Drug WarRant

While I was busy with other things last week, I missed the chance to talk about the excellent Leonard Pitts, Jr. column If not drug legalization, what, Mr. President?

The president argued that drug dealers might come to “dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint.” This dominance, he said, “could be just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.”

One wonders if the president forgot to engage brain before operating mouth.

Dealers might “dominate certain countries?” Has Obama never heard of Mexico, that country on our southern border where drug dealers operate as a virtual shadow government in some areas? Is he unfamiliar with Colombia — his host nation — where, for years, the government battled a drug cartel brutal and brazen enough to attack the Supreme Court and assassinate the attorney general? That scenario Obama warns against actually came to pass a long time ago.

Similarly, it is a mystery how the manufacture and sale of a legal product could be “just as corrupting if not more corrupting than the status quo.” How could that be, given that there would no longer be a need for drug merchants to bribe judges, politicians and police for protection? What reason is there to believe a legal market in drugs would be any more prone to corruption than the legal markets in cigarettes and alcohol? Or, popcorn and chocolate? […]

The president’s reasoning is about as sturdy as a cardboard box in a monsoon. Even he must know — who can still deny? — that the drug war has failed. […]

Drug legalization is not the answer? OK, Mr. President, fair enough.

What is?

Good stuff, and a good question.

I was reminded about this column today when seeing that the infamous Calvina Faye has a letter responding to the article.

It was pretty eerie, because in the letter Calvina Faye sounds just like the drug czar:

As a drug policy expert, I offer a solution: a comprehensive policy that includes prevention, treatment and viable alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts.

I would think that should give Gil Kerlikowske the willies.

I had a fun time yesterday. There was a flyer about a debate on campus on the legalization of marijuana – not sure if it was a class thing or a debate club thing, but it was one of those structured academic “debates” with everything written out before-hand and a strict series of timed sections. The participants merely read their arguments (including the questions and responses to each other) and it didn’t have any passion, but it was still interesting to see what material they chose to use.

Danielle took the “pro” side and focused on the lack of harm caused by marijuana, proactively debunking numerous myths. She also mentioned the economic benefits of legalization, and interestingly, focused a fair amount of time on “spiritual” benefits that can be achieved from marijuana, going so far as to posit a 1st Amendment claim.

Molly took the “con” side and you could tell her heart wasn’t really into it, but she dutifully argued the side, and it was fascinating to listen to the same lies told by the government over and over again and how she naturally picked them up because they’re out there everywhere. She hit on the marijuana is clearly addictive because of the number of people in treatment, the carcinogens and other chemicals in smoke and the strong implication of cancer, and many of the other standard lies (again, not her fault, except in the failure to research opposition material to protect her from what I did later). She also spent a lot of time on the drugged driving issue, saying that it was very hard to detect stoned drivers and they posed a danger to others, so we had to keep it illegal.

When the event concluded, the moderator asked if there were any questions, clearly used to getting none from the audience in these debates (there were maybe 16 students there, most of whom signed a paper to indicate attendance). I had my hand up.

I decided to limit myself to a few items and to be gentle, but I could still have a good time with it. So I countered the cancer item with the Tashkin study, pretty much destroyed the treatment item with the treatment statistics analysis, and then noted that texting while driving is dangerous to others and very hard for the police to detect. So I asked if she proposed making the possession and sale of cell phones illegal. By this point, the rest of the students got into it and there was a pretty spirited discussion. Some of the SSDP students were there and brought up Portugal, and one even brought up an old humorous saying about driving and marijuana. Ah, it warmed my heart.

A very nice diversion in a busy work day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju4QKSqk4zQ

Former DEA analyst Sean Dunagan agrees with the majority of Americans who say it is time to legalize marijuana. He debates former police officer Paul Chabot, who thinks even alcohol prohibition actually worked. Sean is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

What We Have to Say About Marijuana and Hemp Production

America’s farmers deserve our Nation’s help and support to ensure rural America’s prosperity and vitality. Federal law prohibits human consumption, distribution, and possession of Schedule I controlled substances. Hemp and marijuana are part of the same species of cannabis plant. While most of the THC in cannabis plants is concentrated in the marijuana, all parts of the plant, including hemp, can contain THC, a Schedule I controlled substance. The Administration will continue looking for innovative ways to support farmers across the country while balancing the need to protect public health and safety.

Wow. That was just… pathetic.

What We Have to Say About Marijuana and Veterans

Many brave men and women who have risked their lives in service to our country are now suffering from physical, mental health, and substance abuse problems. We have an obligation to care for our military families and veterans and to improve their lives by increasing access to vital treatment services specifically geared toward our military heroes. While the Administration continues to support research on what parts of the marijuana plant may be used as medicine, neither the Food and Drug Administration nor the Institute of Medicine has found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard of safe or effective medicine. We will continue working with our partners in the medical community to ensure that veterans have access to science-based medical treatments and get the help they and their families need.

Gil’s really phoning these in, isn’t he?

Reforming the Criminal Justice System

Ah, this one’s answered by Deputy Director Benjamin B. Tucker, so it’s much longer, but it still doesn’t answer the question – merely restates all the government’s positions.

“Merry” and “tragical”? “Tedious” and “brief”?
That is hot ice and wondrous strange snow.
How shall we find the concord of this discord?
– A Midsummer Night’s Dream

That scene came unbidden to my mind as I doubled over in laughter after reading the subhead of Rethinking the War on Drugs by Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Angela Hawken in the Wall Street Journal:

Prohibition and legalization aren’t our only choices when it comes to drugs.

Really? What’s the third choice?

Seriously. What’s the third choice? If it’s not prohibited, it’s legal. If it’s not legal, it’s prohibited, by definition.

Now, I realize that the authors may not actually write the subhead (and probably are furious with the Wall Street Journal headline writer), and yet, in one simple stroke, that headline writer has encapsulated the essence of Kleiman/Caulkins/Hawken. They refuse to legitimately discuss legalization and yet don’t want to be tarred with the fact that everyone hates prohibition (for good reason).

Of course, the truth is that prohibition and legalization are our only choices. It’s a binary proposition.

And the authors don’t have a third option. What they have is prohibition with a twist.

While they don’t specifically try to deny the definitions of prohibition and legalization so blatantly in the text of their written piece, they still show rampant intellectual dishonesty by tossing out ridiculous phrases — like referring to one side as being “proposals for wholesale drug legalization.”

Wholesale drug legalization? What does that mean? Is that as opposed to retail drug legalization? How about regulated drug legalization? Ah, they don’t want to talk about that.

They go on to use their tired mantra of every drug being exactly like alcohol, and somehow being required to be marketed exactly like alcohol, and also apparently there being no substitution effect. And so, with each drug that’s legalized (regardless of the methods or regulations employed) we descend further and inescapably into a world of zombies, because everyone in the world except the three of them is a pathetic, weak child who will hopelessly succumb to any drug that’s put in front of them (if the word legal is in any way attached to it), and it’s up to the three of them to save the world by imposing their will upon everyone else.

They then ruin their own argument by noting that drugs being illegal doesn’t stop people from getting drugs (“but the risk of arrest is too low to be much of a deterrent”)

Then they go on to destroy their own argument further by talking about ways to reduce the problems of alcohol and, lo and behold, it doesn’t involve making alcohol illegal! No, they propose regulations and taxes, and consequences for those who abuse alcohol. Then they supposedly take that same notion over to other drugs, but, lo and behold, it requires keeping the drugs illegal!

These guys talk a good game, and they’ve got the occasional program or proposal that can be useful in certain situations, but in terms of providing any kind of look at drug policy as a whole, they are hopelessly mired in their own prejudices and are incapable of dispassionately viewing or analyzing the facts.

It’s a shame that we have to look to the U.K., Australia, and elsewhere for legitimate drug policy academics.

Update: To clarify, there are a whole range of options within prohibition. If you are choosing one of those options within prohibition, then say so. Don’t claim to reject prohibition and then call for exactly that.

There are also a whole range of options within legalization. Acknowledge that, and don’t dismiss all the wealth of options as “wholesale legalization” or some such nonsense.

The two sides of the coin analogy in this post means that we cannot get rid of the evils of prohibition without going to some form of legalization. You can’t invent a mythical third path.

I’ve been out of touch for a while, helping students with a fundraiser where they ended up keeping four square games going for 69 hours straight, along with having bands playing and other special events. They ended up raising about $15,000 for scholarships (partly due to one amazing $10,000 donor). I was there almost the whole time and always through the nights, cooking grilled cheese, panini sandwiches and breakfast sandwiches for the tired players.

So, fill me in. What’s been going on the past few days?

Had a great time at the Illinois State University Hemp Fest sponsored by Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Gave a talk on drug policy and had a wonderful discussion with a number of audience members afterward.

I also had some fun judging the tobacco-rolling competition. The winner was quite a creative work of art – designed to be lit in four places simultaneously.

For any new visitors to Drug WarRant who were there, welcome! Feel free to join in the discussion.

I’ve got a group of extremely talented friends (and former students) who have been involved in a massive film/real life/social media project called “I Made America.” Check out their entire video series – it’s wonderful. The idea is that six founding fathers are kidnapped and brought back through time to the present to be used for nefarious political purposes. They rebel and go off on their own, adapting to modern society (Jefferson becomes a singer-songwriter). Not only are they making a video series, but they show up in public in character at various events (at Bulls games, parties, ice skating, opening bank accounts, etc.). I highly suggest you follow them and watch some or all of their videos (both the actual series, and the extra ones).

Here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson discuss 420 while listening to Newt Gingrich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4j2TPZGpBC0

Rafael Lemaitre, the communications director at ONDCP has started adding #Reform to a lot of his tweets, as though calling what they’re doing “reform” makes it so (sort of like saying they’ve ended the “war on drugs” makes that true). It’s ironic that ONDCP wants in on our label (obviously to try to take it over).

The pathetic nature of the attempt makes me think of this scene from “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VGV66GzsKw

Two articles that help emphasize the importance of the recent Summit of the Americas in Cartagena.

Douglas Haddow’s OpEd in the Guardian is a must-read: Did Cartagena mark the beginning of the end of the war on drugs?

But while lurid tales of secret service agents behaving like hirelings on a piss-up tour make for tasty headlines, the summit could well be remembered not for its failures, but as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs.

The significance of what transpired over the weekend cannot be overstated: in years past, we’ve seen countless instances of former leaders, judges and law enforcement officers coming forward to argue the case for international drug policy reform, but this is the first time we’ve seen sitting governments openly discussing ending the war on drugs in a diplomatic setting. […]

If we view Cartagena within the framework of a traditional war, what we have witnessed is the first draft of an armistice. The problem with the drug war, and the reason why it has taken so long for reformers to gain any traction, is that it has remained a niche issue due to its deeply classist nature. In a global context, developing nations endure the violence while the developed subsidise it, through both consumer demand and law enforcement funding. Within the developed countries a similar formula is reproduced; with poor neighbourhoods and demographics taking the place of their nation-state equivalents.

The corrosive results of this arrangement are obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. […]

The shift in language at the Cartegena summit presents a rare opportunity for a global policy renaissance that would have profound implications on how citizens relate to their governments.

Powerful stuff.

Also of interest, Coletta Youngers writing at Foreign Policy in Focus: Drug-Law Reform Genie Freed From Bottle at Summit of the Americas

The lasting legacy of the Cartagena summit, however, will likely be the beginning of a serious regional debate on international drug control policies. With the apparently adept leadership of Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos, the issue was discussed at a private, closed-door meeting of the presidents – according to press accounts, it was the only issue discussed at that meeting – and Santos later announced that as a result of the presidents’ discussion, the Organization of American States (OAS) was tasked with analyzing the results of present policy and exploring alternative approaches that could prove to be more effective. A topic long considered taboo – the U.S. “war on drugs” – is now being seriously questioned and debate on new strategies – including legal, regulated markets – is officially on the regional agenda.

The significance of this development cannot be underestimated. For years, Washington has used its economic and political muscle to squash any dissenting opinions from Latin American governments. Academics and other experts who proposed alternative policies were ostracized as “legalizers,” even if that is not what they were proposing. The “L” word could not even be mentioned in official circles. In fact, the present debate is not about outright legalization per se but rather legal, regulated markets. Administration officials, nonetheless, continue to misconstrue the issue. At the summit, President Obama said that drug traffickers could “dominate certain countries if they were allowed to operate legally without any constraint.”

Now, Latin American governments have turned the tables, taking on a leadership role in considering alternative policies.