Monday, October 27, 2008

He just doesn't get it Via TalkLeft, John McCain writes in the National Law Journal: Terrorists are not the only threat to public safety. Lax enforcement policies, judges who legislate from the bench and lack of support for law enforcement personnel all continue to force our innocent citizens behind the barred windows of their homes and allow criminals to roam free. And now drugs are bringing waves of crime and organized gang activity to rural areas thought to be nearly immune from such problems. The federal government must both support state and local law enforcement and effectively enforce federal laws designed to root out violent crime, organized gangs and other interstate criminal activity. None of these law enforcement efforts will succeed without a judiciary that understands its proper role and its proper mission. Senator Obama would appoint liberal activist judges and supply them with greater sentencing discretion. I will appoint judges who will strictly interpret our Constitution. Senator Obama's judges would coddle criminals. I will appoint judges who will hold criminals accountable. This is just completely messed up on so many levels, both practical and logical. Again, I don't expect great things in the way of enlightened criminal justice reform from Obama, but McCain just seems to be going out of his way to pander to the authoritarian base that has been taking us down this dangerous path for years. 11:29:00 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Odds and Ends and thread Evan G at D'Alliance with Hey Mom and Dad: Thanks for the Dog covers the latest effort in causing long-term damage to developing the notion of a free society in our youth: renting drug dogs to sniff your teen's bedroom and possessions. Alix at Art of the Possible has a detailed post on Meth and public policy: Yes, an article on the ups and downs of the alleged meth epidemic A couple of points of interest in it. One, this delightful quote from the Oregonion on how to create a meth panic article 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. And Two, what should be even more the focus of the article: It was the Federal Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965 which actually made illegal production of speed a profitable business. Prior to that, "illicit speed labs had to compete with diverted legal tablets priced at wholesale as low as thirteen or fourteen tablets for a penny[^][^] 75 cents per thousand." After the government intervened, the amphetamines that even JFK once regularly took became harder to legally acquire, but they could still found on the streets. That's exactly why meth has what little popularity it has today. It is a byproduct of prohibition. In fact, it is a byproduct of particularly stringent prohibition. Illegal, yet easily diverted, and much safer, amphetamines would reduce the lure of meth. It's just like the often volatile alcohol stills that sprung up during the other prohibition. I've been meaning, and neglecting, to link to Lee's article on Afghanistan over at HorsesAss: Chasing the Dragon in Afghanistan. Definitely worth a read. 8:54:58 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []