|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, December 16, 2006 |
Mexico and the use of troops
I've got to admit that I was a bit puzzled earlier this week when Mexico's President Felipe Calderon decided to send 7,000 soldiers, federal police and Navy forces to Michoacan to fight the drug war, and then expanded that to other states.
Using troops in a so-called "drug war" is kind of like the British redcoats in bright uniforms, marching in formation and upset that the colonists aren't playing fair. It just doesn't work. Sure, you might nail a few of the more obvious targets, but the rest of the trafficking system will just blend in like a chameleon, giving soldiers nothing to shoot at but civilians.
And sure enough, the LA Times reports today: Mexico anti-drug effort mostly a bust ("... and not the kind Calderon had in mind.")
New president's initiative yields little in the way of seizures and no arrests despite its high profile.
So far, no surprise.
But there was a very interesting passage at the end of the article:
The Calderon administration's strategy may be limited, at least for now, to warning traffickers that the government will interfere with their business unless the killings end, analysts say.
"They're not trying to end drug trafficking or drug use," said Jorge Chabat, a drug trade expert. "They're just trying to maintain a minimum amount of order.
"This is more like a father with a misbehaving adolescent."
Woah! That's very interesting. My reading of that is that Mexico may be wishing to send a negotiating message that non-violent trafficking may be winked at by the state in order to reduce the violence. If so, that's a pretty major policy decision that won't sit well with the U.S.
3:57:56 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, December 15, 2006 |
This day in history
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
- No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
- 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.
- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
- In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
12:07:24 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
The incendiary words of financial interest
Whenever you hear over-the-top rhetoric like this, you know that they're really interested in protecting their drug war budget. Check out The Bahamas' Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Minister Mitchell noted that resources are essential to winning the drug war.
"Retrenchment is not an option. If we retrench, then the forces of darkness take over," the minister said.
"We have a daily struggle in this country to convince... especially the young that it pays to be on the side of the good. Fortunately, the resources that we employ help to ensure that, for the majority, they support good over evil."
Retrenchment refers to the reduction of expenditures in order to become financially stable. Mr. Mitchell was advocating at the least the maintenance of the current level of expenditure on joint US-Bahamas drug interdiction efforts.
12:15:22 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 14, 2006 |
Congress tells Drug Czar to shut up
Well, they didn't really go that far, but they did put a good provision in the final ONDCP reauthorization bill (via Drug Policy Alliance)
(e) Prohibitions- None of the amounts made available [for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign] may be obligated or expended for...partisan political purposes, or express advocacy in support of or to defeat any clearly identified candidate, clearly identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified legislative or regulatory proposal.
This is great news -- and it signals, perhaps, that Congress was not so amused by the Drug Czar and his minions flitting around the country in October to campaign against the initiatives in Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota.
I don't know, however, if this is only specific to the Media Campaign fund and whether the Drug Czar can use other money for this purpose. Anyone able to help out on that?
I did find another really annoying bit within the bill (Go to Thomas and search for HR 6344)
- FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:
- 60 percent of adolescent admissions for drug treatment are based on marijuana use.
- Potency levels of contemporary marijuana, particularly hydroponically grown
marijuana, are significantly higher than in the past, rising from under 1 percent of THC in the mid-1970s to as high as 30 percent today.
- Contemporary research has demonstrated that youths smoking marijuana early in life may be up to 5 times more likely to use hard drugs.
- Contemporary research has demonstrated clear detrimental effects in adolescent educational achievement resulting from marijuana use.
- Contemporary research has demonstrated clear detrimental effects in adolescent brain development resulting from marijuana use.
- An estimated 9,000,000 Americans a year drive while under the influence of illegal drugs, including marijuana.
- Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more of certain cancer causing chemicals than tobacco smoke.
- Teens who use marijuana are up to 4 times more likely to have a teen pregnancy than teens who have not.
- Federal law enforcement agencies have identified clear links suggesting that trade in hydroponic marijuana facilitates trade by criminal organizations in hard drugs, including heroin.
- Federal law enforcement agencies have identified possible links between trade in cannabis products and financing for terrorist organizations.
I love the way Congress avoids having to actually consider facts -- they just make them up and call them "findings." I guess they find them in that big box where they keep the Easter Bunny and their integrity.
6:08:57 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Canada -- Drug Czar's Puppet
Canada's Tory government seems anxious to attach the strings and start dancing to John Walters' tune.
Internal documents show U.S. involvement in Canada's national drug strategy
''The Harper government favours a U.S.-style approach to drug problems, which is to lock more people up and don't treat it as a health problem, treat it as a criminal law problem of morality,'' Boyd said.
''That's very much at odds with what's going on in Europe and there's really no good evidence to suggest that it's going to be terribly useful.''
New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, whose Vancouver East riding includes the supervised injection facility, said the Harper government appears to be ''taking orders''from the American drug czar and other top officials of the Bush administration."
[Thanks, Allan]
Related: The North Shore News editorial Missing the Point
THE RCMP's decision to weigh in with an internal report criticizing Vancouver's supervised injection site is an indication that more work is needed - not so much on the injection site itself but on long-held beliefs about drug use.
Produced this summer when the Harper government was considering Insite's licence, the report voices the opinion that anything that lowers the perceived risk of drug use is bad, because it could encourage both addicts and potential new drug users, who no longer have to worry about overdosing or contracting HIV/AIDS.
That kind of ideological analysis, based on next to no actual evidence, would be laughable if it wasn't apparently being given consideration in Ottawa.
Leaving aside the question of whether addicts are usually carefully weighing their situations before sticking needles in their arms, the report misses the point of Insite, which isn't to make drugs either scary or not, but to reduce the harm associated with them. So far all the studies - as opposed to anecdotal observations cited by the RCMP - - have suggested that it's working.
Addicts are rarely scared into quitting. Prohibitions - on drugs or booze - have also been largely failed experiments.
The injection site is an attempt to try a new approach - one that considers addiction as a medical, rather than criminal, issue. It deserves a chance, and it deserves to succeed or fail on its own merits unencumbered by institutional prejudices.
10:57:09 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Top 10
Thanks to The Liberator for including Drug WarRant on his "If you were stranded on a desert island with a laptop and a wireless connection, and God limited you to 10 blogs, which ones would you read?" list.
9:51:49 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Regarding the Marijuana Policy Project report on laws and teen use
I briefly mentioned the MPP report on Monday (Laws don't curb teen marijuana use), and I wanted to point out a couple of less-than-stellar reviews that it got from drug policy reform fans.
- Jacob Sullum has a thoughtful analysis at Reason
- The Drug Law Blog takes me to task for being inaccurate with my characterization of the report, and does a fine job of criticizing the report for its reliance on big-picture rather than specific statistical support.
Thing is, I agree with both of them and yet still stand by my approval of the MPP report.
How can this be, you ask?
Here's my thinking.
First, there's no real way to definitively answer the question as to whether laws reduce or increase or have no affect on marijuana and teens, for a number of reasons.
- It's an impossible question, given that a myriad of factors can be involved, including trends, fads, effects of education, substitution factors, etc.
- Reporting data is extremely unreliable. Survey results when getting people to self-report illegal behavior are prone to intentional error (in both ways).
- The definitions are ineffective -- since the government allows no difference in the definition of use and abuse, someone who uses occasionally with no ill effects (the equivalent of wine with a dinner) is treated the same statistically as a heavy or problem user).
- No laboratories. The federal government has, through international treaty, and interference with state initiatives, actively worked to stop any attempt at a current day laboratory situation in a country or state to have a situation where we could legitimately compare the effects of marijuana laws versus marijuana regulation only.
The fact that there is no way to definitively answer the question has not prevented the government from doing so -- at every opportunity, and largely unchallenged. And its answer has been that drug laws reduce marijuana use. Period. That has become the de-facto assumption that everyone operates under, despite the fact that the onus of proof should be on the government, and they have been unable to prove it. Sure, they trot out meaningless micro-statistics (like "Marijuana use from 2002-2004 went down 4% by teens aged 15-17 -- a clear indication that the drug laws are working" [note: don't check that figure, I just made that one up]) And so every time the Drug Czar puts out one of those figures, the press eats it up and dutifully reports that the drug war is working.
It is in this context that the MPP report must be viewed. On its own, it has minimal statistical value or confidence. However, it was never intended to be viewed as a stand-alone item. Note the press release when MPP issued the report on Monday:
A new report from the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) in Washington, D.C., challenges the key assumption underlying present U.S. marijuana laws: that marijuana must be prohibited for adults in order to deter teens from using it.
MPP's report, available at www.mpp.org/teenuse, comes as the federal government prepares to release its annual "Monitoring the Future" survey of teenage drug use, which is traditionally released in mid-December. [emphasis added]
It's clear that the purpose of the MPP report is to provide context to the federal government's misuse of data.
We cannot continue to allow the government to establish the factual base when it is, in fact, not factual. One thing that we can do is convince the press to question the underlying assumption. I believe that was the purpose of this report, and it works.
No, MPP did not come out with any startling new information, or clear data results that say "Look! Marijuana laws cause marijuana use!" nor did they specifically represent it in that way. Sure, they were perhaps a little over-confident in their interpretation (though not even close to what comes from the federal government [no excuse, I know]), but again the way this report is to be used is primarily to force the press to question, and it's particularly aimed at the press who don't otherwise know enough to question the government's contentions.
Now, when a member of the media prints the regurgitated data from the ONDCP, they have the ability to add "although critics contend that drug laws have limited effect on teen marijuana use, and may even have a reverse effect in some situations."
This report isn't for Jacob Sullum -- he knows a lot more by himself than is revealed in the report. It's for the reporter who has only a peripheral view of drug policy and assumes that what the government puts out must be true.
One additional note: On the "Gateway" effect. Drug Law Blog notes:
I'm also kind of amazed that the MPP in this study invokes the so-called "gateway effect" of marijuana when, in other contexts, I'm quite sure that they would deny (reasonably) that the use of marijuana is necessarily a gateway to harder drugs.
MPP in this situation invokes the gateway effect of black-market prohibition, which is different than the gateway effect of marijuana. The marijuana gateway effect says that marijuana use leads to other drugs. The black-market prohibition gateway effect says that the prohibition of marijuana puts people who use marijuana in greater proximity with other drugs since they have to buy it on the black market. There is absolutely no evidence for the marijuana gateway effect -- if there is a gateway effect at all (uncertain), it's more likely to exist as a black-market prohibition gateway.
Of course, the word "gateway" is a problematic one, since its definition has become so muddy. Some assume that it means "causal condition" while others use it to simply refer to an "anecdotal sequence."
9:29:42 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 |
|
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 |
Kucinich
Dennis announced his candidacy for Presidency in 2008. That's good news because it means there's a chance that the drug war will be a topic for discussion.
As a reminder to folks, here's some information about Kucinich from 3 years ago.
6:40:22 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 11, 2006 |
DEA Guilty of Retaliation
Via Scott Morgan comes this in the Miami Herald
A federal jury in Miami found the Drug Enforcement Administration discriminated against Sandalio Gonzalez, the former second-in-command of the DEA's South Florida field office, by retaliating against him with a transfer to another job in Texas in 2001.
This is significant for a number of reasons. It validates Gonzalez' earlier whistleblowing and verifies the DEA's method of dealing with it. Gonzalez was also the whistleblower in the House of Death scandal in Texas (the DEA probably really regrets the transfer). This court decision also is going to make more people pay attention to the House of Death.
An interesting side note: speculation by Bill Conroy at NarcoNews as to why DEA head Karen Tandy cancelled her plans to testify on behalf of the DEA at this trial.
10:57:46 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
What a stretch!
It continues to amaze me how much the Drug Czar and his puppets are willing to bend and mutilate data in order to attempt to make a case for the dangers of drugged driving.
The drug czar's "blog" touts some supposedly important new information:
But in West Virginia, the regular testing has enabled the CDC to determine that drugs are found in 25.8 percent of people killed in wrecks. That's similar to the percentage of victims found with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit -- about 27.7 percent.
"These results suggest that drug use contributes substantially to driver impairment in West Virginia," the report says.
President Bush has declared December National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month.
Notice how they attempt to conflate the drugged percentage with the above the legal limit alcohol percentage?
OK, now note that this is a complete crock. And you don't even have to read the study. Just read the linked article with more than a 5 year old comprehension and you discover the following:
- In this study, drugs were found in 25.8 percent of those killed in wrecks. That includes passengers, pedestrians, drivers who weren't at fault, etc. There's no way of knowing how many of the drivers (or for that matter if any at all) were drugged.
- The most prevalent kind of drugs found were prescription drugs.
- There was no way to identify whether the prescription drugs were legally obtained or prescribed.
- The fact that marijuana was the most commonly found illicit drug is not a surprise at all -- it's the most commonly used and stays in the blood the longest. The fact that it came in well below prescription drugs just shows how prevalent prescription drug use is in the population.
- The study had no information about impairment, and therefore could not offer a single, solitary bit of evidence regarding the connection between drug use and fatal car accidents.
Once again, the drug czar lies.
And yes, I am at war with government officials who technically say truthful things with an intent to deceive. That practice is lying, pure and simple.
7:27:59 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
New Report: Laws don't curb teen marijuana use
From Bruce Mirken with MPP:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new report from the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) in Washington, D.C., challenges the key assumption underlying present U.S. marijuana laws: that marijuana must be prohibited for adults in order to deter teens from using it.
When reformers propose regulating marijuana for adults in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco, government officials typically argue that such a policy would encourage use by children, and such assertions are widely accepted by the press and the public. MPP undertook a thorough review of government data from the U.S. and around the world, as well as studies by think tanks and academic researchers. Key findings include:
- Marijuana prohibition has not prevented a dramatic increase in marijuana use by teenagers. In fact, the overall rate of marijuana use in the U.S. has risen by roughly 4,000% since marijuana was first outlawed.
- Independent studies by RAND Europe and the U.S. National Research Council have reported that marijuana prohibition appears to have little or no impact on rates of use.
- Since Britain ended most marijuana possession arrests in 2004, the rate of marijuana use by 16- to-19-year-olds has dropped.
- In the U.S., rates of teen marijuana use in states that have decriminalized adult marijuana possession are statistically equal to the rates in states that have retained criminal penalties.
- In the Netherlands, where adults have been allowed to possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana since 1976, the rate of marijuana use by adults and teens is lower than in the U.S., and teen use of cocaine and amphetamines is far lower than in the U.S. Indeed, some researchers believe it is the prohibition of marijuana that causes progression to hard drug use, sometimes called the "gateway effect."
"The idea that prohibiting adults from using marijuana will keep it away from kids is a myth that isn't backed up by the data," said MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia. "We need laws that are based on facts and science, not faith-based myths."
Full Report available for download
Now lets see if the press picks up on it. The report release is timed to coincide with the traditional release time of government's annual "Monitoring the Future" report. Each year, the ONDCP cherry-picks some out-of-context set of numbers from that report and touts it as either a victory in the drug war or a sign that we need to spend more/arrest more, etc. With the new MPP report, the press will have the option of at least "balancing" those claims with the real in-context information in the MPP report.
8:59:34 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 10, 2006 |
The Drug Czar running the war in Afghanistan?
Winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.
KABUL, Afghanistan: The top U.S. anti-drug official said Saturday that Afghan poppies would be sprayed with herbicide to combat an opium trade that produced a record heroin haul this year, a measure likely to anger farmers and scare Afghans unfamiliar with weed killers.
I guess we've screwed up Afghanistan so badly already that the administration has decided we might was well turn the whole show over to John Walters to finish destroying the country, and ending hopes of protecting our interests in the region.
The Afghan government has not publicly said it will spray, and President Hamid Karzai has said in the past that herbicides pose too big a risk, contaminating water and killing the produce that grows alongside poppies.
But Walters said Karzai and other officials have agreed to ground spraying.
"I think the president has said yes, and I think some of the ministers have repeated yes," Walters said without specifying when spraying would start. "The particulars of the application have not been decided yet, but yes, the goal is to carry out ground spraying."
Who's in charge of this lunatic asylum?
[Thanks, Allan]
9:41:09 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Learning the Wrong Lessons
Via Blame the Drug War, comes the story of a drug suspect in Canada who shot two policemen (a third was shot by friendly fire) during a drug raid when he thought the people busting in were home invaders.
So the head of the police union realizes that a change is in order. Not re-evaluating when home invasion is used in drug investigations (which would make sense), but rather...
WINNIPEG needs a full-time, heavily armed SWAT team to respond to drug busts and other potentially dangerous searches, says the boss of the local police union.
Loren Schinkel noted every other major Canadian city has a tactical team dedicated to that kind of situation, while Winnipeg is taking a big gamble by calling out its Emergency Response Unit on a case-by-case basis.
"The reality is, with 80 per cent of the warrants executed in Winnipeg by the drug unit, weapons are located," he said. "We're really rolling the dice."
Idiot. Using a full-time, heavily armed SWAT team for routine drug busts is not going to make them safer. But then again, he probably just wants to play with the cool toys. How many will die because he's a moron?
9:27:45 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Getting your priorities straight
With the tragic and unnecessary death of Kathryn Johnston in Atlanta and the serious questions regarding criminal misconduct by the police, bad policies, insufficient judicial oversight, and damage to relations in the African American community, naturally, it would make sense to see the political leaders stepping up and asking for investigations and changes.
Well, Senator Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta) is going to do something:
Despite a failed attempt this year to ban candy made to taste like marijuana, the Georgia state Senate's chief proponent of the law said he will "definitely" bring the issue back up in January.
"Will do. No doubt about it," said Sen. Vincent Fort, D Atlanta.
Perhaps Senator Fort's constituents should suggest to him that he remove his head from his ass.
Note: To be fair, Senator Fort was involved in organizing a community meeting about the Kathryn Johnston tragedy (although I've not found any public statements by him about the shooting), but still -- for marijuana flavored candy to be his legislative focus is just... idiotic.
1:40:53 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drug Law Blog has the first part of its 
