.
Well, I doubt he'll be able to live up to the "zero cocaine" boast, but if he succeeds in making coca a viable crop for commercial purposes (he's even talking about exports), then he should be able to go far in reducing the power of narco-trafficking and the production of cocaine in his country (through both reducing demand within the country, and reducing the comparative incentives for farmers to work with criminal traffickers).
Note: Two years ago, I mentioned that denying Morales a visa was a boneheaded move by the U.S. I'll stay with that assessment of our foreign policy.
4:12:16 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
