The blogs.salon.com server goes offline December, 2009. All content is moving to http://www.drugwarrant.com
Drug WarRant
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Super High Me
The film Super High Me, featuring comedian Doug Benson spoofing Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me," appears to be the hit of the South by Southwest 2008 film festival.
Here's a teaser...
Update: Another important film at the Festival is Tulia, Texas - a documentary on the drug war events in that town. Check out the film reviews by Grits for Breakfast and Drug Law Blog.
Via Hit and Run comes this extraordinary statement by the writers of "The Wire" in an interview in Time magazine:
If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will -- to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty -- no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.
We've been fighting the drug war for 30 years. Thirty years of failure. But there's some reason that we persist in this. What is it? We never explore why that is. But you just can't spend this much money and get these few results and continue on like this. Someone has to start wondering what the fuck is going on.
Police officer so in love with the drug war that he alerts parents of a non-existent drug.
Drug WarRant Video Page -- I've put a few useful youtube videos on one page for reference purposes. Let me know if there are others I should have there.
There's a fascinating 5-part series of videos on Bolivia and coca at vbs.tv. Definitely worth watching -- I learned quite a bit about the coca leaf. I was particularly interested in Law 1008 -- a law written by an American in English controlling what Bolivians could do with their coca leaves. A law, like every drug prohibition law, that had roots in racism and lies. And a law, like every other drug prohibition law, that actually caused the conditions for developing a massive international black market.
The first three parts of the video are the most interesting, and you do have to get past the smarmy fashion disaster correspondent, but it's worth it.
Tiny plastic bags used to sell small quantities of heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and other drugs would be banned in Chicago, under a crackdown advanced Tuesday by a City Council committee.
Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) persuaded the Health Committee to ban possession of "self-sealing plastic bags under two inches in either height or width,"
So I called Bobby up and asked him what was behind his desire to ban the little baggie.
"Well, I just got sick and tired of them," Robert told me. "They're too small.
"I go out and score some pot and they give it to me in this tiny little bag that hardly lasts me a couple of days. And forget about it if you have friends who want to share."
I asked him why he thought this was so.
"It's these dealers," he said. "They want you to keep coming back, instead of giving you a decent supply. They're always nickel and diming you. And they're charging you top dollar for what should be a free sample."
"Now, with this law, we'll see some nice bags again -- you know, the sandwich baggies. Enough to pack some good bongs."
"We're sending a message here to the dealers. If you can't fit a bud in it, it isn't a pot container."
SPRINGFIELD -- The hazy path to legalizing medical marijuana in Illinois cleared a little Wednesday when a committee on public health sent the legislation to the Senate floor on a 6-4 vote.
The measure, sponsored by state Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, would allow marijuana card holders to receive prescriptions for medical marijuana and the plant it grows on, thus avoiding any illegal means of obtaining the drug.
Of course, the usual jerks are already coming out of the woodwork. Check out this lobbyist:
Limey Nargelenas, director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, says there are better ways to go about legalizing the drug than "hiding behind sick people."
"I think it's a shame what they're doing here," Nargelenas said. "They're using sick people here to try to legalize marijuana. I think if the Legislature wants to legalize marijuana, let's talk about it, debate it and see if that's what the people want."
Gee, why would a lobbyist for police organizations care about medical marijuana legalization? It wouldn't be to protect their drug war jobs, would it?
The INCB is out of control and needs to be stopped
Most people in the United States aren't even familiar with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), but it has a lot of influence in the world. What is it?
It describes itself as the "quasi-judicial control organ monitoring the implementation of the United Nations drug control conventions." Quasi-judicial control organ sounds like something diseased that should be removed with surgery. And it should be (although apparently without anesthesia).
What the INCB does through its proclamations, reports, and press releases (it also has some power to actually control countries' access to legal pain drugs) is to essentially squelch any kind of drug policy reform efforts and push for mindless across-the-board prohibition. Because of its United Nations status it provides cover for hard-line governments looking to reject reform and bullies governments who are trying to look at other solutions.
It's also "independent." Which appears to mean that it lacks any accountability and can decide to re-interpret or simply make up what it feels is right for the world's drug policy.
When I was at the International Drug Policy conference in December, I got to meet a number of incredible international reform figures. The INCB was practically a swear word with them.
Here's what the INCB is up to now:
Abolishing Coca Leaf Consumption. They are demanding "the Governments of Bolivia and Peru to initiate action without delay with a view to eliminating uses of coca leaf, including coca leaf chewing" and that all countries "should establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, the possession and purchase of coca leaf for personal consumption." The coca leaf (found to be beneficial for consumption by the World Health Organization) has been a key feature of Andean-Amazon indigenous cultures.
Read further in this link for a wealth of material about the INCB from the always excellent Transform.
The head of the United Nations drug control board put the federal government on notice yesterday to rein in provincial and other health authorities [...] The new report says Canada should end regional handouts of drug paraphernalia and close "injection sites" where drug users are allowed to consume illicit drugs under supervision.
In other words, harm reduction is not an allowable activity according to the INCB.
Pushing to Arrest Celebrities That's right. They're decrying the leniency toward celebrity users of cocaine. This appears to be a follow through to UNODC's Costa's hard-on for seeing Kate Moss in shackles.
Condemning the thousands of deaths from drug war excesses in Thailand.... Um, no. The INCB has actually been pretty quiet about that. Apparently not a problem for them. Killing is OK; chewing a coca leaf is not.
The INCB also condemned Britain when it downgraded marijuana from B to C, and praised the U.S. Supreme Court for rejecting Raich on medical marijuana.
There are plenty of other problems with the INCB. A recent report by the International Harm Reduction Association noted that the INCB is one of the most secretive bodies in the U.N.
It holds its meetings behind closed doors. No minutes are published. There is no opportunity for nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or civil society organisations to observe or make submissions.
The INCB - yet another group of mindless jerks that will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
There's nothing more craven than politicians looking to score drug war points.
Here's a story caught by NORML and picked up by Wonkette
When someone wrote Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and asked why medical marijuana should be illegal, this was his response:
Dear XXXX:
Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.
I do not believe the answer in solving this country's problem of drug abuse and the violence associated with drug trafficking is to make drugs legal. I have seen too much of the ill effects of these illegal drugs on our nation's young people, as well as this country's law enforcement officers, to believe the solution is to make these drugs more readily available by legalizing them.
Marijuana is often the drug singled out for legalization. However, marijuana is not the recreational drug that many believe it to be. In a study completed by the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the number of marijuana related emergencies has nearly reached the level of cocaine related emergencies. As this statistic indicates, marijuana use often has fatal consequences.
I was deeply troubled when I learned of another recent study which found that nearly one-third of all eighth graders had tried marijuana. As the father of two daughters, it greatly disturbs me that children are exposed to drugs at such a young age. I am concerned that legalization of this drug will only increase the number of children who gain access to its harmful effects.
The victims of the drug war are many - the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix; the police officer's family which must now learn to cope with the loss of their loved one as a result of a violent drug bust gone awry. These are the people I think of when I say that drugs pose a significant threat to the security of this nation.
In addition to helping to double federal funds for Iowa's anti-drug programs, I am an active supporter of the Smoother Sailing Programs in the Des Moines public schools. This program is designed to help children cope with the violence, confusion and trauma associated with the abuse of drugs in our society.
Legalizing drugs is equivalent to declaring surrender in the war on drugs. However we may differ in tactics, I am hopeful that we can work together to fight drugs in our communities and to make Iowa drug free.
Again, thanks for sharing your views with me. Please don't hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.
Sincerely,
Tom Harkin
United States Senator [emphasis added]
After the piece hit, the Senator's staff very politely contacted NORML and said it was a result of an inexperienced staffer and a computer glitch, etc. (apparently sending out the wrong letter for the question). However, NORML reports that the same letter was sent to two different people who asked about medical marijuana.
It's hard to see how an inexperienced staffer and computer glitch, however, could create the extremely offensive paragraph that I bolded above.
It is offensive because the policies supported by people like Senator Harkin are what cause the death and destruction of the drug war. For him to say that he opposes legalization because of his concern for drug war victims is like saying you oppose peace because of your concern for people killed in war or you oppose hospitals because you're concerned about people dying from cancer.
The United States is going to spend in excess of $1 million in a trial to prove that Ricardo Palmera was a drug dealer, despite the fact that Palmera is already in jail for the maximum possible and he would receive no additional time if convicted in this new trial.
Why? To bolster their failed drug war and to provide justification for asking for more drug war money in Colombia.
In a keynote address last week at a University of Pennsylvania symposium commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kerner Commission report on the causes of racial disturbances in the 1960s, Bill Clinton did what many politicians find hard to do: admit he made a big mistake.
"I regret more than I can say that we didn't do more on it," he said about his administration's failure to end the disparate sentencing for people convicted of crack and powder cocaine offenses. "I'm prepared to spend a significant portion of whatever life I've got left on the earth trying to fix this because I think it's a cancer," the former president said of the devastating impact this sentencing imbalance has had on blacks.
In other news, the world failed to end yesterday, the day the retroactive sentencing guideline changes took effect.
Update: Via Sentencing Law and Policy... Learn more at the Sevententh Annual National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.. at Disney World! (pdf)
Transform got a leaked copy of a restricted media briefing -- the spin that the U.K. Home Office will be using to defend their drug strategy. It's the standard litany of drug warrior fact-free propaganda talking points, aimed at "answering" any opposition. Transform does a nice job of fisking it.
There's one point in particular that I'd like to highlight.
The home office anticipates the following question:
Q: Wouldn't legalisation surely reduce drug related crime?
And part of their prepared answer is:
The legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.
I've heard this kind of argument before -- mostly from morons on messageboards. This, however, is from a major world government. (And note the blatantly obvious switch from "reduce" in the question to "eliminate" in the answer.)
Transform takes it on:
Obviously it is ridiculous to imagine they will all [OE]go straight' and get jobs in McDonalds, or selling flowers, but it is equally absurd to suggest they will all embark on some previously unimagined crime spree. [...] it is impossible to imagine that there is enough criminal opportunity to absorb the manpower currently operating an illicit drugs market with a turns over somewhere in the region of £300 billion pounds a year globally, or over £10 billion a year in the UK alone. Even if there is some diversion into other criminal activity, the big picture will undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall criminal activity. Getting rid of illegal drug markets is about reducing opportunities for crime.
This concern is a curious one because it seems, when considered closely, to be advocating prohibition as a way of maintaining illegal drug empires so that organised criminals don't have to change jobs. [emphasis added]
Exactly.
You see, the real stupidity in such a statement is the implied assumption that there are a specific, finite number of "career criminals" in the world and all they are capable of doing is pursuing criminal activity. In such a fantasy word, if we were able to lock up all of those specific individuals, there would be no crime. However, in fact it is a matter of degree, relative values, and opportunity.
We're all criminals. Especially today. Everyone has broken a law, whether it's the speed limit or one of the millions of laws on the books that nobody can even keep track of. That doesn't mean that everyone is bad. Some people would break the speed limit, but draw the line at selling drugs. Someone else would sell drugs, but not get involved in violent crime. Someone else might reach a point of desperation and do things that others wouldn't. Someone else has a warped morality and will even kill people in order to further a particular goal.
It is prohibition and its enforcement that fuels criminal activity, actually expanding the number of so-called "career criminals."
The huge profits of the black market become irresistible incentives to move up the criminal ladder for many people. Someone who, in another world, might settle for working a job in a factory, can be enticed into criminal enterprises by the lure of riches, and drug dealing is an easier step because of the consensual nature of the transaction. The process is sped up by enforcement. Each arrest of a dealer is the advertisement of a lucrative job opening.
Start with one drug dealer. Arrest him and put him in jail. What happens is someone else steps up to take the high paying job. Now you have two drug dealers (one on the street and one in jail). Arrest the second one and a third steps up. Even if you never release the ones you've arrested and you keep arresting, you'll never get "ahead." But eventually, you'll end up releasing those arrested and you'll have a glut of dealers, all created by prohibition.
Under legalization, the criminal recruitment never happens, so there's no growth or replacement due to black market drug demand. Those already in the game suddenly find their vast incomes drying up. Let's say one of them decides to go in for bank robbery instead of finding legit work. Now you've got a non-consensual transaction with the bank eagerly helping the police to catch the criminal, the police no longer bogged down by drug arrests, and when the bank robber is caught, there's nobody waiting in line for his job.
Legalization means both a reduction of those in prison and a reduction in crime.
Which reminds me of a particularly disturbing statement I saw this weekend (via Hit and Run)
National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru reacts to the news about the fact that we lead the world in incarceration this way:
It's too bad we have such a high rate of criminality--but given that we do, I'm glad we have been putting more people behind bars over the last generation. [...] when I see a headline about a record incarceration rate, I'm glad. Aren't you?
This ignorance is the face of the modern conservative movement.
Give drugs away for free. That's the idea in A Modest Proposal for the War on Drugs by Demonsthenes (a somewhat flip approach but with some understanding of the economics of drug policy).
When he stood up to speak against the school's random drug testing policy he faced inquisitions from administration and questions from the police. Kudos to 16-year-old Anthony Maitilasso and his mother.
The ONDCP notes that we could reduce the revenue of Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations by 61% just by legalizing marijuana.... (they didn't actually phrase it that way, though)
Via 
