|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, August 8, 2009 |
|
Friday, August 7, 2009 |
What are the alternatives?
Thomas Black and Jens Erik Gould have written a curiously bizarre article for Bloomberg.com: Calderon's Waning Power Lends Urgency to Obama Meeting on Drugs
This article dramatically demonstrates the disconnect when people are unable or unwilling to discuss the options available. The article is about the fact that Calderon may lose power and how that will affect the "success" of the drug war.
"My concern is that Calderon has three years left," said Michael Braun, who stepped down last year as the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's chief of operations. "Everyone has to work as hard as we can, to make as much headway as we can, because we don't know what's coming next."
Time may already be running out after Calderon's party lost its leading role in Congress in mid-term elections in July, said Jorge Chabat, a political science professor at the Center for Economic Research and Teaching in Mexico City.
Check out the next passage:
Should the National Action Party lose the presidency in 2012, Mexico might revert to its traditional nationalism, pulling back on collaboration with the U.S. and halting the bloody war on drug cartels unleashed by Calderon, he said.
The supposedly scary news is that there might be a halt to the bloody war. Do they realize what they're saying?
Ah, but then, if you remember, according to our drug warriors, violence is a sign that we're winning...
The crackdown also has stoked almost 10,000 drug-related murders in the past 18 months as weakened gangs battle for drug routes and retaliate against police.
Weakened. Right. Hmm... Their ability to corrupt the military and police doesn't make them look all that weak to me. And as long as there is demand, there will be supply, which means that no matter how many cartels are taken down, more will be there to replace them. So this violence solves nothing.
What about other ideas?
"We should rethink a strategy that's more effective," Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Senate leader for the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, known as the PRI
And how do the article's authors react to the notion that there might be another approach?
A PRI victory would probably reverse Calderon's steps drawing closer to the U.S. to curb the $17.2 billion of cocaine, marijuana and other drugs the U.S. Justice Department estimates cross the border annually.
Because, of course, in their minds there can be no option other than fighting the drug war (despite its failures), so any other option is unacceptable by definition, without even hearing it.
The conclusion of the article is really astonishing. Check out the pathetic plea, here:
Mexico's only choice is to "grind this out," Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said last week in Mexico City.
"What are the alternatives?" he said.
Oh, my. Can you believe that? He knows that the current strategy is horrible, but plaintively wishes that someone would give him an alternative. We'd be happy to, but unfortunately, the answer isn't in his vocabulary.
....
Things are a little crazy in my neighborhood right now. There's a fire about three blocks away that's been raging out of control. After work, I carefully drove over near there to check it out. Not pretty. The firefighters are hard at work, armed to the teeth with assault weapons, fighting the flames. Yet the fire continues to spread.
A block away from the fire, I spotted the fire czar, who was overseeing the attack on the fire, and I asked him how it was going.
"It's really tough. We've been laying down a lot of firepower, yet the fire keeps lashing out and causing more destruction. It's got to be weakened -- nothing could take that kind of punishment unscathed -- and it must be that weakened condition that's causing it to become more violent."
I asked if he had tried anything else besides shooting at the fire.
"Of course! We've tried everything. Grenades seemed to have some good impact and the fire would temporarily subside, but then it would build right back up, and we were losing a lot of people due to the shrapnel.
"Nothing seems to be working. If only there was some other solution."
So I asked him. Had he tried... water.
"That's not in my vocabulary.... Seriously, anything at all," he pleaded in between burst of automatic weapon fire. "Doesn't anybody have any ideas? We're losing ground here every minute."
So I sighed and went home. The fire should reach here later tonight.
6:21:17 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Open Thread
 Don't Smoke It by Peter Gorman in the Fort Worth Weekly, is an extensive article about industrial hemp.
In fact, he said, traditionally independent Texas farmers could come to see hemp-growing as a right they're being denied. "Texans don't like their personal rights abridged," he said. "And once they understand the difference between marijuana and industrial hemp, your average Texas farmer would probably demand the right to grow it.
Daniel Leshiker, who farms near Ralph Snyder in North Central Texas, agreed with Snyder that hemp sounds intriguing.
"We already need another crop, that's for certain. I just planted 200 acres of sunflowers for their seed for the first time," he said. "So while I don't know much about hemp except they used to make rope with it, well, you tell me I could make money with it, and I'll grow it. That's what we are in the business to do."
Where will Christians fall when the marijuana debate lights up?
But younger Christians might be a different story. In late April, the evangelical blog Burnside Writer's Collective quizzed its young-ish readers on a series of pot-related questions. Should marijuana be legalized? Fifty percent of responders thought so, and the next largest percentage said it should at least be decriminalized. Have you ever smoked marijuana? Fifty percent said yes, 40 said no. The 10 percent in the middle respond, in uniquely young evangelical fashion, that they have smoked once or twice. (Doesn't that just mean "Yes?")
This is the stupidest idea I've ever seen. The Wheel of Justice? Spinning to see what drug dealer you'll arrest next. If that isn't proof that the drug war is idiotic in itself, I don't know what is.
Dr. Joycelyn Elders: Americans need to be more healthy. The former Surgeon General writes:
"To me, [marijuana is] not nearly as toxic for our bodies as tobacco or alcohol. It should be legalized."
Via Scott Morgan: Police Will Do Anything to Arrest People for Marijuana
The Tigard Police Department has ended a sex-for-marijuana Internet sting because officers posting the online ads posed as promiscuous women, not prostitutes.
...
The officers posting the Craigslist ads posed as women willing to a have casual sexual encounter with men who had marijuana. No cash was involved. When the men showed up for the encounter, they were charged with prostitution and delivery of drugs.
Defense attorneys say the program was entrapment.
No kidding.
Also from Scott: Federal Prosecutor Drops Medical Marijuana Charges
And the universe didn't collapse. Not only that, the story has gotten no press whatsoever. Often, when the government refrains from doing something cruel to someone, there isn't much of a news story left to report. This just goes to show how silly it is to assume that there's a political imperative requiring us to continue aggressively enforcing bad drug laws. There isn't.
See how easy it is to just leave patients alone? Next time, try not arresting them in the first place.
8:23:43 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 6, 2009 |
ABC News goes Reefer Madness
'Reefer Madness' Redux, Is Pot Addictive? at ABC News Health is a real piece of work.
It purports to be a balanced look at whether cannabis is addictive or whether current fears are mere Reefer Madness, yet it allows an awful lot of its own Reefer Madness nonsense through...
Studies dating back to 1984 have documented a clinical syndrome characterized by "restlessness, anorexia, irritability and insomnia" that begins within 24 hours of discontinuation and can last for up to 10 days.
Today, there are no FDA-approved drugs to counteract withdrawal symptoms, although the synthetic cancer drug Marinol shows some promise.
Really? Drugs to counteract cannabis withdrawal? Do we really need that? And are prescription THC pills supposed to be the answer (especially since, if we believe the fear-mongers, a big part of the problem is the increased level of THC in today's pot)?
As the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, marijuana produces dependence and relapse rates comparable to other drugs some researchers believe.
Really? Even a cursory look at the difference between tobacco smokers and marijuana smokers will quickly disabuse you of that notion.
With stronger pot, emergency rooms have reported more associated accidents. Just this week, seven people were killed when the driver -- drove the wrong way on a New York highway and collided head on with a pickup truck. Although the drivers family has disputed the results, toxicology tests showed high levels of alcohol and marijuana.
Give me a break! Combination of the conjoined statement lie, the out and out plain old lie (use of the word "accidents" in the first sentence), and attributing marijuana causation in an accident involving high levels of alcohol.
"The marijuana that is now out has been cross-bred like people breed flowers so what you have now is different from what you had 20 to 30 years ago," said John Massella, regional program director for the Pittsburgh-based Gateway rehabilitation center, which treats 10,000 to 12,000 patients a year.
"They develop a tolerance and need more to get the desired effect," he told ABCNews.com.
Bull.
Gateway has seen an increase in number of marijuana dependency cases, mostly adults who do not come of their own volition. Many have been referred by family or have had trouble with the law or have tested positive in an employment-related urine test.
Yeah. In other words, they aren't addicted. They're showing up because of referrals.
[Roger A. Roffman] argues that the reform movement makes a "tragic mistake" to convince the public that marijuana is relatively harmless.
Hmm.... that last sentence sounds familiar.
New York Times July 19, 2009:
[Roger a. Roffman:] However, our debates need more honesty. Those favoring liberalizing marijuana policy ought to stop inferring that marijuana is harmless; it is not.
Boston Globe, June 23, 2008:
"I think [both sides] do a disservice to the general public," said Roffman, who has written papers and edited books on marijuana use and dependence. On websites of drug policy reform advocates, "you'll find lots of information about the very adverse consequences of criminalizing marijuana and very little mention of the very real harm associated with marijuana among some people in some circumstances," he said.
Exactly what I was talking about in my post Harmless?
Where Roffman gets the idea that it's my job to say that marijuana isn't harmless (particularly when every government and media lackey is willing to lie to do so) is beyond me, particularly when it isn't even relevant to the discussion of whether criminalization is the best way to deal with drugs.
[Thanks, Scott]
5:49:50 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Nothing is likely to prevent us from spending money on the drug war
It's been somewhat good news that Senator Leahy blocked a favorable State Department report on Mexico's human rights record.
Leahy's action delays the release of $100 million in U.S. aid meant to help Mexico combat drug traffickers. The Merida Initiative, a $1.4 billion, three-year package, requires Congress to withhold some of the funding unless the State Department reports that Mexico is not violating human rights while prosecuting the drug war, the Post reported.
But will it do any good? Unlikely.
But objections by Leahy and others may have limited impact. Because the law requires only that the report be submitted, the State Department could spend the conditional money even if lawmakers object to its findings.
9:22:53 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Bolivian coca amendment to Single Convention
The Bolivian government has successfully commenced the formal process for amending the UN's Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) to eliminate the provision that would require all countries to prohibit coca leaf chewing within 25 years (for Bolivia, that was 2001).
Interesting amendment process. If no country objects within 18 months, then the amendment passes (a nice, if time consuming, way to do it - countries need not get on the record to approve it). Countries most likely to object: United States and Sweden. If that happens, then there's a conference to consider it.
The proposal has a very nice argument as to why this provision should be removed from the Single Convention.
9:11:48 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 |
Deep Thought
In a sane society, an increase in arrests would be seen as a sign of failure.
We treat it like scoring points in a basketball game and give out bonuses.
7:15:14 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
California: a penal colony with a nice coastline
That's Kevin Drum in Mother Jones: California's Prison Disaster.
A nice little piece about the prison mess
A combination of dumb drug laws, dysfunctional parole policies, "three strikes" laws passed by initiative, an endless procession of tougher-than-thou politicians, and a famously thuggish and politically powerful prison guards union has gotten California into this mess.
But, while Kevin is friends with Mark Kleiman, he really needs to stop going to Mark every time he talks about drugs. Particularly now, with his new book coming out, Kleiman talks about nothing but Project HOPE when it comes to drug policy, even when it's only of partial relevance. California is not going to solve its prison explosion by merely instituting a parole system with drug testing, position monitoring, and "swift but mild" prison sanctions. They're going to have to imprison fewer people in the first place, and some of those they imprison will have to be for shorter sentences.
7:38:10 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 |
Bradley Schreiber, Drug Warrior, Idiot
Where do they get these people?
Take the case of Bradley Schreiber. He "served as a senior advisor at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is now president of Homeland Security Solutions."
His company (which may be just him and Steven Grossman for all I know) issued a Press Release touting Schreiber's drug war advice, particularly as it relates to Mexico. The following are not misquotes by press, but rather actual quotes written by him for his own press release...
1.
"Drug cartels are incredibly nimble creatures - you cut the head off one and another will just pop up."
I do not think that word means what you think it means... Nimble? Not very nimble if you cut off their head. "Replaceable," perhaps, or "ubiquitous." Maybe even "regenerative," depending on the context. But definitely not "nimble" in that tortured metaphor.
2. Schreiber said that "the best way to stop them is to stop the flow of money. If we take away the cash, the drugs are worth nothing. The cartels become impudent."
"If we take away the cash, the drugs are worth nothing." No, the drugs are still valuable, you've just taken cash away from the cartels.... but then... Shreiber says that without cash the "cartels become impudent." "Impudent"? "Impudent" is a cocky boldness -- certainly not what you'd think Shreiber is trying to effect by taking away their cash. Perhaps he means "impotent," kind of like his writing and ideas.
So, now that we've explored his inability to master the English language and the metaphor, what about Shreiber's actual views on the drug war?
After all, in his press release he "contends that the current U.S. and Mexican approach to fighting the cartels will fail"
But Bradley's got the answer. For that, we turn to Defeating the drug cartels: A broader approach by Bradley C. Schreiber in Homeland Security Today, where he supposedly "outlines steps that must be taken to ensure success."
Wow. What are those steps that will ensure success where current efforts guarantee failure?
- Stop cash smuggling. Gee, I wonder why nobody thought of that? We've already got cops in southern states only stopping southbound cars in the hopes of nabbing some cash (which is worth more to them than the drugs).
- Increase interdiction efforts in Western Caribbean and Eastern Pacific areas. Interdiction? Yeah, that works. If you want to get about 10% of what goes through and not hurt the cartels at all.
- Increase interdiction and law enforcement to stop drugs traveling to Europe through Africa. Sure, because we have the resources to patrol every mile of border of every country in the entire world. Anywhere we put interdiction resources, the cartels merely go around.
- Inspect more shipping containers. Isn't this more interdiction? Isn't supply side what we've been doing that doesn't really accomplish anything?
- Pass the Colombian Free Trade agreement with Colombia, so the farmers won't grow coca any more.
Bradley Schreiber concludes:
These are just a few of the steps that are required to succeed in our fight against the drug cartels that threaten Mexican and US national security. We can win this war once and for all, but only if we think more broadly and act more widely.
The nimble and impudent cartels are laughing all the way to the bank.
9:30:22 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly, math wizard
I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, for my own sanity, but Reddit had a link to this video from last night's show -- his Cultural Warriors segment. He was talking about Amsterdam.
Some Americans (secular progressives) want to turn the USA into a permissive culture like western Europe. That's what's driving the drug legalization deal, gay and plural marriage, light sentences for convicted criminals....
He went on to talk about the evils of Amsterdam and how the mayor recently talked about the problems of organized crime, the existence of which, in O'Reilly's mind, was due to the legalization of marijuana and prostitution -- which, of course, is patently absurd. Even the two Fox News contributors on the show weren't buying it completely.
At one point, one of them asked:
Why have so many more people in the USA, where marijuana is illegal, tried it? 40% of people in the USA compared to 22.6%...
OREILLY (interrupting): The way they use statistics in the Netherlands is different, plus it's a much smaller country.
I stand in awe of his reasoning skills.
8:45:20 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, August 3, 2009 |
NBC, CBS, ABC, & FOX happy to profit from marijuana, as long as nobody talks about legalizing it
[Guest post by Russ Belville]
Marijuana legalization is the hottest topic in the media these days.
MSNBC, CNBC,
CNN,
FOX,
NatGeo, and CBS News have presented special features on marijuana business, medical marijuana, and the marijuana legalization movement.
Google Trends is showing double the interest in searches and news
hits for the term "marijuana legalization".
Showtime's hit series Weeds, about a suburban mom turned pot dealer, is entering its fifth season. Everywhere
you look, corporate media are happy to profit from America's most popular herb.
Unless you want to address marijuana's illegality and the lives that are shattered by the effects of marijuana prohibition. In that case, the corporate media cannot have anything to do with you, even if you want to pay to broadcast the message of ending adult marijuana prohibition...
1:25:33 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, August 2, 2009 |
Harmless?
Recently I was reading an opinion piece by an academic who, after demolishing the government's position on marijuana, felt the need to admonish drug policy reformers for not fulfilling our obligation to inform people that marijuana is not harmless.
First, that's not our job. And to a large extent, it's irrelevant. Marijuana could be deadly dangerous and legalization would still be the answer, if prohibition, like now, didn't actually exert a positive effect on any drug dangers and additionally had massively destructive side-effects.
The old drug czar used to love to throw that "harmless" word around, as if, assuming he could find some evidence that it was not completely harmless, that destroyed the arguments of legalizers.
But let's assume it matters. What does the word mean?
- free from harm, liability, or loss
- lacking capacity or intent to injure
Clearly, the word has no meaning when applied to ... anything, unless referring to it in a particular context.
For example, you may think that water is harmless, and it is, if you're drinking a glass. However, it is clearly possible to fatally overdose on water, and floods kill people all the time.
Marijuana, if used responsibly, is harmless. If you take a ton of it and drop it from a helicopter on someone's head, it's not.
So, if you're going to talk about whether a substance as a whole is "harmless" (since none can be), you really can only logically be talking "harmless" as a relative term compared to other acceptable risk substances (hence the "marijuana is safer" campaigns).
So let's take a look at some regularly accepted things in society (legal things) where marijuana is "more harmless" in comparison...
Easy ones...
...but there's lots more:
Contractor: So, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, I see here that you're asking us to put stairs in between the first and second floor in your new house. Well, we can do that, of course, but I do feel obligated to warn you that stairs aren't harmless.
Well, you get the idea.
When prohibitionists play the "harmless" game, they're trying to distract people from the real argument -- the harmfulness of prohibition.
8:37:12 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
