|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, March 25, 2006 |
Ohio, on the take
The State of Ohio, which already got a huge black eye this year from "investing" millions in pension funds with a "rare coin dealer" who was also a campaign contributor, is again being shown to have no regard for financial accountability -- this time in the theft of citizens' assets.
Greg Schwartz of the Free Times has found:
On March 1, all Ohio law enforcement agencies
were supposed to send an annual report to the state attorney general's office listing all money and property they've seized in drug cases during the previous fiscal year. But since 1997, less than half have complied, according to Attorney General Jim Petro's staff.
What's worse, it's not clear that Petro even cares. His staff claims that the AG's office has "neither the authority nor the resources" to enforce such reporting, which is required by Ohio law.
Ed Orlett, a spokesperson for the Ohio chapter of Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), believes this lack of enforcement could open a Pandora's box of potential corruption. "It's a multi-million dollar business," says Orlett of search-and-seizure operations. "[Authorities] seize cash and property which they liquidate, and which goes into a law enforcement slush fund of sorts."
I haven't talked much about this recently, but asset forfeiture is one of the major abuses that has come out of the drug war. Originally intended to go after the assets of major organized crime operations, the drug war has brought it to the retail law enforcement market, with seizures of cash, cars, houses, land -- anything they can attempt to link to drug transactions, even if they don't have enough evidence to charge the owner with a crime.
Probably the most infamous case of asset forfeiture abuse is that of Donald Scott (listed on the Drug War Victims page) -- a millionaire with a large piece of land that government agencies really wanted to have. Donald was shot and killed in a raid that was intended to find some drugs so they could seize the land. A later report stated: "It is the District Attorney's opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. This search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant."
There are also numerous stories of people losing their life savings or their homes. Recently, Boulder City Attorney Dave Olsen tried to seize a woman's house for having 6 marijuana plants.
The fact that local law enforcement agencies get to keep most of what they seize (and the federal government actually helps local agencies do this, even in cases where the state government opposes it) makes this program ripe for abuse. It's completely improper for an agency to profit from their seizure of citizens' property, and yet that's how the system works.
So for over half of Ohio's law enforcement agencies to not even report what they've seized, and the state not hold them accountable -- that's criminal.
For more on asset forfeiture, visit Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR).
2:24:11 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, March 24, 2006 |
Methamphetamine Profits
Look at all these unscrupulous thugs and criminals making big money from meth. They've found a big cash cow.
... and you're paying for it.
9:05:41 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, March 23, 2006 |
Drug Czar needs some medicinal truth serum
Sometimes this guy just outdoes himself.
John Walters, White House drug czar: "Nobody says I need medicinal meth, medicinal crack, medical Jack Daniels. The fact of the matter is, and we have to have compassion for the sick and dying, but Prop. 215 is being used to suggest marijuana is good for you."
You know, I really try to be a good person. I was raised to be a good person. I really believe in helping people and I generally don't wish for bad things to happen to people. And yet, I must admit that there are times like this that I find a part of me hoping that the Drug Czar would find himself someday in the position of needing the relief of medical marijuana. Then I would like to be the one to bring it to him and have a nice little chat.
[Thanks, Allan]
10:47:00 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 |
Supreme Court gets one right
Via TalkLeft
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that if one resident of the house is present and objects, a consent search is not allowed, even if another resident gives consent.
Judge Alito did not participate. Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissented.
You can access the syllabus here; Justice Souter's opinion here; Justice John Paul Stevens' concurring opinion here; Justice Stephen G. Breyer's concurring opinion here; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.'s dissenting opinion here; Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion here; Justice Clarence Thomas's dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
Update: Just a reminder. This ruling doesn't help you if you're not home and your spouse/roommate give consent for a search. Which is why it's always a good idea to pick your spouse/roommate carefully, and make sure everybody in the house knows never to consent to a search without a warrant.
And if you ask why you should worry if you don't have any drugs, I respond: Can you be absolutely sure that none of your friends lost something out of their pocket that went behind the sofa cushions when they visited you? Are you 100% certain that there isn't a secret compartment or stash in the ceiling left by the previous occupant? Are you looking forward to hiring a lawyer to try to prove you knew nothing about those?
11:25:28 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Lawsuit!
The ACLU and Students for Sensible Drug Policy are filing a federal lawsuit today against the Department of Education and Secretary Margaret Spellings. The suit challenges the constitutionality of the law that strips college financial aid from students with drug convictions. See New York Times article today. More info on the lawsuit is available here.
This is being covered over at the DARE Generation Blog, where they are also seeking students who have been denied financial aid to be part of the class action suit. If you're on a campus and would like to help out, go to the lawsuit page and print out some fliers to put up around campus to help them find plaintiffs.
8:38:17 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Jack Shafer takes on drug scare reporting again
In Slate: How Not to Report About Meth:
Start your article with an anecdote, preferably one about a user who testifies about how methamphetamine destroyed his life. Toss out some statistics to indicate that meth use is growing, even if the squishy numbers don't prove anything. Avoid statistics that cut against your case. Use and reuse the words "problem" and "epidemic" without defining them. Quote law enforcement officers extensively, whether they know what they're talking about or not. Avoid drug history except to make inflammatory comparisons between meth and other drugs. Gather grave comments from public-health authorities but never talk to critics of the drug war who might add an unwanted layer of complexity to your story.
Finally, attach a sensationalistic headline, such as "The Next Crack Cocaine? As Meth Use Grows, Officials Fear Region Is Unprepared to Deal With It." That's what the Washington Post did on March 19 in a piece that landed on the front page of the Metro section.
Jack does a great job once again at taking down the irresponsible reporting that has so often, over the years, fueled the excesses of the drug war. The result of such reporting is extremely destructive to society (see Len Bias, or crack cocaine), and it's done strictly for ratings.
Update: Since I mentioned Len Bias above, it occurred to me that not all my readers may be familiar with the Len Bias story. Here's a good recap of the situation and the result from CounterPunch.
On June 19, 1986, Maryland University basketball star Len Bias died from an overdose of cocaine. As Dan Baum put it in his excellent Smoke and Mirrors, The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, "In life, Len Bias was a terrific basketball player. In death he became the Archduke Ferdinand of the Total War on Drugs." It was falsely reported that Bias had smoked crack cocaine the night before his death. In fact he had used powder cocaine and there was no link between this use and the failure of his heart, according to the coroner. Bias had signed with the Boston Celtics and amid Boston's rage and grief Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a Boston rep, rushed into action. In early July he convened a meeting of the Democratic Party leadership: "Write me some goddamn legislation," he ordered. "All anybody in Boston is talking about is Len Bias. They want blood. If we move fast enough we can get out in front of the White House." In fact the White House was moving pretty fast. Among other things the DEA had been instructed to allow ABC News to accompany it on raids against crackhouses. "Crack is the hottest combat-reporting story to come along since the end of the Vietnam war," the head of the New York office of the DEA exulted.
All this fed into congressional frenzy to write tougher laws. House Majority Leader Jim Wright called drug abuse "a menace draining away our economy of some $230 billion this year, slowly rotting away the fabric of our society and seducing and killing our young." Not to be outdone, South Carolina Republican Thomas Arnett proclaimed that "drugs are a threat worse than nuclear warfare or any chemical warfare waged on any battlefield." The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was duly passed. It contained 29 new minimum mandatory sentences. Up until that time in the history of the Republic there had been only 56 mandatory minimum sentences. The new law had a death penalty provision for drug "king pins" and prohibited parole for even minor possession offenses. But the chief focus of the bill was crack cocaine. Congress established a 100-to-1 sentencing ratio between possession of crack and powder cocaine. Under this provision possession of five grams of crack carries a minimum five-year federal prison sentence. The same mandatory minimum is not reached for any amount of powder cocaine under 500 grams. This sentencing disproportion was based on faulty testimony that crack was 50 times as addictive as powdered coke. Congress then doubled this ratio as a so-called "violence penalty."
And we've been living with the horrific results of those laws ever since.
8:10:02 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Coca is not Cocaine
Bolivian President Evo Morales is going to the United Nations in an attempt to legalize the leaf in the international community.
Under the slogan "coca is not cocaine", they are calling for coca-based products, ranging from staples such as tea and bread to cosmetic goods such as shampoo, to be mass-produced and exported from all over South America.
But the plant, because of its close link to cocaine, is listed by the UN as a poisonous species, something which Bolivia hopes to change this week as it takes the case for legalising coca to the UN narcotics and crime agency in Vienna.
He'll have a tough go of it with that hard-line group, but I wish him luck.
Needles to say, the U.S. is not amused.
If he succeeds in changing the plant's status by 2008, Washington will not be happy. The US, which spends $1bn a year on its so-called "war on drugs" across South America, says it would be impossible to legalise coca growing in Bolivia without sending cocaine production soaring.
US officials express serious concerns that the new wave of leftist Latin American leaders - from Bolivia's President Morales to the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez - are acting in the interests of cocaine barons.
Of course, in reality, it's the United States that acts in the interests of cocaine barons. If it wasn't for our government, it wouldn't be so profitable.
7:51:50 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 |
We decided to stop doing that...
Sometimes you read a sentence and your head explodes.
Clark County Sheriff Bill Young ended the long-standing practice of placing narcotics inside the vehicles of law-abiding motorists as a training exercise for drug-sniffing dogs in April 2005.
Link. Via Baylen at To the People.
10:27:12 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
The Agitator and SWAT Teams
Radley Balko at The Agitator continues to be one of the most important reads out there. He's got tons of posts and pictures from his recent trip to investigate the Cory Maye case.
He and I are in total agreement regarding the improper use of military-style tactics against American citizens in the name of the drug war (or for other reasons for that matter). That led me to my Drug War Victims page, and him to his continuing series on Paramilitary Police Raids.
Today he discusses SWAT teams further, and it's a good post. Here's an excerpt:
We also need to ask ourselves, quite simply, if we want to live in a society where its appropriate to serve warrants on nonviolent offenders with cops dressed in battle garb. I sure as hell don't. Does a pot smoker really deserve to have his door beaten down while he's sleeping? To be sworn at, forced to the ground at gunpoint, and handcuffed? Go back to that Churchill quote: "Democracy means that when there's a knock at the door at 4 am, it's probably the milkman." What does it mean that we've reached the point where not only can we no longer be sure it's actually the milkman, but that police don't even bother to knock?
Factor in the fact that many of these raids are conducted on evidence as flimsy as a single tip from a single confidential informant, who may have given that tip in exchange for drugs, money, or leniency with respect to his own drug charges, and judges who've turned warrant applictations into a rubber-stamp process, and you've effectively created a police state. Cops can break down your door in the middle of the night barely any evidence at all. They can terrorize your family at gunpoint. And even when they make a mistake (and they often do), there's rarely if any disciplinary action taken, or changes in procedure to made to make sure the same mistakes don't happen again. The best example of that is the fact that the same mistakes do continue to happen. Over and over.
9:41:24 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 20, 2006 |
Koufax Award Finalist
Thanks to all who voted for Drug WarRant in the Koufax Awards. You have placed this blog in a very prestigious group of finalists for Single Issue Blog. Here's the full info about the final voting.
I've never really thought there was a chance of winning the category (going against great blogs like TalkLeft), so getting in the group of finalists is like winning to me. Interestingly, the Koufax Awards are intended to honor lefty blogs, and Drug WarRant has always been open to any part of the political spectrum that is willing to oppose the drug war - left, right, center, or libertarian. The real victory here is seeing a "lefty" awards site accept and support drug policy reform as an issue of importance.
Now all I need is to achieve finalist in a "righty" awards... get everybody working together to make some changes.
11:02:14 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Some sage reporting
Thanks to Bill for alerting me to this NPR story tonight on Salvia Divinorum: Legal, Herbal Hallucinogenic Draws Teens, Critics
I turned on the radio while driving home and caught the beginning...
18 year-old Justine Cavanaugh said she didn't know what to expect when she tried smoking Salvia Divinorum last summer. She really didn't even know what it was.
"We had just passed by a store front and saw that Salvia is sold here -- I'm like 'Oh, what's that?'"
Cavanaugh and two friends thought that since the herb sometimes called "Magic Mint," "ska Maria Pastora" or "Sally D" is legal, it would be harmless and weak. So they paid $50 for the strongest dose of Salvia available at the head shop, went into a nearby alley, and lit it up...
At that point, I turned it off. Go ahead, listen to the rest of it, if you'd like. It appears there's actually some balance in the story based on the web page. But sometimes, I just get tired. And I can't stop the thoughts running through my head.
Thoughts like
- Great. Just what we need. Another media story about the latest drug fad. Hardly anyone's interested in Salvia, and most people who try it don't like it, but now everyone will be curious.
- Great. Just what we need. Another chance for politicians to show off and outlaw something.
- Who pays $50 for something they think is weak?
- If you think that everything that is legal is harmless, maybe you're ready to audition for the Darwin Awards. Kerosene is legal. And lethal. Why don't you try huffing some of that? (But then again, could it be that part of that attitude is a result of the drug war?)
- At least Justine Cavanaugh doesn't need to worry about losing any brain cells.
- Could the opening of this story be any more predictable?
7:55:13 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 19, 2006 |
First, they came for...
OK, folks. It's no longer tin-foil hat territory (it really hasn't been for some time, but now it's getting painfully obvious). What's left of the Fourth Amendment (and thus our freedom) is in serious jeopardy. This is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. We must, as Americans, rise up and stop the current administration from destroying the last vestiges of our Fourth Amendment rights.
To recap (in very simple terms -- there's plenty to read elsewhere if you want more detail):
- In the 1970's, Congress passed the FISA act -- basically to insure that no administration would spy on Americans without some oversight (to prevent abuse), while giving the administration expansive powers to spy on certain individuals (including Americans who are in contact with foreign powers). FISA created a secret Court, and the ability to wiretap without getting the warrant until 72 hours later.
- The Bush administration, without Congressional or Court approval (and in fact while publicly pretending to go along with crafting changes to FISA for years), chose to break/ignore the law, and now claims that it is not subject to the law.
- The Bush administration has admitted to carrying out one specific program that does not comply with FISA, related to communications between U.S. citizens and foreigners, where either is suspected of being a terrorist or providing aid to terrorism. The administration refuses to state whether there are other programs in place that are also in violation of FISA or the Fourth Amendment. The administration also refuses to define the scope of their targeting ability (ie, what is the definition of "aid to terrorism")
- Last night, a U.S. News and World Report article was released online that speculates that the administration has also been doing warrantless physical searches of property of U.S. citizens. The article specifically reports on meetings that discussed that very topic (and Attorney General Gonzales has danced around the questions in such a way as to make it almost a surety that this activity is happening.) At least one defense attorney representing a suspect is sure that he was the target of warrantless clandestine searches.
- Rather than investigate and discover the full extent of the programs, Congress has avoided dealing with it. Most recently, Senator Mike DeWine has proposed a bill that would legalize the administration's actions. Not only that, it would replace review by Courts with review by a small group of Senators who would be prohibited by law from doing anything about any abuses they found. Additionally, the law would allow the results of warrantless searches to be used as the evidence to obtain a secret legitimate warrant through FISA (see analysis), making a mockery of the Court oversight system.
Now why should I care? I'm not a terrorist. What do I have to worry about?
Well, if you think that the administration is only going to use this power against al-Qaida, then you're living in a dream world. Remember the fact that the Coast Guard spent more tax dollars last year fighting the war on drugs than has been spent in total on port security since Sept. 11? Remember all the armed federal agents that went after sick people in California using medical marijuana shortly after the Anthrax attacks when we didn't yet know who had committed that act of terrorism? (Who did they end up catching for the anthrax, anyway? I've forgotten.) Remember the TV and print ads that said if you use drugs, you're providing aid to terrorists? Ever notice how often the government uses the word "narcoterrorists"?
So let's just suppose that an administration wanted to prop up public opinion in its failing drug war. And let's suppose that an administration got annoyed by certain web sites that keep pointing out the problems with the drug war. And let's suppose that an administration unilaterally decided that those certain web sites were "aiding" narcoterrorists by printing stories of the drug war's failures (after all, they would have the sole determination of the definition of "aiding" with no possibility of Congressional or Court over-ruling, even though we know it's the drug warriors that aid narcoterrorists.) Well, then, it's not a hard stretch to envision secret searches of homes that end up "finding" evidence that can't be challenged in court because the methods were classified top secret.
Not, of course, that I assume that the current administration would do such a thing -- they assure us that they have only honorable intent. But such destruction of rights sets long-term precedence.
Sure, we're used to being paranoid. Those involved in studying the drug war are more aware than most U.S. citizens of how the Fourth Amendment has been eroded in the name of the war on drugs. Now, maybe more of the country will be willing to wake up.
Remember, the Fourth Amendment isn't there to protect terrorists or drug dealers. The Fourth Amendment is there to protect Americans. It says that our bodies and our property are not vassals of an autocratic government to be inspected or taken at its whim. Rather we are free people, secure in our possessions, and such freedom cannot be trampled upon without extraordinary reason nor without oversight to prevent governmental abuse.
To those who say that we must sacrifice our Fourth Amendment rights to protect against terrorists, we must respond that it is simply not an option. Instead, perhaps the government will have to learn how to be competent.
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.
12:27:43 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
No pot smokers allowed in the U.S.
I was aware that very minor drug infractions could prevent people from getting a U.S. visa, but I was not aware until now that merely admitting that you had, at some point in your life, tried marijuana, was enough to deny a visa and ban you from the United States for life.
From this article in today's Philippine Star by Michael J. Gurfinkel (an immigration attorney):
Many Filipinos consulted with me regarding the same problem: their visa was denied by the US Embassy because they admitted to the doctors at St. Luke's that they had, years ago, smoked marijuana or used some other drug. At their visa interview, they are shocked to find that their visa is being refused, with the annotation "you have admitted to committing acts which constitute a controlled substance violation - no waiver."
In one case, a 29-year-old nurse had been recruited for a job in a US hospital. During visa processing, she was asked a very routine question: "Have you smoked marijuana or taken any controlled substance?" The nurse said that she had "tasted" marijuana once during a party when she was 18 years old. It was just a harmless "try", done out of curiosity. Her visa was denied, and she was banned for life.
Brutal. OK, the nurse was a naif. You never admit to anything that you don't have to when dealing with a government. But people who admitted previous drug use to their doctors?
I did a little Googling for the law, and sure enough:
any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits acts which constitute the essential elements of--
(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense), or
(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is excludable.
Note: The law has an exclusion for minor offenses in the case of section I, but not for section II (the part dealing with violation of the Controlled Substances Act).
So don't admit to smoking pot. You can become President if you're already a U.S. citizen and have smoked pot, but you can't get a visa to come here.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
... as long as they haven't tried pot.
8:27:31 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
