Drug WarRant

IPS News

Two Georgian women are facing the death sentence in Malaysia in a case that human rights campaigners say has highlighted worries over the continued imposition of capital punishment for drugs offences.

Babutsa Gorgadze, 26, and Darejan Kokhtashvili, 37, were arrested last month in Malaysia after they were found with more than 10 kilos of methamphetamine.

Under strict Malaysian laws the pair, both mothers, are now facing mandatory death penalties if convicted and efforts are under way by Georgian authorities to stop the pair being sentenced to death if convicted.

Human rights campaigners say the case has brought into focus the dangers of imposing capital punishment for drugs crimes. The case took a new turn this week when Georgian media reported the husband of one of the women had confessed to Georgian police that he had been behind the drug smuggling, and that the women had gone to Malaysia unaware that they were carrying illegal narcotics.

I’m opposed to the death penalty in any situation, for a whole number of reasons, not the least of which is my lack of belief that it can be administered fairly or without murdering innocent people.

I’m even more opposed to it, if that’s possible, as a deterrent/punishment in drug cases, where it makes absolutely no sense that society should feel so threatened by the prospect of a voluntary transaction.

It’s clearly not a deterrent, as evidenced by the fact that Malaysia, Singapore, China, Iran, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia manage to find large numbers to execute each year.

Additionally, if your enforcement goal is to get the “big fish,” then a policy of execution is counter-productive. The big fish will put layers between themselves and harm’s way, using unsuspecting mules or desperate losers to take the risks (again, making the notion of deterrence ridiculous).

To add insult to stupidity, apparently in some countries these “crimes” are also tried differently.

Rights groups point to a high proportion of foreigners sentenced to death for drug offences in some countries and also question the fairness of trials for drug crimes, pointing to the fact that in some countries drug cases are referred to special courts where accepted standards of fair trial may not be met.

The specific legal paragraph of Malaysian law under which Goradze and Kokthashvili have been charged breaks international legal standards as it assumes the defendant is guilty unless they can prove their own innocence, according to Amnesty International.

So where is the international community on this? Well of course, organizations like Amnesty International and the International Harm Reduction Association are doing their best to get the word out.

But the lead international body has been complicit even as it mouths objections.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has also said it is opposed to the death penalty for drugs crimes.

The UNODC has made that statement several times, but never with authority or conviction. It regularly bullies countries into being tougher on drug offenses and then when there is some negative press about executions, they dutifully express their opposition. If i was one of those countries, I swear I would be able to see the UNODC wink at the end.

A report by IHRA released earlier this year also showed how abolitionist states helping fund efforts to battle the international drug trade are, in some cases, actually helping bring about executions for drug crimes.

The group cited case studies where such programmes supported by UNODC and funded by, among others, the European Union and states such as Sweden, Australia, and the UK had ended in the execution of convicts. […]

Rights groups argue that there is now a question mark over international organisations’ complicity in subsequent human rights violations when these operations are carried out and that all similar drug enforcement projects must be closely examined prior to funding.

Recently, there has been some favorable movement in the international arena as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, whose mandate is derived from the UN Human Rights Council, issued a report dramatically challenging the drug war as it is being waged internationally right now in terms of its violation of basic human rights (full report available here and it’s worth reading).

The current international system of drug control has focused on creating a drugfree world, almost exclusively through use of law enforcement policies and criminal sanctions. Mounting evidence, however, suggests this approach has failed, primarily because it does not acknowledge the realities of drug use and dependence. […]

The primary goal of the international drug control regime, as set forth in the preamble of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), is the “health and welfare of mankind”, but the current approach to controlling drug use and possession works against that aim. […]

Currently, there is a lack of coordination and discussion between the actors involved in drug control and human rights at the international level. Law enforcement approaches are ingrained institutionally in the international drug control regime, as drug control is housed within UNODC, which leads the United Nations efforts on organized crime. This association between law enforcement and drug control, in part, precludes adoption of a human rights-based approach and interaction with the human rights bodies of the United Nations.

As you can see, this isn’t specifically about the use of the death penalty in drug offenses, but rather the larger human rights picture — the philosophy of dealing with drug policy — which demands a radical shift, where things such as the complicity of the UNODC with state executions would simply no longer exist.

Interestingly, the UNODC and INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) recently issued a joint statement to respond to the UN Special Rapporteur report. They addressed none of the concerns, but merely re-stated their belief that what they do works.

The international drug control mechanisms were to set up to protect human health by preventing drug abuse and drug dependence and ensuring access to drugs for medical and scientific purposes. These control measures, which have been developed over the last 100 years with the consensus of Member States, have protected millions of people from falling into addiction to drugs. The present drug control system has been successful at the international level in preventing diversion of drugs from licit channels to illicit uses.

Law enforcement and criminal sanctions play a key role in enforcing these drug prevention conventions and strategies, targeting principally the organized crime groups making profit out of the misery of millions. Such enforcement measures however should be part of a balanced approach to tackling both supply and demand issues.

Pathetic.

From his “blog”

On Veteran’s Day, we take time to honor the brave men and women who defend and protect America’s freedoms. Often times, these service members experience significant mental health and substance abuse issues after returning home from duty. As we reflect on their bravery and sacrifice, we must not forget our commitment to fight for them and ensure they have access to the highest quality medical and treatment support to address these issues.

… as long as it doesn’t involve cannabis.

Art Linkletter, and later Bill Cosby, used to bring small children on and ask them questions. The humor of the show came from the “darndest” things that kids would say.

That’s partially why I like to check out the college editorial pages when they talk about drug policy. Now some can be quite serious and well-informed, particularly if they have a good SSDP chapter there. But there’s always a few that are good for a laugh.

Today we have Staff Writer Shane Smith of The Daily Skiff at Texas Christian University with Legalization of marijuana is a danger to society

Arguments for legalizing marijuana in California were that the drug would help decrease the state’s debt and decrease drug war violence. However, there is no substantial evidence that supports these outrageous claims. [emphasis added]

Well, you see, Shane — we never claimed that “the drug” would help decrease the debt and violence. It’s the change in legal status that makes the difference. No wonder you thought the claims were outrageous (although even “the drug” could probably reduce violence).

Here’s a good one:

By not legalizing marijuana, society is doing its job of protecting individuals from others that take advantage of individual freedoms. If marijuana were legal, we would see people walking around and going to work high on pot. Society has the responsibility of protecting individuals from those who exceed their individual rights. The decline of Prop 19 does exactly that.

That is one of the most bizarre definitions of society’s role that I’ve ever read. And “protecting individuals from others that take advantage of individual freedoms” — I don’t remember reading that in the Constitution.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, but they should imprison those who take advantage of these rights.

And then Shane turns around completely and torpedoes his own argument:

There is a misconception that making marijuana legal will help the state budget. This is not true at all. The main problem with the argument is that proponents assume that by making marijuana legal, more people will start buying the drug. This is a false assumption. Assumptions like this are dangerous because humans tend to be consistent. Whether or not it is legal, those who smoke pot now will do it again later. Those who do not smoke pot will most likely never smoke the drug even if it were made legal. Marijuana sales would hardly impact the budget in California.

In other words, legalization will have absolutely no impact on marijuana use, but…

The good news is that Californians are smart enough to realize that the legalization of marijuana is dangerous to society.

Shane Smith is a senior secondary education major from Fort Worth.

That’s right. He’s going to be teaching High School.

… if you’re a pharmaceutical company.

It was, of course, fascinating (although unsurprising) how fast Marinol was able to get moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. Marinol is, after all, synthetic THC (or dronabinol) and marketed to function the same as marijuana (although its limitations can be quite severe compared to whole plant cannabis).

Marinol has, interestingly, even marketed itself as “legal marijuana.”

Well now the DEA is concerned that some companies who want to sell “legal marijuana” might have a hard time doing it, so they’ve published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would allow them to open up the definition of Marinol in Schedule 3 to include “Any drug product in hard or soft gelatin capsule form containing natural dronabinol (derived from the cannabis plant) or synthetic dronabinol (produced from synthetic materials).”

After all, they want companies to be able to market alternative versions and generic versions of Marinol…. just so long as it isn’t actually cannabis.

(ii) Any drug product in hard or soft gelatin capsule form containing natural dronabinol (derived from the cannabis
plant) or synthetic dronabinol (produced from synthetic materials) in
sesame oil, for which an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) has been approved by the FDA.

Once again you have the DEA and the FDA working together to make sure that the pharmaceutical companies are taken care of without having to worry about trivialities like proving “accepted medical use.”

When drug products that reference Marinol® receive FDA approval, they will have a currently accepted medical use in the United States.

Actual cannabis, on the other hand, is claimed by the DEA to not have a currently accepted medical use in the United States, despite reams of evidence.

You can comment on the proposed rule making by January 3. Not sure what good it’ll do. Not even sure what comment I’d make… “Yes, please expand the definition because that might eventually lead to…” or “No, don’t let the other drug companies in until cannabis itself gets invited…” Not that the DEA is going to be interested in what I have to say.

I’ve heard about this a couple of places now, but Jacob Sullum does a great job of expressing it:

The ACLU of Pennsylvania recently filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a couple whose newborn baby was kidnapped by Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (LCCYS) because her mother recklessly consumed an “everything” bagel from Dunkin’ Donuts the day before the birth.

This is just another one of those outrages of the drug war. Children are often taken away from their parents just because of the presence of drugs without even the bother of demonstrating harm. And here, a false positive drug test (the test itself was, I believe, unconstitutional) based only on poppy seeds, and they take a newborn from her mother!

I’ve been meaning to post this and now this is the last evening to fill out the survey at JustSayNow.com

Where do we go from here?

Give them your thoughts.

Earlier, some commenters were speculating regarding how many plants you could grow in a 25′ square plot, as allowed in Prop 19.

Well, if you grow them like Kangativa does in Australia, you couldn’t even fit one!

Via Toke of the Town, where we learn that these plants grow up to 18 feet tall and yield up to 10 pounds.

This may be the most incoherent (and utterly stupid) argument against legalization I’ve ever heard, and it was publicly presented by a professional columnist and publisher of a massive internet conglomerate of news and opinion sites who holds a doctorate in American history.

I just don’t know if I think marijuana should be legalized at all. Maybe it’s that I’m getting into my 40s. And maybe I’m a hypocrite. I of course know people who smoke grass. And I don’t have any problem with it. Decriminalized? Yes, I think probably so. But that’s not the same as legalization. It’s very different actually. And let me be clear that I think our drug laws are catastrophic. They create endemic violence first in our major cities and now along the borders and it’s led to generations of Americans rotting in prison. The whole war on drugs is an unmitigated disaster. And the fact that people can’t use marijuana for clear medical reasons is crazy. But do I think it should be like alcohol? Anyone over 18 or 21 can buy it?

I remember, many years ago, talking to my father about the idea of legalization. And bear in mind, my Dad, God bless him, smoked a decent amount of grass in his day, said he didn’t like the idea. One reason is that he was already a bit older by that time. But he had this very contradictory and hard to rationalize position which was that he was fine with people smoking pot but keeping it at least nominally illegal kept public usage in some check. Again, how to rationalize that in traditional civic terms? Not really sure. But frankly, I think I kind of agree.

Wow. That’s just unbelievable. I’ll leave Jacob Sullum to properly fisk the ridiculous statements Josh makes.

What really gets me is that he is so willing to accept the damage caused by prohibition. Does he really not care about those costs? Is he saying that he’s fine with continued prohibition because at least nobody like him (of his class/color/position) is suffering?

I wonder what would happen to Josh if he made a similar statement about abortion, or gay rights…

I just don’t know if I think abortion should be legalized at all. Just decriminalize it. Most women know doctors who will take care of them in secret if they need it, and having the doctors subject to arrest will at least somewhat keep the frequency of abortion in check.

— or —

I just don’t know if I think homosexuality should be legalized at all. I mean I’m fine with two men having sex, but keeping it at least nominally illegal keeps it from being, you know, public. [not real quotes]

He’d be torn apart by the liberal masses.

A question for liberal pundits and politicians: given the widespread and rampant destruction and racism of prohibition, why is it that you are more squeamish about defending a person’s right to ingest a relatively harmless plant, than you are about defending the right to kill babies or the right to stick a penis in someone’s anus?*

…

*obligatory disclaimer before people get upset: That statement was entirely for effect. I am essentially pro-choice and very much pro-gay rights.

Yes, the National Institute on Drug Abuse is hosting Drug Facts Week, November 8-14, which is somewhat akin to the KKK hosting Black History Month. Their partners in this enterprise are: Discovery, MTV, and Partnership for a Drug Free America, plus federal, state, and local agencies.

We’ve talked before about NIDA’s lack of interest in the facts.

Tomorrow is Drug Facts Chat Day. But don’t get excited and think that you’ll be allowed to participate in this chat — you have to be an authorized pre-registered school with a special code.

I’m really looking forward to listening to the winners of The MusiCares® and GRAMMY Foundation’s® Teen Substance Abuse Awareness through Music Contest in Collaboration with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

I haven’t bothered linking to the ton of post-Prop 19 articles out there, but have noticed a positive trend: there has been very little coverage that treats it as a loss to drug policy reform — almost everything is about how Prop 19 energized the discussion, made the “L” word mainstream, and is the first step to at least some kind of reform.

I think the best wrap-up I’ve read is “It’s No Longer a Matter of If, It’s a Matter of When” by Brian Doherty at Reason.

He discusses a fascinating aspect of the lead-in to Prop 19 (I know many here had questioned why some of the top reform organizations were initially on the sidelines…)

When Lee launched 19, most other elements of the drug law reform movement, from NORML to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) told him he was picking the wrong year, that he was moving ahead too early.

They eventually came on board after 19 made the ballot, and at the press conference Ethan Nadelmann of the DPA (whose most prominent supporter George Soros came in with a last-minute million dollars for the campaign that helped sponsor a rush of TV ads) admitted that “I was among those who initially tried to discourage Richard from going forward. We said ‘wait until 2012.’…I called Richard a couple of weeks ago to say, ‘Win or lose, you were right. Even if we don’t prevail, the transformation in public dialogue, not just in California but nationally and internationally, has been nothing short of stupendous. The debate over marijuana legalization has been elevated to legitimacy.’”

And now we also have data. As ezrydn and others here in comments have noted, there is a treasure trove of information available about voting for legalization because of this initiative.

Here’s one of the most disturbing and ironic bits of data:

In fact, 67 percent of those who think government is doing too much were anti-19, as were 60 percent of those “angry” at the federal government and 71 percent of Tea Party supporters.

Of course, part of the problem (in addition to the hypocrisy of many so-called “anti-government” voters) is that it is ridiculous to assume that the vast population out there knows as much about drug policy as we do. Thus, misconceptions can actually drive large portions of the voting population, particularly with an issue that is as “new” to them as voting for drug policy reform.

That’s why we have to do the job of educating people. Even one at a time will work, if enough of us are doing it.

The Prop 19 vote has given me a number of opportunities to talk to people about reform who might not otherwise be interested in the conversation. I hope the rest of you are taking advantage of similar opportunities.