Friday, September 12, 2008

Damn, Jason! Oh, yeah. The debate over legalization really is dull. That's because it's over with. The prohibitionists have lost in all important respects, and I suspect they know it. 11:09:29 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Where I'm not going on my next vacation I love to travel. However, Indonesia will never make my list. 109. Mr. Zulfiqaraw, aged 40, from Lahore, Pakistan, was arrested at Jakarta Airport in November 2004 on allegations of drug related offences. While he was abroad the police raided his apartment in Jakarta which he shared with a friend who possessed drugs. Despite the friend's confession and assurances that Mr. Zulfiqaraw was not involved in any drug related matter, the police took Mr. Zulfiqaraw from the airport to a private house, where he was tortured for three days. He was frequently punched, kicked and threatened with being shot unless he would confess. Nobody knew his whereabouts. After three days his health deteriorated so much that he had to be taken to the police hospital, where he was treated for 17 days. Subsequently, he was transferred to Polda Jakarta where he spent two and a half months in official police custody. The prosecutor in charge, Mr. Hutagaol, offered to drop any charges for a payment of 400 million IDR (about 42,700 $US). Mr. Zulfiqaraw perceived his ensuing trial as strikingly unfair and biased against him since he is a foreigner. No convincing evidence was presented; during the trial session his judge fell asleep. He did not receive any legal aid although he was not able to finance a lawyer; his embassy was wrongly informed and failed to support him. He was sentenced to death. More here 1:22:00 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Jacob Sullum continues the discussion Over at Cato Unbound, in the discussion of the Erowid article Towards a Culture of Responsible Drug Use, Jonathan Caulkins was the first respondent with Is Responsible Drug Use Possible? -- a thoroughly out-to-lunch response (which I discussed here --be sure to read the comments as well). It was embarrassing in its display of logical fallacies and falsehoods. Now Jacob Sullum has provided his resonse to Caulkin's mess with True Temperance To say that "modern humans must learn how to relate to psychoactives responsibly," as Earth and Fire Erowid do, is not the same as "denying or denigrating an individual's right to choose temperance," as Jonathan Caulkins suggests. First of all, what the Erowids are preaching is temperance. Aristotle defined that virtue this way: The temperate man holds a mean position with regard to pleasures. . . . Such pleasures as conduce to health and bodily fitness he will try to secure in moderation and in the right way; and also all other pleasures that are not incompatible with these, or dishonorable, or beyond his means. . . . The temperate man desires the right things in the right way and at the right time.[1] Sullum does a nice polite job of debunking Caulkins (and from what reactions I've found so far, it seems to be unanimous that Caulkins really screwed the pooch on this one). Sullum also takes a moment to differentiate two distinct political philosophies... I see the drug laws as unjust because they go beyond the proper function of government by punishing people for actions that violate no one's rights. By likening drug use to speeding and to driving while intoxicated, Caulkins obscures the distinction between self-harming behavior and behavior that endangers others. Still, he clearly believes it's appropriate to forcibly protect people from risks they voluntarily assume, whether by using drugs, "riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving without a seatbelt, or swimming when there is no lifeguard" (even in your own swimming pool?). I see "laws designed to protect people from their own poor choices" as unethical impositions and dangerous precedents, based on an open-ended rationale for government intervention that logically leads to totalitarianism. I'm glad that Cato has provided this opportunity and look forward to the next installment (Kleiman) as well as the open discussion that I believe is scheduled to begin next week. 10:44:46 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Open Thread An uplifting PostSecret card: To the border patrol agent who ignored the pot in my car in NY in 1973 - I did become a math teacher, I did get married and have a family, and so much more. Thank you so much for letting me live my life. Ever wonder why, if Venezuela is doing so badly in the war on drugs, the U.S. hasn't decertified them (supposedly that's what we do with non-cooperative countries). Well... "If they were to decertify Venezuela, the Senate of the United States would have to suspend its financial assistance provided to the opposition NGO's for its alleged fight against drug trafficking. Therefore, over the past three years they just say that we do not cooperate with US anti-drug authorities," said Reverol. Yep, it's so the U.S. can, under the guise of drug enforcement, fund groups in opposition to Chavez. But of course, John Walters claims that DEA spying and other such activities are out of the question "The DEA does not engage in any activity but counternarcotics. ... A country's sovereignty is always observed by DEA " Right. Getting High for your Health -- in Popular Science. 9:27:32 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []