Drug WarRant

What’s going on in your corner of the drug policy reform world?

Apparently there are no ads from the Drug Czar in this year’s Super Bowl. But do you remember how far they actually sunk after 9/11? Here are some of the offensive Super Bowl ads from 2002-2003.

In honor of his 100th birthday…

It’s a golden oldie…

Note: For those not familiar with this particular video, it’s a well-done edited comic mash-up of the Reagans’ talk about drugs that completely turns it around into a pro-drug Presidential talk.

… and with it, Caballes v. Illinois.

Those who have followed this blog for awhile know that I consider Caballes v. Illinois one of the more obviously clueless Supreme Court decisions of recent years. For those who don’t know, the decision basically said that a police dog alerting on a car was sufficient justification for a search even if there was no other suspicion. In other words, your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search could be eliminated based on a dog’s reaction.

Justice Stevens’ decision for the majority had language that doesn’t pass the smell test for even a first-year law student:

We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed “legitimate,” and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband “compromises no legitimate privacy interest.”

A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

The bizarre assumption there is that a drug dog will only alert in the presence of illegal narcotics.

Just recently, as I noted in Dogs are like the Supreme Court. Often wrong.:

Chicago Tribune: The dogs are trained to dig or sit when they smell drugs, which triggers automobile searches. But a Tribune analysis of three years of data for suburban departments found that only 44 percent of those alerts by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia.

For Hispanic drivers, the success rate was just 27 percent.

So we have actual, practical evidence that Stevens and the majority were dead wrong.

But that’s not all.

Now we can add to that some powerful research evidence proving that drug dog alerts are strongly affected by the interest of their handler in this new study.

Explosive- and Drug-sniffing Dogs’ Performance is Affected by their Handlers’ Beliefs

The performance of drug- and explosives-sniffing dog/handler teams is affected by human handlers’ beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional handler cues, a study by researchers at UC Davis has found.
The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present.

“It isn’t just about how sensitive a dog’s nose is or how well-trained a dog is. There are cognitive factors affecting the interaction between a dog and a handler that can impact the dog’s performance,” said Lisa Lit, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Neurology and the study’s lead author.

“These might be as important — or even more important — than the sensitivity of a dog’s nose.”

In the study, they informed dogs’ handlers that there could be drugs in any of the rooms, and that a piece of red construction paper in two of the rooms would identify the location of the scent. In fact, there were no drugs or explosives at all.

Although there should have been no alerts in any of the rooms, there were alerts in all rooms. Moreover, there were more alerts at the locations indicated by construction paper than at either of the locations containing just the decoy scents or at any other locations.

That is significant, Lit said, because there were more alerts on target locations indicated by human suggestion — the construction paper — than at locations of increased dog interest — the hidden sausage and tennis balls. There also were alerts on a wide variety of other locations, indicating that the dogs were not simply alerting in the same locations where other dogs had done so.

Lit noted that in the early 20th century in Germany a horse named Clever Hans was believed to be capable of counting and other tasks. It was determined that Clever Hans actually was responding to the minute, postural and facial cues of his trainer or other observers. Similarly, detection dogs may be alerted to subtle human cues that direct dog responses without formal training, including pointing, nodding, head-turning and gazing.

We now have a significant body of evidence that drug dog sniffs are not a reliable identification of the location of contraband. Useful in investigation, to be sure, but not in any way sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches.

In the entire Supreme Court, now-retired Justice Souter was the only one who got it. In the Caballes decision, he blasted the majority for their decision and also called for re-visiting United States v. Place, an underlying 1983 decision regarding drug dog sniffs.

In United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), we categorized the sniff of the narcotics-seeking dog as “sui generis” under the Fourth Amendment and held it was not a search. Id., at 707. The classification rests not only upon the limited nature of the intrusion, but on a further premise that experience has shown to be untenable, the assumption that trained sniffing dogs do not err. What we have learned about the fallibility of dogs in the years since Place was decided would itself be reason to call for reconsidering Place’s decision against treating the intentional use of a trained dog as a search. The portent of this very case, however, adds insistence to the call, for an uncritical adherence to Place would render the Fourth Amendment indifferent to suspicionless and indiscriminate sweeps of cars in parking garages and pedestrians on sidewalks; if a sniff is not preceded by a seizure subject to Fourth Amendment notice, it escapes Fourth Amendment review entirely unless it is treated as a search. We should not wait for these developments to occur before rethinking Place’s analysis, which invites such untoward consequences.1

At the heart both of Place and the Court’s opinion today is the proposition that sniffs by a trained dog are sui generis because a reaction by the dog in going alert is a response to nothing but the presence of contraband.2 See ibid. (“[T]he sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item”); ante, at 3—4 (assuming “that a canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics dog will only reveal ‘the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item’ ” (quoting Place, supra, at 707)). Hence, the argument goes, because the sniff can only reveal the presence of items devoid of any legal use, the sniff “does not implicate legitimate privacy interests” and is not to be treated as a search. Ante, at 4.

The infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction.

Absolutely. And now we have even more proof.

Unfortunately, we’re not likely to see the Supreme Court willing to address this issue in the near future.

… in the Daily Mail:

These days the hard drugs are gone, but he continues – against the Hollywood grain – to smoke cannabis. ‘I don’t tend to say this publicly, but we can see it’s a curative thing. The narcotics industry is also enormous. It funds terrorism and – this is a huge problem in America – fuels the foreign gangs. More than 85 per cent of men incarcerated in America are on drug-related offences. It costs $40,000 a year for every prisoner. If they were really serious about the economy there would be a sensible discussion about legalisation.’

Some people here in the U.S. say that the reason the drug war isn’t working is that we’re just not taking it seriously enough. We’ve got to stop being so easy on the drug criminals.

Well, let’s take a little look at how it works when you really crack down hard on drug trafficking… Iran in Drug Offender Execution Frenzy

Iran began 2011 by hanging eight accused drug traffickers at Qom prison south of Tehran New Year’s Day, and that was just day one. By the end of January, Iranian authorities had executed at least 56 drug offenders, according to press accounts compiled by the anti-death penalty group Hands Off Cain.

… or how about Malaysia

Three people, including one couple, were sentenced on Thursday to death by hanging by the high court at Temerloh, Malaysia for trafficking 4.5 kilograms (just under 10 pounds) of marijuana last year.

“Death by hanging is the only sentence provided for offenses under Section 39B (1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1952,” said Judicial Commissioner Datuk Akhtar Tahir, reports Bernama, the official Malaysian national news agency.

So, with that kind of extreme penalty for drug trafficking, they should really have this problem licked in those countries, right?

No

A senior Bukit Aman narcotics division official told theSun that unlike syndicates from other countries, the Iranian drug mules bring in large quantities of syabu or ice, and are willing to sell them way below normal market price here.

“Despite a continuous assault on these (Iranian) syndicates, there seems to be no sign of them slowing down,” said the official. […]

The official disclosed that besides selling the drugs in Malaysia, the syndicate was also using Malaysia as a point of entry into Thailand, where the demand is very high.

“And we believe they are using the land route to get into Thailand from Malaysia, which is quite easy.

The official disclosed that the Thai authorities have placed Iranians on number one on the alert list, especially at airports, and have detained scores of Iranian drug mules in recent months. […]

Based on available data, more than 40% of crimes in Iran are drug-related felonies.
In Malaysia, Iranian drug mules are also well protected by local crime syndicates, the official revealed.

“The local syndicates have resorted to buying the finished product from Iranians who smuggle them into the country rather than produce the methamphetamine here themselves.

The official disclosed that the street price of ice was close to RM250,000 per kg but the Iranian syndicates were selling them at between RM120,000 and RM175,00 per kg.

“These factors make the Iranian drug syndicates much sought after here, plus the fact that there is a large Middle Eastern community in Malaysia makes it easier for these drug mules to move in society without raising any suspicion, “ added the official.

So… how to you get tougher on drug traffickers than killing them? Could there be some penalty that’s even tougher on drug traffickers than death?

There is.

You take away their profits through legalization.

Get tough on drug traffickers. Really tough. Legalize.

End this absurd war by Glenn Garvin at the Miami Herald. Great piece featuring a LEAP’s Kyle Vogt.

An Illinois state panel found Monday that Illinois blacks convicted of low-level drug possession offenses are much more likely to be sentenced to prison than whites. According to the Illinois Disproportionate Justice Impact Study Commission, 19% convicted of drug possession were imprisoned, while only 4% of whites were.

The disparity was even worse in the state’s most populous jurisdiction, Cook County. While statewide, blacks were five times more likely to be imprisoned for drug possession than whites, in Cook County, the figure was eight times.

This is an open thread.

After U.S., Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark and Germany objected to Bolivia’s amendment yesterday, President Morales is making it clear that he’s not going to sit back and give up.

Evo quiere presentar recurso para despenalizar el acullicu

Someone with a better knowledge of the language can perhaps help out with the nuances, but even Google’s mangled translation of the page shows a pretty clear intent…

President Evo Morales intends to submit an appeal (complaint) against the 1961 United Nations prohibits acullicu [ceremony of the coca] after at least six countries objected to the request Bolivian coca decriminalization of chewing.

The announcement was made yesterday by the Head of State at their annual meeting with the diplomatic corps in Palacio Quemado.

“The Government will continue to seek other mechanisms to take other courses of action to decriminalize consumption. If no objection is raised to chewing coca, will go to a conference (international) and we are also exploring another way is to denounce the 1961 Convention, “he said.

Morales said it is a right of all states to appeal to this type of mechanism to recognize the acullicu.

“I feel that some countries have been confused, we would be in the campaign to decriminalize the coca plant, we have established very clearly that the traditional consumption of coca leaf.”

He will appeal any effort that member countries make to oppose his amendment, and, failing that, he will consider withdrawing from the Single Convention. And it appears that he is suggesting that course of action to other countries as well.

from the Drug Czar’s “blog”

These consultations, across the country and across government, helped highlight an important truth — that public safety isn’t the only thing threatened by drug use; drugs also pose an extremely complex and dynamic challenge to public health. And the public safety community cannot bear the full weight of addressing drug use and its consequences. The result of our engagement with the American people is the Obama Administration’s National Drug Control Strategy — a shift in how we address drug control, by restoring balance in our efforts and treating drug addiction as a brain disease rather than a moral failing.

Tourette syndrome is a brain disease. That doesn’t mean we arrest everyone who says “fuck.”

Despite recent calls to do so, legalizing drugs is not the answer. Our opposition to legalization is not born out of a culture-war or drug-war mentality. It is born out of the recognition that our drug problem is a major public health threat, and that drug addiction is a preventable and treatable disease. Already drug use — legal and illegal — is the source of too many of our Nation’s problems. Why would we implement policies that would make these problems worse?

As President Obama said — we’ve made huge strides in reducing smoking, drunk driving, and other public health problems through a policy approach that stresses prevention and changing public attitudes about dangerous behavior. There’s no reason we can’t build on those successes and achieve the same results with drug use and its consequences.

We can’t change public attitudes about dangerous behavior as long as we give the control of it to criminals.

From an interview in Mexico

QUESTION: Okay. In several occasion, you have recognized that the partial explanation to the violence in Mexico can be found in the elevated drug consumption and the tolerance towards arms selling in your country. The consumption has not diminished. On the contrary, I hear it’s, like, reached a historical maximum and arms selling continue. And it’s very unlikely that it would – this will change. So why would – should we continue giving this battle? And when I say we, it’s like our country, Mexico.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are making some progress. There has been some decrease in drug use. But more than that, there’s been greater cooperation across the border. We are stopping more people and finding not only drugs, but guns, money for money laundering. We have much better law enforcement cooperation across the border. I don’t think either of us could do this without working with the other. And I don’t think either of us wants to let a drug kingpin and his gang behead people or addict people on either side of the border.

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

QUESTION: But in the United States there [is] more and more tolerance for marijuana, right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So this doesn’t seem right. Like the tolerance in the United States, and here we are killing each other for this product.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the tolerance is in a very limited arena. It is for medical –

QUESTION: Medical use.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Medical use. And there are lots of regulations on it. So it’s not accurate to say, as I’ve heard some say, well, we’re legalizing marijuana. We are not. We are – the biggest – we have more people incarcerated, unfortunately, than any country in the world, and most of them are there because of some drug-related offense. So we know that this is not an easy struggle. We’ve been at it ourselves. But we also believe that you have to keep the pressure on the criminals; otherwise, they will just expand their operations, and then you do have to worry about more corruption, more problems with institutions.

What mindset does it take to keep claiming that legalization means the illegal traffickers get to have the profits?