|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, January 10, 2009 |
|
Friday, January 9, 2009 |
Open For Questions round 2 response
This time delivered by incoming Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in a five minute video.
So, the big question -- how did they manage to avoid talking about drug policy this time considering all the top-rated questions that were asked on the subject?
Since there were so many popular questions in so many categories, we tried to pull out some of them that had been addressed previously by the President-elect of vice-President-elect in order to focus the video portion on questions that haven't been as specifically addressed during the Transition.
And then they listed the marijuana question from the first round and the pathetic answer.
"Will you consider legalizing cannabis/marijuana/hemp so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"--DJ C, Chicago, IL
Open for Questions Response, 12/15/08: "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."
Yep. That's it.
Hey, at least they let us ask. And other people got to see the questions. And a lot of people got to see the strength of interest.
They can still dodge it for now, but they won't be able to forever, and I'm betting that they fully realize it.
Now go pester your Representatives!
3:42:52 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Open Thread
Lots of stuff going on and some great stuff to read.
I usually include the Drug War Chronicle in my Friday Open Threads, but I want to make sure you don't skip over it this week.
The feature article: DEA Rejects Yet Another Rescheduling Petition, But the End Game Lies Far Down the Road is an excellent view of the current efforts to reschedule marijuana, with the recent, but expected rejection by the DEA of Carl Olsen's petition.
Also don't miss the open rebellion by Chess players regarding the stupid drug testing rules.
 Why Head Shop Raids Are Unfair and Unjust at Alternet.
An enlightened mayor might have called the chamber of commerce or invited a community discussion to discuss alternatives. The mayor might have used code enforcement and local ordinances to mandate zoning changes. Instead, he called and asked the feds to do what her own city cops were not allowed to do.
Taking the fun out of pot
The lower rate of pot smoking in the Netherlands would certainly seem to indicate that the way to solve our drug problem is to legalize drugs. Soon, even prohibitionists will have to admit this is the case. It is a concept that certainly warrants further consideration.
Editorial: Confidence Must Be Restored In Drug Forfeiture Process
While the actions of the local DTF and prosecutor's office were particularly egregious, the origins of the situation can be traced to the state and the Indiana General Assembly. Legislation governing the handling of confiscated drug-related funds and property is vague, and officials in most counties are unsure exactly how the money is to be handled. With few guidelines, they have for the most part created their own procedures. The fact no money apparently has ever been sent to the designated state education fund is particularly telling.
Editorial: No deaths, this time
But Procedures That Make It Hard To Identify Police At The Door Should Be Reviewed [...]
Pardon us if we doubt the officers waited even two or three minutes for residents to pull on clothes ( if necessary ), come to the door, ascertain who was there and ask to read the officers' warrant.
For that matter, wouldn't the chance of violence have been reduced -- in a home where police should have known young children were present - -- if someone had simply telephoned the home, explaining police were approaching the door with a warrant ... preferably during daylight hours?
Some will say such a procedure would be naive -- drug dealers could use the time to flush their product down the toilet.
But no cocaine was found -- and a dealer who can eliminate all his product in one toilet flush isn't really very big-time, is he? [...]
The drug war has taught us to accept as "normal" police procedures -- even in the case of a man alleged to have dealt quantities of drugs worth only a few hundred dollars -- which increase the risk of violence and death in our neighborhoods.
Just as in cases where some jurisdictions have found overall fatalities could be reduced by having ambulances obey stoplights, it is those "standard" procedures that are in need of a serious new review.
Commenter Steve Clay thoroughly fisks the latest Ask the White House session by the drug czar (where some of our commenters managed to submit questions)
Don't forget to make sure you've voted at Change.org (Marijuana legalization is currently #1 and End the drug war is currently #3) and also at Change.gov's Open for Questions (where drug policy questions appear to be #2,4,5,6,9 in Additional Issues and 1, 5, 6 in National Security)
12:37:19 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 8, 2009 |
When people are stupid
The recent comments to various articles in the El Paso story yesterday reminded me of one of the frustrating parts of being in drug policy reform and, well, having a brain.
It's the incredibly stupid arguments that reappear time and time again.
There are plenty of reasonable concerns expressed, and I don't mind answering them -- how would legalization occur, what kinds of regulation might be involved, would there be more or less damage from drug abuse, etc.
But here are the three that always annoy me:
1. Legalized drugs would be great for the cartels./If you're a legalizer, you're probably getting donations from the cartels./Legalization will profit the criminals.
I realize the cognitive dissonance at work here. They're thinking: Drug war=stopping cartels; therefore legalization=anti-drug-war=good for the cartels=profit. Of course, there's a lot of faulty logic there, but it keeps them from actually thinking through logically what would happen to cartels in a legalized market.
It's funny to imagine, actually. Think about a legal market in marijuana in the United States, with companies growing it, packaging it, selling it in stores and imagine a Mexican cartel trying to compete with that financially.
2. Why don't you legalize murder and rape while you're at it?
This one really bothers me and I don't yet have the best quick response, largely because it's so amazingly stupid that it requires a lot of remedial explanations to bring the person up to the level of sentience. And I find myself wanting to simply say: "No. You have the brains of a rock." Which is petty, even if true.
One quick response often used is that drugs are a choice of the user and only affect the user, while murder and rape are actions that infringe on others. Then the moron responds that drugs do so affect others because druggies beat up people and steal, and... And then you have to explain that the drugs don't do that - and that we arrest people who beat up people regardless of whether they're on drugs, but by then you've lost everyone's attention. It doesn't matter that any basic understanding of natural and Constitutional rights would empirically know that there's no comparison between drug use and murder/rape, but explaining that?
Another response is to note that if you arrest a dealer, it just creates a job opening for another drug dealer, while that isn't true for murderer or rape. While true, this usually just confuses them.
If anyone has a good, solid, concise response for this one, I'd love to hear it.
3. Legalization won't solve anything. The cartels aren't going to go away and we'll still have all that crime and violence.
This one I actually find rather funny in its blissful naiveté. I mean sure, they understand that violent criminals won't suddenly become choir boys, but they seem to forget that without the drug profits, they'll have a hard time recruiting new cartel members.
Howard Wooldridge gave a great answer to this one in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday:
Ronald Shafer (Letters, Dec. 30) worries about what drug dealers would do without their prohibition-generated jobs. The one million teens who sell drugs would begin flipping burgers and mowing yards. Serious thugs will rob banks where we will capture or kill them. Or was Mr. Shafer suggesting to continue prohibition as a jobs program for bad guys?
Exactly.
So what are the stupid arguments that drive you up the wall?
8:57:48 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
DC Metro is pretty pathetic
 In October, DC Metro began a random search program without public input. Flex Your Rights stepped up and started passing out flyers at subway stations informing people of their rights not to consent to a search, and got a lot of positive media coverage. In the next month, Metro refused to debate the policy and has been challenged by the Riders Advisory Council to come up with justification for their policy.
Backed in to a corner with no justification and bad publicity, what does Metro decide to do?
Threatens to sue Flex Your Rights for using the "M" logo (yes, the one shown in this post) on their information flyer.
8:01:00 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Wow
A must read from Bill Tilney, the former Mayor of El Paso, Texas: Former mayor to City Council: Stay the course on drug resolution
Kudos to city Rep. Beto O'Rourke for the courage he showed in proposing an amendment to the resolution expressing support for Ciudad Juarez. Mr. O'Rourke's efforts demonstrated that he, along with brave members of the El Paso City Council, have an understanding of what is tragically unfolding in the Paso del Norte region. In a sense, they are on the cutting edge of what is needed to change the direction we are going in our 40 year long "war on drugs." We may be far from Washington, but there is no reason why an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics shouldn't begin here along the Rio Grande. [...]
The American people should be questioning the federal government's policies as to how we deal with drug trafficking. Will we continue to witness our neighbor to the south become a "failed state" because of the American insatiable demand for drugs? Will we continue to see budgets and numbers balloon as we throw money at this obscene problem? When will we have a president who has the "huevos" to say "enough" to this macabre dance along the border?
As a side note, I would like to point out that if we didn't have this failed "war on drugs," the quality of life could improve along the border. Global manufacturing would be more efficient and productive. At the same time, we would be more competitive on the global stage. [...]
As a final note, I want to say bravo to the brave band of City Council representatives for putting forth the resolution. I am sure they have been subjected to "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." Nevertheless, now that you have gained the attention of the national media, don't drop the ball.
Read the whole thing. It's really outstanding.
[Thanks, Tom!]
2:16:45 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Good News! Violence expected to increase.
Link
"Calderón must -- and will -- keep the pressure on the cartels, but look, let's not be naíve: There will be more violence, more blood, and, yes, things will get worse before they get better. That's the nature of the battle," [U.S. Ambassador Tony]Garza said. "The more pressure the cartels feel, the more they'll lash out like cornered animals."
Good thing we're not discussing any other options, since this drug war thing is going so well.
10:37:48 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 |
Looks like we still got some educatin' to do
This is a follow-up to today's earlier post about the El Paso, Texas City Council resolution.
Now it's looking like the veto may not hold
The city's Committee on Border Relations refused to give Mayor John Cook the support he requested Tuesday for vetoing a resolution the council had approved with an amendment calling for a debate on drug legalization.
Next week's City Council agenda is likely to include an item calling for the override of the veto, which would take seven votes by the nine-member council.
Should be interesting.
Meanwhile... sigh... I've been following the discussion in comments at the El Paso Times, which has ranged all over the place (with some familiar friends chipping in to inject some reason). Some of the negative comments are... well... beyond belief.
So in a kind of perverted sense of agonizing fun, I've decided to share some of them with you.
Remember, the City Council merely passed a resolution calling for the U.S. government start an "open, honest, national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics." They didn't call for legalization. They didn't come out in favor of legalization. They came out in favor of... discussion.
Here are some of the reactions from the good readers of the El Paso Times.
This city council should be removed for advocating violations of law. They have taken an oath to uphold the law, not use these offices in an attempt to overthrow it.
The Texas Attorney General should conduct an investigation to determine that nature of their conduct, if any criminal statutes have been violated.
Criminal statutes against advocating discussion?
Here are some more...
We can just legalize murder and kidnapping too while we're at it. Then all of Mexico's problems will be solved... Idiots! [...]
If the Mexican government can't solve it's own problems how are they going to solve ours by telling us what laws to pass and that are in favor of legalizing drugs. [...]
City Council members? What a bunch of idiots!! Pure stupidty and cowardice. Legalizing drugs is not the answer. Get tough now - enforce the laws we have now. No mercy. [...]
I say make it as in other countries, death for drug dealers. If you deal drugs which is just another name for death then you die. This is weather you are a citizen or not. That would save us from multiple invasions from the same dealer. You get caught dealing or smuggling drugs then you die. [...]
And yes, need to have the DEATH penalty for drug dealers, just like China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others. Then stand back and watch the drug wars calm down. Just start executing these doper ***HOLES. [...]
Drug market has been reduced for some dealers. Therefore, they rob and kill to make up for the loss of income. Remove the drugs from them (legalize); probability of making money goes to zero. What will they do next? God help us all. It's common sense.... [...]
Close the border. No one leaves and no one enters for a week. Those who attempt to flee can leave and anyone who tries to enter gets shot on the spot. Sometimes you have to make some sacrifices. If you love America you stay, if you don't get the hell out and don't come back. [...]
You know it's amazing that MOST of you people who support legalizing, Illegal drugs,do not live anywhere near the Mexican Border or the Drug Wars. Guess most of you are just safe in your little farm houses in Virginia, PA wherever, running your meth labs, making "cheese" and crack for school kids. You are the morons who try to justify what you do, including legalizing illegal substances. And yes, the drug dealer laws are MUCH better in places like China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Do they, any of them have the drug problems that we have in the U.S. and Mexico???? Hell no. They go out chop off a few heads, hang a few, shoot a few and thats the way anti-drug laws should be written in the U.S. Execution cures drug dealing/trafficing. Deterent, YES. [...]
This city council is obviously under the influence of: -Drugs -Corruption -Drug Cartels -Total and Complete Insanity. [...]
El Paso can be proud of being the illegal drug corridor capital leading into the U.S. and of the drug profits flowing into the pockets of local politicians. The money is so good in fact, they are openly championing it's use and legalization at our municipal hall. The more users they get, the more money they and their families in the biz make. Who cares if it costs a heavy and often deadly toll on many families, just as long as their family of drug dealers are wealthy and protected. [...]
The Dope Dealers and Drug Cartels would love to work in the open and push their poison on even more children, their customers for life. [...]
Thank God for Mayor Cook. How stupid is our City Council? Can we get them out of there? They make us look like morons.
Um, actually, no. But you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself.
Perhaps it time to check how many on City Council are using dope, and want a straight path to it. [...]
Once the demand for illegal drugs dries up, the drug cartells murdering will cease also. Why? Because no demand for drugs means zero supply which means no money which means no profit which means no business. The war on drugs must continue at all costs just klike the war on terrorism. [...]
I am curious to know what drugs the City Representatives are using? Their actions come across as someone who is "stoned". [...]
I always knew that City Council is composed of a bunch of idiots. [...]
This idea by the city council is an act of cowardice,they clearly don't want to enforce the laws against drug trafficking. They are waving the flag of surrender and also telling us that they don't have a clue on how to do their job. Have they taken the time to ask the people of El Paso how we really feel about their proposal, they would have saved their time writing this stupid resolution. This is another example that shows that; "just because you went to college and have a fancy title next to your name, it does not makes you smarter." [...]
Legalization of drugs is not the answer and it will not be fair for families that lost loved ones in the figth against drugs. Legalization of drugs is the easy way out of the problem..Lets start with lowering the comsuption of drugs because with out coustumers there will be no drugs. lets take a VERY serious look at family values...how many kids are growing in a single parent home??? THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM..But nobody wants to accept the truth which is that we live in a society in which GOD does not play any role and we are seeing the results, I know! I know! you migth thing that I am a Jesus freak of bible pleacher but this is not the case I do belive in God and know that following him bring stabilization to society... [...]
Why don't we legalize murder while we're at it? [...]
The ONLY thing that makes John Cook less of an idiot than the rest of these ***HOLES, is that he decided to veto the resolution. Should WE be wondering where O'Roark gets his campaign money from?? Any Cartel money in there, yu think??? [...]
I lived in Europe for two years where drugs were legalized and society has digressed, their youth have a bleak future due to the widely use of the drugs and many more problems exist due to the drugs. Those who say, lets talk about it are walking a fine line into the darkside.
When did they legalize drugs in Europe?
If we want to really effect the "drug war," we need to get serious about it. Start giving the worst drug users / pushers death penalties, with a limited window for appeals. [...]
Beto is an arrogant jerk who is a product of the new- young-leftist-academic elite that think they know what's good for the rest of us. Arrogant jerk.
Ah, yes, those arrogant jerks who want us to discuss stuff.
The U.S.gov ernment needs to send in thousands of troops to Juarez and get rid of all the men living in that city!!!! [...]
f------ mexicans from mexico there killing our youth with there drugs and all this idiots can say is leagalize drugs so our kids can get destroy themselves more easily, f--- mexico and whoever wants to defend mexico go to mexico and fight it out in mexico [...]
The city council are cowards and panderers. If they want the violence to stop, the first they need to do is completely secure the border. When that happens, no more drugs will come in, and the drug cartels collapse of their own accord. [...]
Prohibition makes drug cartels rich. Making them legal would make them even richer.
OK, that one just confuses me.
You druggies are only preaching to your fellow druggies choir. [...]
Most parents try to keep their children away from drugs, while this city council is trying to force them on us. I thought elected represenatives were supposed to protect our children, not harm them.
That's right - think of the children. What kind of message would it send that we are willing to discuss alternatives to failed policies?
Sigh.
7:45:51 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
City Council Goes Rogue
El Paso, Texas - a mere stone's throw from Mexico and the violent drug war there - naturally has concerns about the drug war there, and the fact that everything we've been doing just makes it worse and more violent.
Well the city council apparently must have snapped from the pressure, because they actually suggested, unanimously, in a resolution, that the U.S. government start an "open, honest, national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics."
Deranged council member Beto O'Rourke tried to defend the radical proposition:
"We think it should at least be on the table and so far it hasn't," O'Rourke said.
Hmm, seems like a pretty far fetched idea - to discuss options that haven't been discussed yet.
Fortunately, Mayor John Cook stepped in to restore sanity and promptly vetoed the non-binding resolution to insure that nobody would think that El Paso wanted the U.S. government to discuss options.
Cook called the request to look at legalizing drugs "unrealistic" and urged the council to adopt a broader resolution that looks for other solutions.
Right. Other solutions. Like the ones that have been working so well for us. You know. Prohibition.
Then the Associated Press writer tried to explain why the resolution wasn't so smart...
But the request would have been a tough sell to a newly minted Congress facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and two wars.
Yes, it would be a tough sell, because it would deprive them of a third war and another bottomless hole for cash... ?
So U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes (and former U.S. Border Patrol agent from El Paso) steps in to clarify:
"Legalizing the types of drugs that are being smuggled across the border is not an effective way to combat the violence in Mexico, and I would not support efforts in Congress that would seek to do so."
Ah, yes. That makes it so obvious why we should not discuss options. Thanks for clearing that up.
Good thing we've got strong, patriotic citizens like Mayor John Cook and Representative Silvestre Reyes on the job. Without them watching out for rogue City Councils, we could end up with cities, towns, states, and citizens actually calling for an "open, honest, national dialogue."
Whoa. Scary thought. What could that lead to?
Update: Council Member O'Rourke discusses the issue -- extremely well -- in this video at El Paso Times. Worth watching. [Thanks to Steve in comments.]
8:31:54 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 |
Investment advice from Hell
Link
The deep recession expected in 2009 will likely lead to higher rates of crime. Adam Lass says investors can play this trend by picking up shares of commercial jails. Florida-based Geo Group (NYSE:GEO) operates in several countries and is rapidly expanding its detention facilities. Adam says investors could be in line to double their money by the summer.
[h/t Herb]
8:14:13 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Random thought
What does it say about the state of American political discourse that drug policy reform is too... radical to be discussed in the mainstream media, and yet Ann Coulter is on every network this week getting free publicity for her book?
10:52:36 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 5, 2009 |
How the Obama administration could be better for drug policy reform even if unsupportive
Much of the speculation of how the Obama administration may differ from the Bush administration has been over the degree to which Obama may actively support change, or even passively allow change through benign neglect.
There is, however, another more subtle avenue that may become available.
OK, you regulars -- can you remember back to the Data Quality Act (AKA Information Quality Act)? We used to talk about it here quite a lot. The idea was that the government could be challenged on the accuracy of the information they provided and they would be required to respond in 60 days.
Well, ASA decided this was a good tool to use against the government for its propaganda against medical marijuana, and it filed a request for correction.
Go to the HHS page and scroll down to #20. You'll see that the 60 day period started on October 6, 2004. Delay after delay stretched the non-answer to over four years, and I can't even tell if it's still active.
This is just one example, but it was typical. Even when the law was on our side, the government has actively flouted and disobeyed the rule of law without consequence, completely disenfranchising us.
Sure, the Bush administration has been primarily known for its law-breaking in other areas, but it has been pervasive in all areas of the government.
If... if a new administration were to actually reinstate the rule of law for the government, then those of us seeking to petition the government for redress of grievances could conceivably find an administrative structure working on behalf of the Constitution rather than actively supressing it.
Now, it's no surprise that government (regardless of party) likes to have its power, its secrets, its exclusivity. So there's no guarantee that the Obama administration will be better than the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration, despite our smaller power as a movement, was no great friend).
However, there are signs.
Glenn Greenwald writes today about one of the latest of Obama's appointments: Dawn Johnson as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. This is a critical position, important to the independence of the DOJ and the adherence to the rule of law. And Obama selected someone who has written:
[W]e must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power.
She also referred to the Office of Legal Counsel, long before she was even being considered for the position, as "the office entrusted with making sure the President obeys the law."
This could be really good news. If the government obeys the law, we have a better chance of holding it accountable.
8:48:56 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Voting for the opportunity to be heard
As has been noted in comments, Change.org (not to be confused with Obama's Change.gov) has moved to the next round of voting. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the administration on January 16 at the National Press Club and will also receive a national advocacy campaign.
Currently, the top two rated ideas are:
Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana.
"Marijuana has been proven to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill, as well as disabled patients undergoing chemotherapy, and other forms of medical treatments, yet using it for medical purposes continues to be a crime in most of the country. We should make it legal not only in medical cases, but for recreational use as well."
- Jose Torres (Unemployed / Disabled / Activist / Supporter), Newark, NJ
End the war on drugs
We have the highest non-violent incarseration rate in the world. We need to free up our police, jails and courts to deal with people who actually pose a clear and present danger to life and liberty. Stop persecuting non-violent drug users. Prefer regulation to prohibition and give up on this "war" that can never be won.
- dan bachelder (realist)
Go over and vote.
Additionally, voting is still open at Obama's Open for Questions, where a drug policy question leads the National Security category and dominates the Other Issues category.
Now, to be clear, I don't really hold out much hope that any of these devices will cause Obama to declare an initiative to end the war on drugs, or to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act Schedules (though, of course, he should).
However, having legalization take such a strong position in these polls serves other important interests -- it gains mainstream visibility.
It makes people ask questions like:
"What are all these apathetic stoners on Pete's Couch doing showing up and participating in a political forum? Maybe I was wrong about these 'legalizers.'"
It gives more media a chance to report on legalization as a political option.
And, most importantly, it could make more of that vast silently complicit population finally wake up and realize: "Hey! Maybe I can talk openly about it."
Yes, Virginia, legalization is a legitimate political topic that can be discussed.
Russ Belville, over at the NORML stash has crunched some numbers at teh Google and sees a distinct pattern of increased interest in marijuana legalization within the population (or at least the population that has internet access). More signs of progress.
8:00:26 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 4, 2009 |
A message from the front lines in D.C.
If there's anyone who has a finger on the pulse of Congress when it comes to drug policy reform, it's probably Howard Wooldridge. LEAP's cowboy-hat-wearing lobbyist has become a familiar figure in the Washington corridors. His LEAP on the Hill posts are always a delight to read.
He makes a strong and important point in an email:
The marijuana contingent of prohibition reform needs to do more outreach and education to the 'unconverted' and the uninformed. This will involve moving outside the comfort zone of a hemp fest 'free the weed' type meeting and into a Rotary or other such venue. LEAP can use all the help possible to educate the citizens. My wife wears a t-shirt that says: MOMS SAY LEGALIZE POT - Ask Me Why... in my 13 years I have never seen a MJ reformer wear a t-shirt that invites a discussion or even effectively advertises their position. A Shirt that just has MJ leaves on it or NORML is essentially worthless in converting a soccer mom or dad to our side.
 Zogby poll shows that 3/4 of America knows the WOD is a failure. Congress knows it by that margin and Obama has called it an 'utter failure.' That said, the WOD was NOT an issue in 2008.
In order to end prohibition, dozens of Hill staffers have told me THE PHONE HAS TO RING with constituents insisting on moving legislation on this issue. And the phone is NOT ringing. Politicians are led by the people; they rarely are going to lead. They are mostly cowards by nature. Not one Member of Congress has put on their website a position on the war on drugs/prohibition. That needs to change. All the logic and reason in the world will not move Congress... only voices. Out of roughly 40 million users of illegal drugs, less than 100,000 belong to a drug reform org. We have much work to do in 2009.
This tracks closely with what I've talked about -- change comes from the bottom, not the top. And we need to spread the word. Tell all your friends, and when they're all convinced, widen your circle of friends and tell them. When you have all them convinced, convince them to all call their Representatives.
And, by the way, when is the last time you called your Representative?
We've got a lot of new ones this year, and both the new and the old need to hear from us -- and not just the automated email blasts that come along every so often. Write a letter, call their staff. Be succinct. To the point. Don't ask them to legalize marijuana -- they can't quite do that (states still have their own laws), but ask them to stop prosecuting medical marijuana patients, or to remove marijuana from Schedule 1, or to support sentencing reform, or to support study into alternatives to prohibition. Make it clear that you're a voter and you care about these issues.
And more of you need to come out of the closet. I know you all can't do it, but, quite frankly, lots of you probably can who think that you can't.
I found the following comment left here regarding questions at change.gov quite strange:
I would probably submit the question "If drugs are so bad, can't people choose not to do them without having to do so at gunpoint?", if I thought that any government agency should have a record of my personal political positions. What are you people, fucking insane???
"Personal political positions" is kind of an oxymoron unless you live in a political world of one (à la Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Total Perspective Vortex). How do you fight for change if you won't even tell people what needs to be changed?
Propaganda wins by making us afraid to speak.
9:36:42 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Coming to terms with the impossibility of winning a drug war
An interesting article in Newsweek: Colombia's Failed Drug War.
By some measures Álvaro Uribe is the world's most successful head of state. Since taking office in 2002, the president of Colombia has routed the ELN terrorist group, broken the FARC guerrillas, demobilized their right-wing paramilitary foes and made Colombia's cities safe again. Homicides are down 40 percent nationwide since his term began, and economic growth is up, from just 2.5 percent in 2002 to 8.2 percent in 2007. Result: 66 percent of Colombians approve of Uribe even during a global financial catastrophe --down from the 80s a few months ago--the highest of any president in a democracy.
This is quite positive stuff (at least positive-sounding). At this point, the U.S. government would tout this as proof that the drug war is working. Which, of course, is nonsense. Whether or not you agree that the developments listed above are positive for Colombia and/or the United States, it takes a certain level of self-delusion to use them as measures of drug war success.
Newsweek's Adam Kushner is not deluded.
U.S. policymakers have also hailed Uribe: President George W. Bush has feted his "determination to rid the country of narcotrafficking."
Determination is not, however, enough to win the war on drugs. Since 2000, the United States has sent more than $6 billion to Bogotá to help Uribe and his predecessor stabilize the Andean region, stanch the flow of drugs into America's cities and cut drug production. In what is known as Plan Colombia, Washington sent pilots and choppers to Colombia, trained commandos and furnished weapons to fight traffickers and terrorists. For his part, Uribe and his predecessor raised the military budget from 4 to 6 percent of the national GDP. But instead of cutting drug production in half by 2006, as Plan Colombia intended, the acreage of land dedicated to coca cultivation is up 15 percent since 2000 and now yields 4 percent more cocaine than it did eight years ago. An October report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, an oversight agency, says Plan Colombia's goals "have not been fully achieved."
A doozy of an understatement by the GAO. The notion that Plan Colombia could ever be considered a success with billions of dollars spent and cultivation and output going up is simply bizarre.
Kushner goes on to explain why economics, geography, and logistics actually make it impossible to win the drug war.
To a certain extent, Uribe is struggling against impossible odds. [...]
All of which means that the drug war in Colombia may be at a stalemate. With diminishing returns on enforcement, American and Colombian officials are at a loss to say what, exactly, their endgame is. [...]
So for now, Colombia and the United States will have to come to terms with the fact that even a popular president has limited power to fight drug traffickers.
Kushner's article isn't perfect. He blames neighboring countries for not participating enthusiastically enough, even though he doesn't show that such participation would make a difference. He also neglects some of the important economic considerations.
However, this is an important moment.
An article in a major national magazine is saying, essentially, that the drug war (at least in Colombia) cannot be won. There is no quick answer, no option for solving it by simply throwing more money at it.
The conventional wisdom about Colombia has gone through quite a transition:
- We will win the drug war through Plan Colombia.
- We are winning the drug war in Colombia. We just need more time/money.
- While there have been some set-backs, if we redouble our efforts, we will win.
- We need to come up with some different options and get some more help from neighbors, and then we'll win.
- There's no possible way to win this war no matter what we do.
This is good progress. And now we have to help lead them to...
- What's next?
3:15:42 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
