Drug WarRant

Rio

Ten dead in police operations in Rio shantytowns

At least ten people were killed on Wednesday morning during a series of operations carried out by the Rio police in the city’s shantytowns.

The operations aimed at catching the criminals involved in a crime spree which has been devastating Rio’s metro area since last weekend. Multiple incidents occurred in different parts of Rio, with criminals setting cars and buses on fire. […]

The police’s public relations officer, Lieutenant Colonel Lima Castro, told a local TV station that it is possible that two rival criminal gangs have teamed up to carry out the attacks.

According to Castro, local crime lord Nem, who dominates the drug trafficking industry in the city’s largest shantytown, Rocinha, may be the mastermind behind the crime spree.

Brazil police battle Rio de Janeiro gang violence

For three days, suspected gang members have been blocking roads, burning cars and shooting at police stations.

Military police have been deployed in 17 different slum districts.

Rio’s governor says the violence is retaliation by drugs gangs who have been driven out of some areas by a police pacification programme. […]

The authorities are convinced that the attacks are being orchestrated by drugs gangs in retaliation for being forced out of their traditional strongholds in some slum districts by police pacification units.

“Without doubt these attacks are related to the reconquest of territory and the new policy of public security in Rio de Janeiro,” Mr Cabral said.

“We are not going to retreat in this policy. We are going to push forward, pacifying communities and bringing peace to the population.”

Never retreat. Never surrender. No matter how many die and how futile the effort, we will continue to fight the drug war until we achieve peace through death.

Because the alternative, regulating drugs that are already used thereby depriving criminal gangs of their livelihood and saving the lives of the innocent, is unthinkable and not part of our vocabulary.

You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Cannabis is here to stay. And now, the medical cannabis industry is becoming a major entity.

New York Times

DENVER — It is being called the green rush. With more states moving to legalize medical marijuana, the business of growing and dispensing it is booming, even as much of the rest of the economy struggles.

Now, flush with financial clout, and with their eyes on pushing Congress to further loosen laws, medical marijuana industry leaders are forming a national trade association. While there are smaller, local trade groups, organizers around the country say this will be the first business organization working on the national level.

Based in Washington, the group, the National Cannabis Industry Association, will focus primarily on lobbying, but will also help medical marijuana businesses navigate a patchwork of laws that differ depending on location.

I expect to see new stress lines between an emerging medical cannabis industry and the push for legalization. In the long run, legalization will win, because every step forward that medical cannabis takes is also a step forward for legalization. There may be some short term profit-taking that could put temporary wrenches in the works for legalizers…

But in the long term, the fact is that medical cannabis users like cannabis and they would not put up with any move by the medical cannabis industry to make it non-recreational (ie, an unpleasant yet necessary medicine), which is the only way that the medical cannabis movement could end in anything other than legalization.

Today’s candidate: Lt. Andrew Hawkes, a 19-year police veteran who has worked in patrol, K9, investigations, narcotics and administration. His book, Secrets of Successful Highway Interdiction, “contains eleven chapters on Highway Drug Interdiction.”

Why does the debate continue over marijuana legalization? at PoliceOne.com (comments from registered participants only).

People see that there isn’t much upside to legalization. Crime will always be associated with drug use whether it’s legal or not. Driving under the influence, thefts, burglaries, and crimes against persons would continue to be related to people using and selling drugs.

In my opinion, if California had passed this into law it would be a matter of time before Mexican drug cartels controlled American production of the drug under legal circumstances. We can control the border violence as it is, what makes us think we could stop the Cartel’s from having a legitimized business front to control production in California.

Wow. Just wow. Forget the typos. What does it take to actually imagine this? Let’s just look at that second paragraph (have fun with the first yourself)… How would the Mexican drug cartels control American production under legal circumstances? In a legalized market, how does the drug cartel compete economically with an American grower and still pay for their army back in Mexico and the guns and the politicians…?

Perhaps we should focus on taking down the cartels — the violent organized crime units that are committing so much more crimes than just the smuggling of drugs.

Um. We have. And lots of people are dying because of it.

Bureaucrats need to stop all the bullcrap discussions in Washington about “how” to protect our border and just do it.

Just do it? What is this, a Nike commercial? Maybe if we paint a swoosh on the fence, the drugs will stay out.

Bonus stupidity: wr134 in comments:

Potheads will still be potheads and will still rob/steal/burglarize to support their habit. Why make it any easier.

Update: Shaleen with LEAP has joined in the comments there, and now so has Howard Wooldridge:

Our Thin Blue Line is getting thinner. We waste some 10 million hours nationally chasing the green plant. Aside from issues like personal liberty and limited govt intrusion in one’s house, should detectives be in chat rooms catching pedophiles or flying around in helicopters? BTW, we are currently missing tens of thousands of child cyber porn folks and 400,000 rape kits have never been opened.

In my 18 years as a street cop I went to zero calls generated by the use of pot.

Via Grits for Breakfast, everybody’s after a piece of that asset forfeiture pie.

Cashing in: Who benefits most from seized currency?

Perhaps no issue proves more quietly contentious in the local law enforcement community than how the seized currency – about $14.6 million in 5 1/2 years – is divided among agencies hungry for revenue in a struggling economy.

In the end, only about 6.4 percent – or roughly $935,000 – of those seizures have remained in the area to benefit regional law enforcement agencies and taxpayers, according to hundreds of pages of documents released by the DPS in response to a public information request by the Amarillo Globe-News.

Records indicate DPS officials often choose to bypass Panhandle state courts in exchange for Amarillo’s federal court when the largest amounts of money are at stake. It’s a decision that has left some I-40 district attorneys frustrated and raised concerns the federal court route gives DPS an easier and larger payday at the expense of local counties and taxpayers.

Of course, none of that money should even come close to going to any law enforcement or court agency. It is a perversion of the justice system to have law enforcement policy and enforcement/prosecution decisions potentially influenced by how much money could end up coming to the agency.

If I was President (and no, that’s not likely to happen), this is one reform I think I could take on even without Congress (because of course no Congress is likely to agree with what I would do). Just an Executive Order. You see, currently, the feds offer an 80-20 split (80 going to the state law enforcement agency) when they’re involved in an asset forfeiture case. This provides incentive for agencies to involve the feds, because they get to have more money (often bypassing state law that requires it to be used for other things).

My Executive Order would direct how seized funds in joint federal-local actions would be handled:

1. In states where there is a mechanism for seized funds to go to a non-law enforcement purpose (ie, education, etc.), then the state will get the 80% (with funds going directly to the state for that purpose, not to the law enforcement agency).
3. In states where there is no qualified mechanism for insuring that seized funds don’t go to law enforcement, then the federal government keeps 100%.
4. All federal seized funds go to deficit reduction.

This would encourage states to have a non-law enforcement seizure distribution method in order to get the most money, while eliminating the perverse incentive of law enforcement to make decisions based on the cash they might get.

Of course, there’s more reform in this area needed. At the least, asset forfeiture should require that the property owner be convicted of a crime and that prosecution proves the assets were ill-gotten gains of that crime, but that kind of reform would also require Congressional action.

The Planning Commission in Colorado Springs is not only looking out for the welfare of the citizens, they’re going all out to make sure that Colorado Spring doesn’t sell its soul to the devil.

Apparently this involves making it almost impossible to find a location for a medical marijuana dispensary.

The commission recommended a 1,000-foot buffer zone between dispensaries and schools, including preschools, colleges and universities. […]

The commission also recommended the same 1,000-foot setback between dispensaries and all residential child care facilities and drug and/or alcohol treatment facilities, which could include places where Alcoholics Anonymous meetings are held.

But they’re pretty despondent, because they know that the City Council will probably over-ride them — not because the idea is stupid, not because they want to prevent sick people from getting medicine, but because they’ll get licensing fees from the dispensaries, which is apparently the hardest bargain they are able to negotiate with the devil for the souls of Colorado Springs.

Commissioner Carla Harstell said the council seems motivated “by one thing and one thing only” when it involves medical marijuana: revenue.

“I think we’re selling our soul to the devil if we make all our decisions based on how much money we’re going to get from a business,” she said.

You know, selling your soul to the devil used to mean something.

Of course, those who have followed so-called “drug free zones” know that the notion of zones is just a fancy way of trying to legislate something out of existence. I fail to understand the value of requiring a heavy regulated place that provides medicine to sick people to be far away from schools.

A post that really has very little to do with drug policy (other than perhaps another reminder that with legalization, pot becomes less valuable to steal).

Soldiers: No Sir, We’re Here to Get Rid of the Marijuana

Three soldiers try to rip off a dispensary and manage to get themselves locked inside the dispensary (yet outside the safe holding the marijuana and cash).

While several officers guarded the front, Langlais went around to the back and saw that the door knob had been knocked from the door and was lying on the ground, leaving a large hole.

Through the hole, Langlais said he saw a “dark-colored finger” poking at the dead bolt, which had apparently re-engaged in the door jamb after the break-in.

“I announced ‘Police!’ at which time the finger quickly retracted into the business and I immediately heard at least two voices screaming profanities,” he wrote.

After being arrested, two of the suspects told officers they broke in with the best of intentions: They were going to steal the marijuana not to sell or smoke but to destroy it, Langlais said.

Right.

Update: I received a very nice note from Rose Eveleth, the Editor in Chief of Scienceline:

Just popping in to explain what happened to the post. Scienceline is a project of the NYU School of Journalism’s SHERP program. It’s completely run by the students, and we just had our official changeover from last year’s class to this year’s class, and in that changeover there was some confusion about the process for posting. We have a system that stories go through before they go up, and the story went up before the last round of copy editing (the final check for grammatical errors) had been done, so I spoke with Sarah (the fabulous author) and we agreed to take it down, have it officially copy edited, and then put it back up. Sorry for any confusion this might have caused.

We’ve posted the story again here: http://www.scienceline.org/2010/11/whats-in-your-weed-2/

Kudos to Scienceline and Rose for being so helpful, and for the excellent article.

________________________________________

There was an interesting article yesterday at NYU’s Scienceline called “What’s in Your Weed?”

The original address was http://www.scienceline.org/2010/11/whats-in-your-weed/ but that page is no longer available.

Basically, the article discussed the notion of the importance of CBD’s to the positive value of marijuana — an issue I’ve been very interested in seeing researched further. Unfortunately, criminalization has meant that the content of marijuana has been pushed toward higher THC without regard to CBD’s and their value.

The article reported on a recent study by Valerie Curran that compared marijuana users based on the content of their pot.

It turned out the kids smoking weed containing lots of the chemical cannabidiol (CBD) could remember details of the story just as well stoned as sober. Meanwhile, those smoking the low-CBD marijuana fit the stereotype of the forgetful pothead.

The findings fit into a growing library of data demonstrating the possible health benefits of CBD, which is naturally found in marijuana. CBD appears to fend off cancerous tumors, prevent diabetes and epileptic seizures, and protect nerve cells from degradation. It doesn’t combat the effects of THC, the ingredient in marijuana that causes a “high,” and can even prevent anxiety.

I don’t know why the article is no longer there, and I’ve written them to ask. Perhaps there was some item that they wanted to research further before printing.

The Drug Czar’s “blog” is boasting:

Today, California Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack nominated Director Kerlikowske for the 2011 Dr. Nathan Davis Award for Outstanding Government Service, based on his proven leadership in the Nation’s efforts to reduce drug use and its consequences.

Outstanding government service. Really? Maybe it’s because he ended the drug war. Or failed to include the word “legalization” in his vocabulary.

Funny thing is, this is an award from the American Medical Association. And Director Kerlikowski has not been particularly interested in what they have to say. The ONDCP website still claims the American Medical Association to be

“…AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act…”

despite the fact that the AMA has demonstrated a strong interest in changing that.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, soon to be the leader of the Republican Governors Association, continued his argument Thursday that the federal government needed to halt their intervention in the private sector and refocus their energy toward securing the border — even if that means sending U.S. troops into Mexico.

While pushing his small government economic message on issues such as the auto industry and social security during an interview with MSNBC, Perry seemed to express a willingness to massively increase the U.S. military’s involvement in foreign affairs by deploying American forces across the southern border to fight in the Mexican drug war.

I’ve never really understood how concluding that the U.S. military really isn’t big enough seems to happen so often with “small government” politicians.

Deploying American forces in Mexico to fight the drug war is so bad in so many ways that it would take some kind of complete moron to even suggest such an idea…. Ah.

First, the Mexican public is not likely to be thrilled with the idea of the U.S. army crossing the border into their country.

Second, what are we going to fight? We’ve got a really great military for fighting other armies, or for blowing up stuff, but it’s really not that effective for targeting specific individuals within a noncombatant population. And, as anyone with a brain has figured out by now, if you do succeed in successfully targeting those individuals (without killing a whole lot of innocents in the process), all you end up doing is creating an opening that is filled with more violence.

I’ve been asked when I’m going to weigh in on the Four Loko bans. I was thinking about it, but then saw that E.D. Kain had already done a good job of hitting the high points over at Balloon Juice: Give me Four Loko or give me death (or something).

But honestly we have to quit treating everyone as though they were children. People were binge drinking before Four Loko came around. If anything, if this is the course of action we feel we need to take, we should ban margaritas and daiquiris and any other drink that tastes sweet. And beer, too, because let’s face it: beer is delicious and makes people like me want to drink way too much of it. Indeed, many people do. Many other people don’t.

Then again, I find the fact that we have to be twenty-one to drink legally insulting as well.

Absolutely (although I personally don’t actually enjoy beer that much). And I love the tag on this:

Again, I will reassert my belief that Americans have the right to be stupid – at least until their stupidity infringes someone else’s life or liberty. Personally, I wouldn’t touch Four Loko with a ten foot pole but damnit I’ll at the very least write a blog post defending your right to do so.

Done.