|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, June 2, 2007 |
Around the web
 thehim's Shooting Fish in a Barrel discusses a High School undercover operation (where the officer approaches students asking them to procure drugs for them) and just how ridiculous it is to assume that arrests in that situation have any meaning at all. It's also reminiscent of this despicable case, where an attractive female undercover cop gets H.S. boys with raging hormones to buy drugs for her.
At Reason's Hit and Run: The Minnesota Supreme Court chips away even more at the Fourth Amendment, in a case involving drugs and dogs, of course.
This was in the Drug War Chronicle I posted yesterday, but it's worth highlighting. Phillip Smith discusses the Ed Rosenthal trial and the interesting activist tactic of people in the medical marijuana movement refusing to testify against Rosenthal.
Good post by Scott Morgan on ONDCP's "Dr." David Murray's appearance at CATO for a discussion of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy." See also the comments there.
Grits for Breakfast has several interesting posts: Austin Tells TV show COPS "No Thanks", plus Unreliable urinalyses accuse innocent people, and A really bizarre reaction to police corruption.
Alex at Drug Law Blog asks Will it Regulate?
7:28:47 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, June 1, 2007 |
|
Thursday, May 31, 2007 |
Odds and Ends
LA Times editorializes: Ending the Marijuana Monopoly: Federal Officials Should Allow Competition in Growing the Drug for Needed Studies on Its Medical Use.
Good. Puts more pressure on DEA bad girl Michele Leonhart, who has to decide how to ignore the recommendations of DEA Judge Bittner.
Scott Morgan rants Testing Positive for Marijuana Doesn't Mean You're High
In a completely meaningless act, that merely showed that prosecutors are vindictive, that trials where the facts are excluded are shameful, and jurors who survive the process that weeds out the informed are clueless, Ed Rosenthal is again convicted and will be forced to serve zero time in prison.
8:13:11 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 |
Open Thread
I'm very busy in New York, seeing shows and giving walking tours all over the city. I've brought 79 people from Central Illinois to the city this year for a theatre trip. Saw Grey Gardens last night, Frost/Nixon and Year of Magical Thinking today, then LoveMusik, Moon for the Misbegotten, Spring Awakening, Crazy Mary, and a performance by Momix.
I will find some moments to blog in between all this craziness, but for right now, consider this an open thread.
9:06:38 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 28, 2007 |
More interesting discussions in the media
This editorial in the Edmonton Journal (Canada) responds to the suggestion that Harper will pursue a U.S.-style war on drugs.
If that is the case, it would be an unfortunate mistake with predictable and very disappointing outcomes.
While Washington from time to time trumpets bravely that it has scored a victory in the war on drugs, by all empirical measures it has been an abject failure.
It then goes on to detail the costs of the war in the U.S., and then:
One of the driving forces behind the U.S. war on drugs, especially under the Republican party, is Christianity. The religious right has placed "saving" people from the scourge of drugs as an important American value and tantamount to saving souls. It is one reason that successive administrations have continued to throw increasing resources at a fruitless war. The message, in essence, that the small number of those rescued from the grip of drugs justifies the billions used in the war.
Perpetuating the war also appeals to the military and law enforcement communities. They see it as another almost limitless source of funds to buy new equipment and recruit personnel. If the U.S. were to move toward a more permissive stance on illicit drug use, spending in this area would diminish, as would the number of military personnel, police officers and prison guards. In the U.S., prison and court costs alone for people jailed on drug charges -- mostly users and foot soldiers of organized crime, not the kingpins -- mean that our neighbours to the south pay out about $10 billion a year.
Interesting point about the Christian influence in the war on drugs. And it is true. There are many who support the war on drugs through a misguided sense of "morality" (which seems to be in the nature of attempting to save one sinner by sending the entire congregation to hell). "Christian" support of the war on drugs is, in actuality, a perversion of Christianity.
Christian morality is a personal choice that must be freely taken by an individual -- you don't achieve it through imposition by a secular government. But this popular tendency to push for criminal laws to enforce moral standards demonstrates self-doubt -- a faith that is so weak that they require the secular government to enforce it.
The informed and enlightened Christian (regardless of their beliefs on the morality of drug use) sees the entire picture and is horrified by the suffering imposed upon the people by the state. To participate in, or support such a war, would be immoral.
Additionally, the notion of the mere use of certain drugs as being immoral (oddly just the ones that have been outlawed by the state) has no grounding in Christianity -- it is primarily the invention of religious dogma and imposed upon the masses by the church.
Anyway, back to the Edmonton Journal...
Research has shown repeatedly that having young people involved in supervised after-school sports programs is the best way to keep kids and drugs apart.
Absolutely true -- although I wouldn't limit it to sports programs. Music, theatre -- any after school activities are far better at preventing youth drug abuse than school drug testing or enforcement activities.
If the Harper government believes that throwing more money into law enforcement and drug interdiction is the right model, it should do so only after explaining how it expects to succeed when all other similar efforts have shown no benefit and, in many cases, have resulted in considerable harm.
Accountability. What a concept!
10:45:19 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
Drugs and Guns
In today's Independent on Sunday (UK), Hugh O'Shaughnessy reports:
America has spent billions battling the drug industry in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. And the result? Production as high as ever, street prices at a low, and the governments of the region in open revolt.
The immensely costly "war on drugs" in Latin America is slowly collapsing like a Zeppelin with a puncture. The long-forecast failure for strategies which involve police and military in forcibly suppressing narcotics - first decreed by President Richard Nixon decades ago - is now pitifully evident in Bolivia, one of the poorest countries of the Western hemisphere.
The estimated $25bn ( UKP13bn ) that Washington has spent trying to control narcotics over the past 15 years in Latin America seems to have been wasted. [...]
Last month, an inquiry for the UK Drug Policy Commission said: "The research suggests that the greatest reductions in drug-related harm have come from investment in treatment and harm reduction. However, the bulk of expenditure on drug policy in the UK is still devoted to the enforcement of drug laws".
In Britain, as in Latin America, drugs clearly can't be controlled by armies and police forces.
The editorial staff of the Independent agrees and chimes in:
You Can't Fight Drugs With Guns
The worldwide "war on drugs" that relies on armies and police to destroy crops and arrest traffickers has failed. [...]
As Hugh O'Shaughnessy argues today, the world is finally beginning to realise that you can't beat narcotics with machine guns and policemen's truncheons.
11:31:02 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
