Monday, August 28, 2006

Any DrugWarRant readers in Prague, Budapest or Vienna? I'm going to be taking a vacation soon to Central Europe. While I won't have a lot of extra time, if there are readers particularly in Prague, Budapest or Vienna, I'd love to get together for some coffee and discuss drug policy. I'll be in Prague (and Řevnice) from September 9-15, Litomyšl on September 16, then a couple of days hiking in the mountains of Slovakia. I'll be in Budapest September 19-21, then head up the Danube to Vienna for the weekend of September 23 and 24. Get in touch with me if you'd like to get together. Just to be clear, I'm not interested in any suggestions regarding getting or using drugs while in Europe. Besides, given my work on this blog, I figure I'm already on the short list for a full body cavity search when I return. (Note: I'm hoping to do a little blogging on the road, but my first priority will be enjoying my vacation.) 10:39:52 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Drug Czar salary cuts? Via Tom at DARE Generation Diary comes this major put-down (search for ONDCP) of the Drug Czar's office by the Senate Appropriations Committee: (emphasis added) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,500,000 for ONDCP's salaries and expenses. This amount is $11,809,000 below the budget request and $15,139,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee is extremely displeased with the performance of ONDCP staff regarding their communication with the Committee and their responsiveness to congressional inquiries. ONDCP's lethargy and the inadequate information provided severely impacts the ability of the Committee to conduct its oversight and make budgetary decisions in a timely manner. This kind of unresponsiveness on the part of ONDCP results in an unnecessary waste of time and energy; numerous follow up communications are required in almost every instance. The Committee is particularly concerned that ONDCP has attempted to prevent the Committee from meeting with the directors of ONDCP programs. Therefore the Committee has reduced the salaries and expenses budget to more closely reflect actual performance. The principal purpose of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] is to establish priorities, objectives, and policies for the Nation's drug control program. The Committee is concerned that the overall organization of ONDCP is ineffective and must be improved. In fact, 6 years ago an independent review found weaknesses in ONDCP management and organization, unfortunately these problems persist today. The Committee believes an investigation into funding allocations and expenditures, as well as the use of resources is warranted. The Committee believes an independent review of the overall organization and management of grants and funding systems would be beneficial to ONDCP and the Congress. Such an evaluation may provide insight into changes and improvements that could make ONDCP more effective in the future. Therefore, the Committee has allocated funding for a study by the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to conduct a review of organization and management. In addition, the Committee also requests that the Government Accountability Office [GAO] review the grant management systems, and other funding systems--emphasizing the criteria and methodology used to award and distribute funds. The Committee is aware and supportive of GAO's impending review of the Drug-Free Communities program, and recommends that GAO also review the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, among others. The Committee expects NAPA and GAO to work together, sharing progress and information during the course of their reviews, which should begin within 60 days after the enactment of this act. Wow. My reading of this is that although Senators may not be ready to talk publicly about alternatives to prohibition, they're getting pretty damned pissed off by the fact that their drug war is a black hole, constantly sucking money into oblivion with nothing to show for it. They're realizing that they can't adequately explain the value of their drug war themselves, so they want to make sure there's someone they can blame for its failure. 8:54:05 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

DEA stoops even lower Remember when DEA spokesman Steve Robertson responded to our efforts in protesting their museum propaganda by claiming: "We're a law enforcement agency -- we enforce the laws as they are written. Congress makes the laws." Well, once again, I call bullshit. Check this out. The Drug Enforcement Agency is stepping into the political fray to oppose a statewide ballot issue that would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. In an e-mail to political campaign professionals, an agent named Michael Moore asks for help finding a campaign manager to defeat the measure, which voters will consider in November. If passed, it would allow people 21 and older to have up to 1 ounce of marijuana. In the e-mail, which was sent from a U.S. Department of Justice account, Moore also writes that the group has $10,000 to launch the campaign. He asks those interested in helping to call him at his DEA office. I think it's time to write Congress and tell them to fire Karen Tandy for gross misconduct and improper use of federal tax dollars. 9:44:23 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Another good OpEd in the Seattle Times and more We're just racking up the support for drug policy reform in a range of major newspapers. Also importantly, the most intelligent, factual, well-written and well-argued pieces tend to be on our side. Sort of goes against the stereotype of the wild-eyed druggie legalizer, doesn't it? In fact, more and more it is the prohibitionists who come off as off on a trip disconnected from reality. From Neal Peirce SEATTLE -- Is it time to forge an "exit strategy" for our prolonged "war on drugs"? That question -- normally considered a "no-no" in legal circles, especially among prosecutors and police -- has been raised by the prestigious King County Bar Association since 2000. And the results have been impressive. [...] The uncomfortable truth is that despite decades of aggressive government crackdowns, U.S. drug use and drug-related crime are as high as ever. Made profitable by prohibition, violent criminal enterprises that purvey drugs are flourishing. Harsh criminal sanctions, even for minor drug possession, have packed jails and prisons. Public coffers have been drained of funds for critical preventive social services. Prohibition has failed to stamp out markets and quality, or increase street prices for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana. The drug war kicked off by President Nixon in the 1970s costs $40 billion or more a year. It is a massive, embarrassing, destructive failure. But politicians are normally afraid to question the system for fear of being called illegal-drug apologists. So how did the King County Bar get the ball rolling? "It's the messenger, not the message" -- the credibility of the bar association, says Goodman. The King County Bar in fact assembled a nationally unprecedented coalition of supporters, ranging from the Washington State Bar Association to the King County and Washington state medical associations, the Church Council of Greater Seattle and the League of Women Voters of Seattle and Washington. Read the whole piece -- there's a lot of good stuff there. Now, clearly the King County efforts are only a fraction of the distance we have to travel for long-term meaningful drug policy reform, but it's a positive and active step, and they continue to have active plans to "switch from punitive approaches" in order to "[shut] down the criminal gangs that now control the drug trade." For marijuana, control by cartels that now provide huge quantities might be broken by state licensing of home production and non-commercial exchanges. Or a state distribution system like state liquor stores, demonstrably effective in denying sales to youth, could be established. Concrete, practical steps and ideas. Taken despite the full propaganda weight of the federal government and the unconscionable silence of the so-called drug policy academics like Mark (prohibition doesn't work but there's no other alternative so we have to keep trying) Kleiman. A couple of other items: TalkLeft mentions the potential next face-off between California and the federal government if Governor Schwarzenegger signs the industrial hemp farming bill. Good letter by Sam Ehrlichman today in the New York Times: Bob Herbert tells the heart-wrenching story of a woman whose family was killed as payback for testimony against a Baltimore drug dealer in 2002. He advocates a cultural shift in a swath of urban, black America, saying "it is up to blacks themselves" to "create a cultural environment that turns its back on crime." Unfortunately, it will be difficult for such change to occur until we rethink our disastrously failed drug war. Under the current policy of prohibition, there is an enormous economic incentive for people to turn to dealing drugs. Just as happened during the era of alcohol prohibition, dealers arm themselves and form powerful gangs that infest every corner of our society. Without prohibition, those dealers would be out of business. 9:24:49 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

The Czars' Reefer Madness John Tierney in the New York Times "Drug policy is irrelevant," says Cohen, the former director of the Center for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam. It's quite logical, he says, to theorize that outlawing drugs would have an impact, but experience shows otherwise, both in America and in some European countries with stricter laws than the Netherlands but no less drug use. [...] "Prohibition does not reduce drug use, but it does have other impacts," he says. "It takes up an enormous amount of police time and generates large possibilities for criminal income." In the Netherlands, that income goes instead to coffee-shop owners and to the government, which exacts heavy taxes. It also imposes strict regulations on what goes on in the coffee shop, including who can be served (no minors) and how much can be sold (five grams to a customer). [...] Roskam sneers at the street products in the United States, which he considers overpriced and badly blended. But he acknowledges there's one feature in the American market he can't compete with. "Drugs are just less interesting here," he said. "One of my best friends here never smoked cannabis, never wanted to even try my products. Then when she was 32 she went to America on holiday and smoked for the first time. I asked her why, and she said: 'It was more fun over there. It was illegal.'" Prohibition doesn't work. It's wrong, wasteful, and harmful. 12:08:17 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []