Drug WarRant

First up, via Australia (Thanks Evert) we have The decriminalisation (or even legalisation) of drugs by Chris Berg.

It doesn’t take more than a moment of thought to recognise that the rulings on which drugs are legal or illegal are governed by no particular logic.

No theory from medicine or philosophy or psychology demands alcohol, tobacco and caffeine must be legal while marijuana, cocaine, and heroin must be prohibited.

[…]

Whether a drug is illegal is nothing more than an accident of history. Drug laws were not written dispassionately by a panel of the best medical and ethical minds in the world. The laws bear no relation to the damage those drugs could cause or their danger to society – they were not written to minimise harm or protect health.

Quite the opposite: the current schedule of drugs in the Western world has been driven by politics, expediency, prejudice, and sometimes outright racism.

[…]

But the biggest cultural barrier to such reform is the current status illegal drugs have. In the sort of circular reasoning that only popular discourse can manage, the prohibition of drugs is mostly justified by their pre-existing legal status. Why are certain drugs prohibited? Because they are illicit drugs.

But that status has been set by politics and moral panics, not dispassionate evidence-based risk assessments. Drug prohibition carries the legacy of the ugly politics of the past. Once we realise that, we may start to rethink the justice of a war that is, in truth, not against drugs, but against drug users.

Then, in Canada, we have our friend Eric Sterling trying to advise them from going down our destructive path. Canada is repeating U.S. mistakes on drug sentencing

As Canadian senators meet this week to vote on comprehensive anti-crime Bill C-10, they need to reflect upon the U.S. experience and reject the bill’s entrenchment of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences in Canada. As has been the case in the U.S., mandatory minimums can easily go wrong in Canada, too, in ways entirely predictable. Exploding court and correctional costs for resource-strapped national and provincial governments is one likely calamity that Canadians can expect from mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

In 1986, I played a central role helping the U.S. Congress write the federal mandatory minimum sentences. Soon we saw the devastating effects that this legislation forced upon unprepared court and correctional systems.

[…]

But the political temptation to promote harsh-sounding sentences was too seductive in 1986. Ironically, no opponent of mandatory minimum sentences has ever lost re-election on this issue. We have learned that imprisoning countless marijuana gardeners has no impact on organized crime leaders, doesn’t keep drugs away from kids or kids away from drugs, and actually increases criminals’ profits by driving up prices.

Countless lives have been ruined due to incarceration and criminal records for non-violent drug offences. Based on this irrefutable evidence, and the repeal of mandatory sentencing measures in numerous states, I can see only one reason why Canada’s federal government and some provincial governments would want to go down this wasteful route: the belief it is good electoral politics to parade as tough on drugs and crime. At this time of fiscal limits, taxpayers can’t afford the luxury of expensive and symbolic anti-crime measures.

Parliament must embrace only policies that are effective, respect the taxpayers’ pocketbook and are evidence-based. Mandatory minimums fit none of these important criteria.

Powerful and blistering editorial in the Guatemala Times: US failed war on drugs is killing Guatemala

And they’re absolutely right.

We are paying the ultimate price for the idiotic, myopic and ill conceived anti drug war strategies designed by the US and implemented in Colombia and Mexico ( We wonder is it about drugs or is it about OIL resources?).

Mexico gets billions to make war on narcos; Colombia gets billions to make war on narcos, result: massive narco migration. That is hailed as a success in the war on Drugs.

Well it is no success for Guatemala and other countries who suffer the consequences.

They discuss where Mexico, Colombia, and Guatemala fit in with U.S. interests…

The US considers Mexico a priority: they are neighbors; it is a national security concern and they have a lot of OIL. Colombia is a priority because of the sheer volumes of revenues the narco trade generates that concerns the US, it is an economic concern, and they have a lot of OIL. […]

Guatemala is in the middle, Guatemala does not concern the US because we are unimportant to them, we have no OIL. No economic interest, no security interest, no political interest. So the geniuses of the US Drug war give resources to Colombia and Mexico, but very little to Guatemala. Result: Guatemala will soon have more narcos then chickens. But who cares. Geopolitically Guatemala is disposable.

The conclusion has absolutely the right suggestion.

We have a better suggestion: take the money away from Mexico and Colombia, have the narcos return to their countries of origin. Make an air bridge and import the drugs legally into the US. Mexico prospers, Colombia prospers, the US takes care of their problem and we are out of this idiotic war on drugs. That is what we call a successful strategy to contain the problem.

I wonder if Janet Napolitano has read that and if she’ll try to tell Guatemala that the drug war has been a success.

Part of the Count the Costs Initiative comes this short film by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union on the Human Rights Costs of the War on Drugs:

Via Transform.

Napolitano: Mexican drug war ‘not a failure’

Clearly realizes that she can’t call it a “success” so she tries to back-door her way through “not a failure.”

And yet, given her stated objectives:

“a continuing effort to keep our peoples from becoming addicted to dangerous drugs.”

… how can it be considered anything else than an abject failure. It hasn’t kept people from anything and has fueled massive levels of violence.

Legalizing marijuana in US has potential for positive effects by Simon Cantarel in The Oklahoma Daily — another excellent OpEd by a student. More SSDP influence?

Interesting juxtaposition of headlines in my newsreader:

• Bolivia’s Flying Coca Farmers
• Colombia buys submarines in anti-drug war

Marijuana Federalism by Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy

… each time another state moves against drug prohibition is another opportunity to reconsider drug prohibition and the nature and extent to which federal resources should be devoted to the war on drugs.

Bob Barr: Libertarians should vote for Gingrich

This provokes the rather obvious question: “Has Bob Barr always been insane?” I’m getting convinced that his “conversion” to libertarianism was little more than his insanity causing him to believe he was a libertarian, much like the psych wards are populated with deluded crackpots believing themselves to be Napoléon Bonaparte.

Federal Money Linked to NYPD’s Muslim Surveillance Program

The Associated Press reports that the New York Police Department’s controversial program to monitor Muslim neighborhoods and organizations was funded, at least in part, by White House grants meant to pay for the drug war. The money was given to the NYPD through the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, which was established years ago to fight gangs and drug trafficking. After September 11, 2001, however, local authorities were permitted to redirect some of that money to fight terrorism. The HIDTA has given out around $2.3 billion over the last 10 years, with about $135 million given to officials in the New York/New Jersey metro area.

Both the drug war and the war on terror are largely about authoritarianism — giving the government more power over the people as opposed to giving people more power over the government — and thus their funding is jealously protected by those in power.

Perhaps this incident will help give the HIDTA another black eye. HIDTA is responsible for many of the most outrageous drug war stunts we’ve seen (particularly through drug task forces).

One of the basic foundations of the drug war is that, since it outlaws a fully consensual act, it is difficult to enforce as there are no aggrieved parties to cooperate with the police. Add to that the high demand and the incredibly easy means of supply and you get frustrated prohibitionists.

This leads to a plethora of back-door and sideways attacks by legislators and law enforcement, as they add volumes of laws outlawing things even peripherally related to drugs.

In Ohio, they’re looking to make it illegal to have a hidden compartment in your car.

A proposed state law, advocated by Gov. John Kasich, would make it a fourth-degree felony to own a vehicle equipped with secret compartments. A conviction would mean up to 18 months in jail and a potential $5,000 fine.

Note that with this law it doesn’t matter whether you’re using the secret compartment for anything illegal. It’s the existence of the compartment itself that is banned.

After all, you could have a very legitimate reason to have a secret compartment. If you’re traveling with valuables and you’re concerned about thugs with guns pulling you over and taking your cash for no reason… (Oh, yeah…)

… yes, the asset forfeiture aspect of the drug war has been a huge peripheral part of it, with cash, cars, and buildings being seized merely for the suspicion of being connected to drug trafficking, even if you are not charged.

Drug warriors had a hard time sometimes catching people in the act of selling, so the lawmakers decided to make possession of a certain quantity of drugs proof of selling whether you actually did sell or not. So trafficking can merely mean that you didn’t want to go to a criminal to buy your drugs so often and got a larger quantity for yourself.

And I find almost amusing that if you merely allow a plant to grow by itself in your back yard you can be charged with “manufacturing” (taking a lot of credit away from Mother Nature/God).

Drug-free school zones have nothing to do with selling to kids and merely add on penalties for selling drugs in the city.

Money laundering and conspiracy laws are used to convict people when they don’t have the evidence to convict people.

Drug paraphernalia laws are absurd, since almost anything can have multiple uses, and we have endless dances around what stores can sell, related to other merchandise that they have.

A Chicago politician tried to outlaw small plastic bags. In some states, it’s illegal to sell “rose tubes” (which can also be used as crack pipes). In Georgia, they arrested 32 Indians named Patel, among others, for failing to understand the drug slang that undercover officers were using when the cops bought common household items from them in convenience stores.

Of course, these days all of use have to be careful not to have too many colds. Now you can’t even buy the useful cold medicine with Sudafed at night when you need it, and you risk jail if you buy too much in one month.

And, of course, this hasn’t stopped anything. Meth is still widely available.

The absurdity is pointed out in this delightful tongue-in-cheek article in the Journal of Apocryphal Chemistry: A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine From
N-Methylamphetamine by O. Hai, and I. B. Hakkenshit

A novel and straightforward synthesis of pseudoephidrine from
readily available N-methylamphetamine is presented. This practical synthesis is expected to be a disruptive technology replacing the need to find an open pharmacy.

Maybe I’ll try that next time I get a cold.

So, what other bizarre laws related to the drug war do you know?

I remember when this bust happened, and the mention of the books, etc., but I don’t think I commented on it then. This article in DCist reminded me, and some of the wording really hit me.

Capitol Hemp Stops Selling Books Over Fears of Another Raid

If you walked into Capitol Hemp’s Adams Morgan location today, you could buy yourself a “Make Hemp Not War” t-shirt. Or a bottle of Dr. Bronner’s peppermint soap. Or hemp oatmeal, loose-leaf tobacco and even the very water pipes that got the store raided by police last October. But you won’t be able to find a copy of Andrew Sullivan’s “The Cannabis Closet,” a book that focuses on mainstream marijuana use.

Sullivan’s book, along with many others, were quietly removed from shelves in recent weeks over concerns that they could be used to justify another police raid on the store. According to a source close to the store, lawyers for co-owners Adam Eidinger and Alan Amsterdam advised them to stop selling the books for fear that they could be used as pretext for another raid while the two negotiate with prosecutors over charges stemming from October’s raids.

That’s pretty surreal in itself, but it gets worse…

One DVD that police singled out was “10 Rules for Dealing With Police,” part of the Flex Your Rights series. According to the affidavit, police questioned the value of such a DVD unless someone wanted to do something illegal. “The typical citizen would not need to know detailed information as to US Supreme Court case law regarding search and seizure because they are not transporting illegal substances in fear of being caught,” it stated.

Yep. No need to know the Constitution. We’ll take care of it for you. The Constitution is only for criminals to use. If you’re a law-abiding citizen, you don’t need to know it. In fact, maybe we should start getting the records of anyone who downloads the text of the Constitution and search their homes. If they want to read the Constitution, they must be doing something wrong. Too bad we couldn’t get the framers to write it in Latin. The priests had the right idea.

…

This would be a good time to promote 10 Rules for Dealing with Police and also to mention Scott Morgan’s recent article in the Huffington Post: 5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide) to which I added a sixth:

Here’s reason 6. You are the employer and the police officer is the employee, being paid with your tax dollars. As an employer, why would you want him wasting his time searching for something that isn’t there when he should be doing his job? Be the employer, not the victim.

El Paso

County Commissioner Willie Gandara, Jr.:

In September, he said in a statement that drug legalization was a bad idea for the country in a story in the El Paso Times.

“Legalizing drugs is the coward practice of combating cartels, it is an insult to our men and women in law enforcement, and the laziest form of parenting our children and youth about the effects of drugs,” Gandara said.

Gandara said that he could not back former city Rep. Beto O’Rourke in his bid for Congress because O’Rourke had advocated the legalization of marijuana as a way of taking money from Mexican drug cartels.

“As a parent, it is common sense for me to support Congressman (Silvestre) Reyes who is against the legalization of drugs. Unfortunately, on (sic) this upcoming primary election we will have many wolves in sheep’s clothing running for office who are seeking election with an ulterior agenda to legalize drugs.”

Yep. That’s a hard-core prohibitionist, all right.

…

Yesterday, Willie Gandara was arrested on federal drug trafficking charges.

…

Ethan Nadelmann asks the interesting question:

Hypocrisy or self interest?

… but Harper won’t listen.

U.S. law panel urges Harper to avoid ‘costly failure’ of mandatory minimum pot punishments

A high-profile group of current and former U.S. law enforcement officials has sent a letter to the Harper government with a surprising message: Take it from us, the war on drugs has been a “costly failure.”

The officials are urging the Canadian government to reconsider mandatory minimum sentences for “minor” marijuana offences under its “tough-on-crime bill” and said a better approach would be to legalize marijuana under a policy of taxation and regulation.

“We are … extremely concerned that Canada is implementing mandatory minimum sentencing legislation for minor marijuana-related offences similar to those that have been such costly failures in the United States,” the letter reads. “These policies have bankrupted state budgets as limited tax dollars pay to imprison non-violent drug offenders at record rates instead of programs that can actually improve community safety.”

Something about this drug war – in the decades that it’s been waged, politicians have been completely uninterested in learning from the past.

But the Harper government remains unswayed.

In a statement Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government has “no intention to decriminalize or legalize marijuana” and “remains committed to ensuring criminals are held fully accountable for their actions.”

Link

“State prisons have a 96% occupancy rate, while federal prisons are at almost 140% of capacity. And the prison population [is] growing at 5% annually. The market potential also remains huge, with only 8% of prisons privatized so far.”

The only possible downside they note is the potential for legalization of marijuana.

Link

The newest member of the San Francisco Police Department drools a little when he gets excited.