|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, January 28, 2006 |
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition video
Definitely take the time to see this outstanding video produced by Common Sense for Drug Policy and featuring members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
After you've seen it, download it and show it to all of your law and order friends who are resisting your efforts to convince them that prohibition is wrong. Do you know someone in your local Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, Lions Club, or similar organization? Show them this video and then suggest that they schedule one of these officers as a speaker.
When you see this video, you come to realize just how important a group like LEAP is, because many of those whose minds most need to change give greater value to words from a former police officer.
Now this is just a short promo video, yet it was full of great information. Here's a few statements that caught my attention:
Under prohibition, we have given the right to the criminal
of
- who's going to supply the drugs to the United States,
- what kind of drugs are going to be supplied,
- how much those drugs are going to cost,
- how they're going to be produced,
- how potent they're going to be
- what age levels they're going to sell to,
- and where they're going to sell.
And if they decide they're going to sell to 10-year-old kids on our playgrounds, by God that's where they'll be sold.
- Jack Cole
Drug legalization is not to be construed as an approach to our drug problem.
Drug legalization is about our crime and violence problem.
Once we legalize drugs, we gotta then buckle down and start dealing with our drug problem, and that's not going to be easy, but it's something we can do.
- Peter Christ
South Africa (1993) Under Apartheid
incarcerated 851 black males per 100,000 population
United States (2004) Under Prohibition
incarcerated 4,919 black males per 100,000 population
[Thanks to Scott, who also notes the discussion about it here. Additional hat tip to Toker00]
9:52:15 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
New Mexico Senate Lectures Drug Czar's Office on Proper Behavior
I attended the medical marijuana hearing in the Illinois legislature last year, when we had high hopes that were dashed by the sudden appearance of Drug Czar John Walters, who spoke his usual lies, and caused legislators to whimper and crumple.
It appears that New Mexico Senators are made of sterner stuff. They're also considering a medical marijuana bill, so the Drug Czar sent special assistant David W. Murray to straighten them out.
Link
He likened medical-marijuana proponents to "medicine shows, traveling charlatans and snake-oil salesmen" selling phony "tinctures, magical herbs and remedies." Murray said medical marijuana is an issue that has been brought forth not by the medical profession but by advocates of drug legalization.
"They use emotion, they use suffering patients, they use anecdote," he said. And in a statement that some committee members criticized, Murray added: "I regard much of that as cynical and manipulative."
Big mistake.
Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez, D-Belen , took him to task for those words, pointing out that sponsors of crime legislation often bring victims of crimes to testify without being called "cynical and manipulative ."
"I don't know how you do it back East," Sanchez told Murray, "But this is the people's house. Everybody has a right to be here just as much as you do. When you said this to us, you showed us where you were really at. I don't think you should go to a state and say such things about their people."
Wow!
And these guys are smart.
Noting his argument that marijuana has no medicinal value, Sen. Clint Harden, R-Clovis , said, "We are not talking about the healing power of marijuana. The purpose of this is to reduce pain." [...]
Sen. Rod Adair, R-Roswell , disputed statements by Murray and some state law-enforcement representatives that medical marijuana will increase use of the drug. He compared the bill to the concealed-carry law, which lets people apply for permits to carry hidden guns. Some opponents said that law would give criminals the right to carry concealed weapons.
"But robbers are already doing that," Adair said. Likewise, those who smoke marijuana illegally are doing so without a medical-marijuana law, he said.
Sen. John Grubesic, D-Santa Fe, told Murray he had a hard time accepting the claim that medical marijuana is "the huge bogey man you want it to be."
The committee gave the measure a do-pass with bipartisan support.
11:44:41 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 26, 2006 |
Colonel Klink stumbles into escape tunnel. Hogan moves the gang into tunnel B
Feds smoke out largest drug tunnel yet
It runs from Tijuana, Mexico, to Otay Mesa, California. [...]
Officials said the tunnel is about seven-tenths of a mile (1,148 meters) or more than 1,200 yards long. Initial reports said it is 5 feet high and 3.5 feet wide. [...]
Made of concrete, the passageway had lighting, electricity, ventilation and a pump to remove water, said Lauren Mack, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.[...]
An investigation is under way to determine who built the passageway.
Sergant Schultz was interviewed by authorities but knew nothing.
5:46:39 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Students about to give Department of Education a Lesson
That's right. A student group is suing the Department of Education, because, well, the Department of Education is apparently made up of a bunch of morons.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy is an incredible activist group that has been working tirelessly to overturn the stupid and counter-productive Higher Education Act provision that denies financial aid to those who get any kind of drug conviction. This law they're fighting is the garbage created by sado-moralist Mark Souder and his ilk.
In order to pursue the next step in their effort, SSDP filed a Freedom Of Information request to find out state by state how many students had been denied financial aid because of this law. The Department of Education is happy to provide the information, and when requested to provide information that is in the public interest, it is standard procedure to waive the very large processing fee (about $4,000 in this case).
However, the tic-tac-toe playing, single-digit-composite-ACT-scoring, can't-divide-by-10-in-their-head apparatchiks in the Department of Education decided (after looking at the website of Students for Sensible Drug Policy and concluding that these students were in favor of drug legalization) that providing the requested information would not serve the public interest, but rather the commercial interests of those who might profit from the legalization of drugs.
I kid you not.
3:16:27 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Marijuana and Psychosis
With all the hysterical media in Britain going on and on about how marijuana makes everyone go psychotic, I've been surprised that I haven't heard more of that Reefer Madness style reporting in the U.S. -- in fact, there's been little in the press here about the connection.
Well, the Boston Globe tackled the subject in Studies Link Psychosis, Teenage Marijuana Use by Carey Goldberg. And it's a remarkably well-balanced job of reporting. (Even the headline uses the word "link" instead of indicating causality.)
While showing the potential concern over the subject, the article makes clear that causality has not been determined, that even if marijuana does provide some cause for concern, it's only for a small percent of the population, only for those pre-disposed toward psychosis, and only for those who start smoking as children. And the reporter got reactions from NORML as well. Other than missing the opportunity to mention self-medication, the reporter did a good job.
As this story gets more play in the states, it seems to me that there's two things we need to continue to emphasize.
- The lack of strict causality evidence, and the fact that there are other reasonable explanations for the links
- The fact that marijuana legalization models include regulating the abuse of marijuana by children, something that prohibition does not. If we want to seriously think about reducing abuse at young ages, we need to look at legalization and age regulation.
2:47:24 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 |
Buckley, Bolivia, and free trade
Count on William F. Buckley, Jr. to give an interesting perspective on our Latin American drug policies. He notes that Morales, a socialist who has called for an end to US crop eradication in Bolivia, knows how to use the free trade argument against us.
Morales shapes his complaint in language similar to that which has been used by the father of the movement against socialism, Milton Friedman -- the language of free trade. Whose problem is it that many Americans use cocaine? And that they desire it intensely enough to give it a street price sufficient to support Bolivian producers at every level -- the agricultural workers, the refiners and the exporters?
The point is in part cynical, because Morales knows perfectly well that human weakness will always produce a demand for toxic substances, if they provide intense pleasures en route to devastation. But he is shrewd enough to pick up on the point of free trade -- even though it is a part of the neoliberalism he has otherwise denounced. What right does the U.S. government have to convert its concern for weak-minded Americans into a veto power on Bolivian agriculture?
[...] one country's right to protect its own citizens against another country's products does not automatically grant the right to forbid that country the freedom to produce them. [...]
Mr. Morales is ... threatening to revise policy on libertarian grounds. Let the United States meet its own problems in any way it chooses. But do not let it rely on a venerable, 500-year-old nation to undertake its dirty work.
Buckley observes that if the United States wants to continue to pursue its policies in countries like Bolivia, it'll be through the free market -- we'll have to pay premium prices in foreign/military aid to do so. (But then, our Congress has never had much problem with that.)
7:07:42 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 |
Stephen Harper's conservatives win in Canada
linkOTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadians elected their first Conservative government in 12 years, but gave it only a limited minority mandate to change policies and priorities.
Harper is the guy who promised to get tougher on drugs.
Asked why he would saddle a student who is caught with a small amount of the substance with a criminal record, Mr. Harper said "we believe we have to send a message" that these types of activities are unacceptable. In his talks with people who have become addicted to harder drugs, he said, they almost always say they started with marijuana.
But as reader Ben Heumann commented at the time:
The Federal government in Canada is much weaker that the Federal government in the US in comparison to provinces and states respectively. Although Mr. Harper may want to further criminalize pot, the provinces don't and won't, leaving Mr. Harper with nothing but talk.
That, along with the limited mandate should serve to give Harper little power.
Minority governments in Canada rarely last longer than 18 months. The outgoing minority Liberal government stayed in power for 17 months before it was defeated in November 2005 over a kickback scandal.
Unlike the Liberals, who governed with the help of the New Democrats, the Conservatives have no natural allies in a four-party Canadian Parliament and will need the support of political rivals on an issue-by-issue basis.
9:12:11 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 23, 2006 |
European Parliament calls for change of approach in Afghanistan
Via Email from International AntiProhibitionist League...
These are excerpts from a European Parliament Resolution adopted on January 18.
The European Parliament,
[...]
D. whereas the pervasive opium and heroin production carries the risk of permanently affecting the nation's politics, crippling its society and distorting a fragile economy while consolidating a corrupt narco-elite,
[...]
18. Expresses deep concern about illegal drug production -- as highlighted by the recent Afghan Opium Survey 2005 carried out by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, in particular the latest statistics on domestic heroin consumption -- which could lead to an HIV/AIDS emergency in the region;
19. Draws attention to the extremely high costs and serious flaws in terms of effectiveness of a counter-narcotics strategy based only on eradication and alternative livelihood and calls on the participants in the London Conference to take into consideration the proposal of licensed production of opium for medical purposes, as already granted to a number of countries;
Another chink in the wall.
9:53:42 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Doesn't ANYBODY in Washington have a copy of the Constitution?
New York Times (via Atrios)
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who led the National Security Agency when it began the warrantless wiretaps, vigorously defended the program , though he acknowledged that it depended on a lower standard of evidence than required by courts.
"The trigger is quicker and a bit softer," said General Hayden, an Air Force officer who is now the principal deputy director of the new national intelligence agency, "but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve Al Qaeda or one of its affiliates."
The standard laid out by General Hayden - a "reasonable basis to believe" - is lower than "probable cause," the standard used by the special court created by Congress to handle surveillance involving foreign intelligence.
And gee, I wonder why that "special court created by Congress" chose the "probable cause" standard.
Anyone? Bueller?
Fourth Amendment: 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.
So how could the NSA go with a lower standard than probable cause?
General Hayden defended the program's constitutionality. He said the lower, "reasonable belief" standard conformed to the wording of the Fourth Amendment, asserting that it does not mention probable cause, but instead forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
Does not mention probable cause? Hello?
Fourth Amendment: 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.
Well maybe they just decided that since the fourth amendment mentions probable cause in conjunction with warrants, the best way to get around it is to... not get a warrant.
If it wasn't clear before, it is now. The administration is actively pursuing a policy that is illegal, un-Constitutional, and un-American, and if allowed to succeed, just think how long it'll be before authorization to use that power moves outside the war on terror into the war on drugs -- if it hasn't already (since the administration already conflates the two).
It wouldn't take much. Some drug war violence on the Mexican border. President says that the narco-terrorists are threatening us, and for the safety of the American people, it's important to use the tools we're already using in the war on terror and apply it to this situation. And "Don't worry. Trust us. We'll only use it on those suspected of being a Mexican or of using drugs..."
And just when you thought you were being paranoid...
 Via TalkLeft:
Patriot Act Renewal Includes Creation of a Federal Police Force
Section 605:
A permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,'" empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence" ... or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.
Now most of the language allows this federal police force to protect the President, Presidential candidates and their wives, Ambassadors, Embassies and extends their coverage outside of Washington, DC to anywhere in the United States, but there's also a nice little vague provision that they can be used for
(11) An event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance.
And what's a special event in section 3056(e) of title 18?
e)(1) When directed by the President, the United States Secret Service is authorized to participate, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at special events of national significance, as determined by the President.
(2) At the end of each fiscal year, the President through such agency or office as the President may designate, shall report to the Congress--
(A) what events, if any, were designated special events of national significance for security purposes under paragraph (1); and
(B) the criteria and information used in making each designation.
In other words, it's any event the President says is a special event.
Gee, I wonder if there's "reason to believe" that some Federal Police will show up at my next party? Should I send them invitations?
Update: Here's the actual exchange from the government transcript (please alert me if the online version changes):
MR. HILL: Final question.
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MR. HILL: I'm sorry.
Thank you very much, General Hayden.
And with that, this proceeding is over. Thank you.
[END.]
[emphasis added]
I can't believe it! What idiots are running this country?
4:58:55 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Prohibitioning is Hard Work
It's gotten to the point where it just makes me laugh.
Mark Kleiman has a good post about meth policy based on a New York Times Article.
Policies that make pseudoephedrine harder to buy in order to deprive methamphetamine cooks of a key ingredient can indeed reduce small-scale domestic production, but the result is increased supply of a more expensive and more potent version of the same drug from Mexico.
And then, as usual, he has to do this...
If you think the moral of the story is that drug abuse control policy is always futile, I can't agree. But if you think the moral of the story is that drug abuse control policy is hard, I'm with you.
Gotta admire his perseverance. Despite all the facts, history, and his own critiques, this "reality-based" guy is determined that someday, somehow, he's going to find a way to make prohibition work.
12:02:31 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 22, 2006 |
Look at all the 60-year-old hippie heroin addicts!
Nathan Tabor is a professional moralist who writes for The Conservative Voice, and he brings us The War on Drugs Update:
Each night, network news programs in America turn their focus on the war in Iraq. Yet, routinely, the national news media ignore another war that's been going on now for more than 30 years--the war on drugs.
By all indications, we continue to lose this hidden war. And frankly, there are a number of people in the news media and in Hollywood who are actually rooting for the other side. They're the individuals who believe that there is no danger in a 13-year-old smoking pot when he should be in school... a twenty-eight-year-old mother smoking crack... or a 60-year-old ex-hippie who's addicted to heroin. [emphasis added]
I'm assuming he's talking about drug policy reformers. But don't you love the examples he uses? As if those three groups represent the drug using population! -- but this is a typical tactic. In actuality, drug policy reformers are actually more interested in preventing the 13-year-old from smoking pot, through a regulated system that actually checks for age (not like our current black-market system). 28-year-old crack mothers are becoming a rarity, and if you find a 60-year-old ex-hippie addicted to heroin who's still alive... you gotta be impressed!
The thing is, Nathan's actual suggestions aren't all that bad -- parents talking to kids, schools and churches providing education -- although he injects his own moral values into the solution (like requiring a church-attending two-parent family), and he misses one of the most effective ways of reducing kids' drug use -- after-school activities.
We could be on the same side, and yet...
He appears to be adamantly opposed to those who would change the laws, despite the fact that he admits the laws don't work. The reason? He fears that even medical marijuana will "make drug use more acceptable to the general public." And after all...
And can't even casual drug use destroy marriages, decimate families, and ruin lives?
So we see, Nathan isn't interested in the truth, or in really keeping the 13-year-old off drugs. He's more interested in promoting his "morality."
11:44:49 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Guest Rant
Just a reminder to everyone that there is the opportunity to add your own Drug War Rant at Guest Rants.
The latest addition is The War on Drugs: Problems and Resolutions by Dexter Gilbert. Gilbert discusses his own experience with doctors and pain medication, and gives his thoughts on the problems in both the licit and illicit drug markets (and their relationship).
7:13:05 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Showtime working on medical marijuana documentary
Showtime has announced several documentaries in the works, including this one:
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
In the continuing controversy surrounding the medicinal value of marijuana, seven chronically ill individuals continue to receive medical marijuana from the U.S. government even though the law was recently changed to stop this practice. Four of these seven will be interviewed for this documentary. Their illnesses range from M.S. and congenital cataracts to neurological dysfunction and hyperparathyroidism, incredibly painful maladies which are substantially relieved with marijuana cigarettes that have been provided by the federal government for years. While only these individuals continue to get relief within the law, millions of others cannot. This provocative film explores federal drug policy through the eyes of reform organizations, prohibitionist groups, politicians, drug war critics, scientists, and celebrities in an effort to make sense out of the divisive argument between drug abuse, recreational drug use, and medicine. Star Price serves as executive producer, writer and director with Mark Wolper and Joshua E. Kessler serving as executive producers.
I'm guessing that the delightful Irv Rosenfeld will be part of the documentary. Should be interesting. (By the way, I have no idea when this will actually be aired.)
12:37:12 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
