Drug WarRant

It seems clear that in the upcoming election, siding with Calderon’s all-out drug war isn’t going to be politically popular. And now the main leftist rival has specifically distanced himself in this area.

But the whole mess can be cleared up in the first six months of a new administration. At least, that’s the campaign pledge of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the silver-haired presidential hopeful of the Mexican left. […]

“You can’t fight violence with violence,” Lopez Obrador said on national radio Wednesday. “We need a loving republic. We need opportunities for young people so they don’t fall into the arms of organized crime.”

Between now and the election day in July, Lopez Obrador says, he will convince the Mexican people for a new peaceful approach — as opposed to the military policies of the present President Felipe Calderon or the former ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Calderon’s war on drug cartels, the leftist candidate said, has been a disaster for Mexico, unleashing more bloodshed and destroying the economy.

Of course, he’s absolutely right on that last count, but he’s also a bit overly optimistic if he thinks he can solve the problem in six months regardless of the approach — but then again, that’s campaign promises for you.

I suspect what he plans is a kindler, gentler drug war with a lot of positive social programs to make people feel better about their lives (and government), combined with a kind of hands-off approach to the trafficking organizations.

After all, the one thing that no candidate for President in Mexico can solve is the main cause of their problem — the destructive drug policy of the United States.

At The National Interest: Re-Framing Drug Violence

If there’s a fire in your kitchen, the temptation is to throw water on it—but not if it’s a grease fire. In a similar vein, the U.S. government’s get-tough approach to drugs is counterproductive. […]

Like putting out a grease fire with water, employing the tools of war against the social phenomenon of drugs has been wholly destructive. […]

Accountability for drug violence must be laid at the feet not only of ruthless drug cartels but also of American analysts and officials too obtuse or self-serving to see the failure of their policies.

An effective analogy.

However, I think my own analogy may be a bit more apt:

“Some days it feels like I’m watching a house on fire. And one idiot wants to put it out with a machine gun. The other one wants to use grenades. And I’m standing there with a bucket of water and they look at me like I’m crazy.”

Schoolchildren sign police car at assembly

SHRINK-WRAPPED CAR

The final touch in the preparations for Drug Awareness Week was wrapping Clarke’s police car in red vinyl.

After students make the pledge, they go out to the car to sign it.

Heidi LeBrun from the Family School Association said this last addition got the kids excited.

“Did you hear the sound when (Clark) said, ‘Do you want to sign my car?'”

She said the students all gasped.

It’s bound to work. Years from now, someone’s going to offer Ethan some LSD and he’ll say “No, thank you. I signed a red vinyl shrink-wrapped police car.”

….

And in Vidor, Texas, elementary and special education students celebrated “We are Drug Free Deep in the Heart of Texas” week by seeing the principal’s horses Jake and Miss Lilly.

Not sure about the significance of the horses… maybe they were drug free?

Of course, it’s really about bribing kids to get excited about your message. “Sign this drug free pledge… Hey look! Free stuff! Hey look! A red vinyl shrink-wrapped police car! Hey look! Horsies!”

In addition to admiring Glenn Greenwald’s powerful writing in opposition to authoritarian trends in government, politics and media, I now have reason to be extremely jealous of him.

For years, I used to dream of the notion of being able to debate Bush’s drug czar John Walters. Ever since 2003, I’ve said that I’d debate him any time, and even pay my own way.

Glenn Greenwald got there first.

Last Thursday at Brown University, I debated former Bush drug czar John Walters on the virtues of drug legalization, and the video is below. The aspect of With Liberty and Justice for Some that has received the most attention is the shield of immunity for elite lawbreaking, but the other side of that rule-of-law evisceration — the incomparably harsh and sprawling penal state America has created for its ordinary citizens — is at least as important, and it is the Drug War that personifies the worst abuses of that punishment system and accounts for much of it.

I began the debate by presenting a 25-minute argument, which was followed by Walters’ doing the same, and the next hour was composed of a quite contentious question-and-answer session with the audience of roughly 300 people. This was a vibrant and confrontational debate that, I think, really underscores the key issues in the controversy and will be worthwhile for anyone with an interest in these questions:

Full video is at the link. Haven’t had time to watch it yet, but I’m looking forward to it.

CNN

The “Just Say No” generation was often told by parents and teachers that intelligent people didn’t use drugs. Turns out, the adults may have been wrong. […]

Researchers discovered men with high childhood IQs were up to two times more likely to use illegal drugs than their lower-scoring counterparts. Girls with high IQs were up to three times more likely to use drugs as adults. A high IQ is defined as a score between 107 and 158. An average IQ is 100. The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

This is not a surprise to me. And no, of course, it doesn’t in any way prove causation. It’s the prohibitionists that like to latch on to any correlation and claim causation.

Of course, Jennifer Bixler at CNN still finds a way to completely mess up the story. I’m not sure, for example, why she uses “men” and “girls” in the paragraph above.

And then, rather than looking at the “use” of drugs as the study refers (it asked participants whether they had used drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, or heroin in the past year), she focuses on a completely anecdotal “abuse” of drugs.

That seems to ring true for one of my childhood classmates. Tracey Helton Mitchell was one of the smartest kids in my middle school. But, by the time she was in her early 20’s, Tracey was a heroin addict.

The comments are… entertaining.

Here’s David Bratzer’s video talking about his run for school trustee. Really nice to see this kind of perspective openly advocated in terms of drug policy reform providing a positive value for children.

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

(This was already posted in comments, but I wanted to have it get some more visibility. You can follow David’s campaign online.)

With my sister visiting, I missed the opportunity to post on Veteran’s day — and I know we have a lot of veterans who visit here and are ardent drug policy reformers.

So here’s an editorial from The Province that nicely expresses my views.

Today we remember those who have been lost in war, and give thanks to those who served our country to protect our way of life. We do this to honour their sacrifice and bravery and not to glorify war. The loudest cries denouncing the horror, the waste and the stupidity of war have always come from the veterans themselves.

Now the soldiers of another war — the War on Drugs — are raising their voices in opposition to that conflict so foolishly being waged by politicians. Current and former police officers keep emerging to say that just like with other wars, the War on Drugs is producing millions of mostly young victims, causing terrible violence and is costing us billions. […]

Polls show that only 12 per cent of British Columbians support current marijuana laws. It’s time for politicians to listen to experts, hear from voters and show some courage.

The Guardian has a very powerful editorial: The war on drugs and the shameful silence of our politicians

This week a major international summit on drugs will be hosted by Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords. No one from Downing Street will attend. No front line British politicians will be there to listen and learn from international medics, academics, politicians and economists who will reflect on lessons learnt from, and debate new approaches to, the “war on drugs”.

Privately, senior politicians have encouraged the hosting of the event and told organisers that they are sympathetic to a new discussion about drugs legislation – but only once public opinion has shifted. They signal privately that there is a need for change, but do nothing to lead that debate.

The editorial goes on to talk about the taboo that exists regarding talking about reform.

The taboo shows no sign of being broken by Britain’s spineless political class, despite this generation of leaders being the first to have widespread, first-hand experience of illegal drugs. They will undoubtedly have come across cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy throughout their university, social and professional lives. Some of their best friends – and colleagues – will have taken them. […]

Instead, the leading voices in calling for a new discussion about the war on drugs are coming from Latin America. In today’s Observer, Colombia’s President Santos speaks eloquently about the price his country has paid as a drug “producing nation” servicing the demand for illicit drugs in “consumer nations”, principally in Europe and the US.

The Guardian pulls no punches…

It is unconscionable for the leaders of the largest consuming nations – the US, UK and Spain – to remain silent any longer. […]

The war on drugs has failed. When policies fail it is incumbent on our leaders to look for new ones. They show no signs of doing so – even as Latin America’s body politic is threatened by the tentacles of the narco gangs who pay off politicians, judges, journalists and policemen – or just kill them, so that they can better transport drugs to us.

Prohibition has failed. As we noted last year: “If the purpose of drug policy is to make toxic substances available to anyone who wants them in a flourishing market economy controlled by murderous criminal gangs, the current arrangements are working well.” Milton Friedman was right, 20 years ago, when he said: “If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true”.

Just a few random updates based on questions I’ve received regarding site issues for those who are interested.

Continue reading →

With a number of the GOP Presidential candidates imploding, unfortunately it doesn’t seem to mean that the media will give more credence to Paul or Johnson.

On the other hand, it has apparently bizarrely given Newt Gingrich a renewed hope that he could be a legitimate candidate.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft reminds us of Newt’s past…

Newt Gingrich, via the New York Times, said in 1995, while he was weighing whether to run for the Presidency:

Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Friday that he would ask Congress to enact legislation imposing the death penalty on drug smugglers, and he suggested that mass executions of people convicted under such a law might prove an effective deterrent.

…”The first time we execute 27 or 30 or 35 people at one time, and they go around Colombia and France and Thailand and Mexico, and they say, ‘Hi, would you like to carry some drugs into the U.S.?’ the price of carrying drugs will have gone up dramatically.”

Mr. Gingrich said his proposal, which he said he would make in a bill to be filed next month, would impose a mandatory death penalty on people convicted of bringing illegal drugs into the United States.

Why? because he loves children.

I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this.”

Yeah, Newt’s definitely one of the crazies.