Drug WarRant

Small ‘c’ conservatives should end the war on drugs by Charles W. Moore

Interesting reading that really slams U.S. drug and prison policy and also slams Canada for following us. I particularly love the descriptions of Conrad Black, who spent some time in U.S. prisons.

Mr. Black lobbed withering and well-deserved broadsides from behind bars at the United States justice system, which he accurately describes as “putrefied,” “‘a carceral state’ that imprisons eight to 12 times more people per capita than the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan…”

“From my cell I scent the reeking soul of U.S. justice,” Mr. Black proclaimed in a 2008 letter to the London Sunday Times, asserting that America’s justice and penal systems are in critical condition, largely because of the so-called “war on drugs,” especially marijuana, which can only be regarded by thinking persons – including and especially conservatives – as hysterical, bordering on the psychotic. […]

Mr. Black characterizes “the entire ‘war on drugs'” as dismal failure, “a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered… one million small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year”… “with absurd sentences, (including 20 years for marijuana offences, although 42 per cent of Americans have used marijuana and it is the greatest cash crop in California.)… targeted substances are more available and of better quality than ever, while producing countries such as Colombia and Mexico are in a state of civil war.”

Mexicans, US question drug legalization proposal

This is a very surreal article to read, because of the sense of almost panicked confusion regarding the idea of legalization. The great thing is that now, in an article like this, you’re hearing legalization as a legitimate option, and that’s making those who oppose it have a hard time describing why legalization won’t work.

“The legalization proposal is mistaken, because it shows a lack of understanding of Mexico’s problem and avoids the main cause, which is quite simply the government’s loss of the monopoly on the use of force,” the group said, referring to cartels that confront security forces with grenades, automatic weapons and now car bombs.

Right.

Or how about this bizarre statement:

“I favor regulating the market … medicinal marijuana is an attempt to regulation,” Gonzalez said, “But legalization, never, ever.”

In case you missed it… a good interview by Reason.tv with LEAP Executive Director Neill Franklin

I agree with Scott Morgan:

I’m particularly interested in Neill’s argument regarding the dramatic drop in clearance rates for homicides over the past few decades. Of course, it would be difficult to prove empirically that increased drug prosecutions make it harder to solve murders. Still, it’s certainly an unflattering portrait of modern law enforcement priorities that we get better and better at arresting people for petty marijuana possession, while more and more people are literally getting away with murder.

….

This is an open thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjCL-mSDFQw

OK, let’s start listing the outright lies in this piece of nonsense.

The #1 ADDICTION for 60% of TEENS in DRUG rehab.

Lie. As we have shown time and time again, the presence of individuals in rehab is not necessarily an indication of addiction. The majority of those in treatment with marijuana as the primary drug are there because of criminal justice referrals (ie, to avoid other penalties) and not because of addiction.

A GATEWAY drug to Cocaine and Meth

Lie. Numerous studies have debunked this myth, including the 1999 Institute of Medicine’s “Assessing the Science Base” which declared: “There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect.” In fact, that report also noted that the only conceivable gateway effect related to marijuana is specifically due to its illegal status.

4 times more MIND-ALTERING than in the 1970’s.

Intentionally Misleading. The fact is that THC levels have varied throughout time (although who knows what they mean by “mind altering”), but smokers tend to self-titrate to get the effect they desire. It’s like saying that scotch is four times more mind altering than beer, but you don’t drink a six-pack of scotch. And, of course, while you can die from an overdose of alcohol, you can’t do the same with marijuana, regardless of its potency.

50-70% MORE CANCER-CAUSING than Cigarettes.

Blatant Lie. Cigarettes are cancer-causing and marijuana is not. The biggest study done in the world, funded by the U.S. Government proved that even heavy use of marijuana adds absolutely no risk of head, neck or lung cancer, and may even have a small reverse effect.

MARIJUANA. What’s Good About Legalizing It? NOTHING

Lie. There are dozens of good things about legalization, from reducing crime, to hurting the Mexican cartels, to reducing criminal justice costs, to increasing tax revenue, to improving safety, to reducing use by children, to reducing corruption, to improving liberty, and on, and on.

Passage of Prop. 19 would mean: Marijuana could be SOLD IN GROCERY STORES.

So What? Proposition 19 allows local governments to regulate the place of sale, so they could choose to allow it or disallow it in grocery stores. Right now, I can buy all sorts of dangerous drugs in grocery stores, including alcohol, tobacco, and a range of prescription and over-the-counter products that can cause death if misused.

Passage of Prop. 19 would mean: Skyrocketing usage among Teens and Young people.

Lie. Right now, criminal marijuana dealers do not check for age. Under proposition 19, selling marijuana to those under 21 would be prohibited. Under decriminalization in the Netherlands, they have a dramatically lower rate of teen use of marijuana than we do.

Passage of Prop. 19 would mean: “DRUGGED DRIVING” on Streets and Freeways.

Unsupported fear-mongering. There’s no evidence that dangers of drugged driving would increase with passage of Proposition 19. In fact, evidence shows that numbers of traffic accidents have had no correlation with amount of use or availability of marijuana.

Passage of Prop. 19 would mean: Higher COSTS for Everyone as Addictions SOAR

Lie. This is totally unsupported by any data that exists out there. The fact is that costs for everyone will dramatically decline due to a suddenly streamlined criminal justice system.

Passage of Prop. 19 would mean: Marijuana Operatives could buy THOUSANDS of Acres of farmland.

So What? In a poor economy, having a fresh infusion of capital into land purchases is a good thing. And shouldn’t marijuana be grown above-board in farms rather than clandestinely in public parks?

Prop. 19 Means: Messed up minds. Messed up lives. Messed up families. California out of Control. Is this the kind of California you want?

Meaningless Nonsense. No evidence given of anything actually getting messed up due to Prop 19.

Don’t Buy The Lie

True. Don’t buy any of the lies from these charlatans.

StopProp19.com is a project of SaveCalifornia.com. These are the folks who opposed gay marriage and fought for the passage of Prop 8.

They’ve got nothing to offer except lies, intolerance, and hate. These are people who have specific moral views that they want to impose on the rest of society. They know that their views are so bankrupt that vast sections of society won’t ever be convinced to follow them, so they want the government to help them impose their “morality” on others, and they will resort to any immoral action to advance their cause.

They are the scum of the earth.

News is that the folks who opposed gay marriage and supported Prop 8 in California are now coming out with STOP PROP 19 DOT COM to oppose marijuana legalization. Those who have sneaked a peak at their messages say:

There’s no announcer or sound bites, but the production is dramatic and the messages are powerful. One claim reads marijuana is “The number one addiction for 60% of teens in drug rehab.” Another claims marijuana is “50-70% more CANCER-CAUSING than Cigarettes.”

Messages are powerful? I guess that assumes that the truth doesn’t matter.

Russ Belville has some fun with Tossed SALAD: Stoners Against Legalization Article of the Day, where he takes a look at the rather bizarre antics of those who “got theirs” now and don’t want the rest to have it legal.

Over at the RBC, Keith Humphreys makes the case that the remaining states that mirrored the federal governments bad crack-powder cocaine disparity in sentencing should follow the federal government’s recent moves and reduce that disparity statewide. He notes that in California, that could save $60 million annually. Excellent suggestion and one that is, unfortunately, likely to be fought every step of the way by the prison guards union.

…

This is an open thread.

A really powerful set of articles in The Guardian today.

Starting off with War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle by Rory Carroll and Paul Harris

Mexico’s president Felipe Caldéron is the latest Latin leader to call for a debate on drugs legalisation. And in the US, liberals and right-wing libertarians are pressing for an end to prohibition. Forty years after President Nixon launched the ‘war on drugs’ there is a growing momentum to abandon the fight

It’s a pretty good discussion about recent political and drug war developments in the Americas.

Even better is the extremely strong and stinging piece against prohibition by the editorial board:

A unique chance to rethink drugs policy

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.

If, however, the goal is to reduce the amount of drugs being consumed and limit the harm associated with addiction, it is surely time to tear up the current policy. It has failed.

This is not a partial failure. For as long as courts and jails have been the tools for controlling drugs, their use has increased. Police are powerless to control the flow. One recent estimate calculated that around 1% of the total supply to the UK is intercepted.

Attempts to crack down have little impact, except perhaps in siphoning vulnerable young people into jails where they can mature into hardened villains.

When a more heavyweight player is taken out, a gap opens up in the supply chain which is promptly filled by violent competition between or within gangs. Business as usual resumes. […]

It is far from certain that decriminalisation, regulation or legalisation would work. But they should be examined as options, for it is absolutely certain that prohibition has failed.

Wow. The trifecta finishes off with Drugs: the problem is more than just the substances, it’s the prohibition itself by Maria Lucia Karam, a retired judge in Brazil and board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Violence is not necessarily related to drugs. As the alcohol or tobacco businesses demonstrate, the production and supply of drugs are not inherently violent activities. Weapons and violence only accompany those activities when undertaken in an illegal market. The prohibition yields the violence, as disputes must be settled out of court and on the streets. Paradoxically, when we prohibit these widely used substances, we are actually relinquishing meaningful control over them.

Prohibition consigns the drug market to criminalised actors not subject to oversight of any kind. Legalisation would mean regulation and regulation is the best way to control the dangers of drug use, while cutting the cartels off at the knees. […]

Latin America is advancing the debate, but even in the US there are efforts to undo the damage of prohibition, the most prominent being California’s effort to legalise marijuana.

Hopefully, the thousands of Mexicans, Brazilians and people from other parts of the world who have been killed in the insane “war on drugs” will not have died in vain. Their deaths are already showing that it is time to put an end to all the pain and harms caused by drug prohibition; it is time to legalise and regulate the production, the supply and the consumption of all drugs.

… argument is one of the more ridiculous ones that I’ve heard.

Keith Humphreys, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine, discussed the potential consequences of legalizing marijuana.

Here’s the kicker:

Q: What about the argument that taxing marijuana will provide fiscally strapped cities and states with much-needed revenue?

Humphreys: I am not sympathetic with that argument, either on the values front or on just straight economics. If as a society we’ve decided that if it makes revenue we’re for it, why are we wasting time with cannabis? We should be legalizing child pornography and human trafficking. There’s lots of awful things that raise money, and that doesn’t make them right. The idea that we can make a buck here, and therefore it’s the right thing to do for kids in California … I think that’s morally bankrupt.

I really get tired of these jerks/liars who act like the whole tax revenue argument has been made in a vacuum. Nobody who supports legalization has ever said that tax revenue is the only reason to legalize, and it’s disingenuous to say the least to make that implication. And to compare it to child pornography and human trafficking? Now that’s morally bankrupt. It’s also intellectually dishonest, and seeing a professor make such a statement offends the educator in me.

But then again, he’s being paid to be… disingenuous. According to his bio at Stanford:

He is currently on leave from Stanford while he serves as Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Update: It appears now that his bio is out of date. He apparently has returned to Stanford. So that eliminates that excuse.

With the Just Say Now campaign underway at FDL, Jane Hamsher has emerged as a progressive leader on drug policy reform. She talks about it at The Atlantic.

CG: Do you see a lot of support for legalizing marijuana in the Netroots community, or in the more staid progressive community including unions, civil rights groups, and people like that?

JH: Well, interestingly enough, the issue has never gained traction in the quote-unquote liberal political blogosphere. People were always a little bit nervous about it. So it hasn’t had support, but it’s tremendously popular on the Internet and among the Obama surge voters.

CG: I remember when Obama did one of his first tele-town-halls as president, one of the questions that got the most votes was, “Are you going to make marijuana legal?”

JH: Yeah, I believe there were three polls on the transition team’s website, and questions about marijuana topped all three of them, with millions of voters. So for the people who supported Obama, it’s clearly an important issue.

I think this is good recognition that, among progressive voters, there is strong potential interest (just as there is among traditional conservative voters), but that, until now, it’s been the progressive leadership that’s been unwilling to consider it.

Scott Morgan does a nice job of disabusing the idiot-enablers of the notion that somehow legalization will be good for the cartels.

Here’s the thing: criminal drug organizations don’t want this “legal platform” you speak of. That’s not how they do business. Their product is grown by day laborers and slaves, not master cultivators. Their business strategy is characterized by assassination and bribery, not Facebook fan pages and free massage Fridays. They have no intention of paying taxes or appearing before local zoning boards, and they can’t compete with American entrepreneurs who are happy to do the paperwork and can explain where their investment capital came from.

Ah, the hunt.

Instead of rifles and stealthily stalking the prey, it’s body armor, pistols and battering rams. Instead of the forest or tundra, this prey is in a fenced yard, closed in a bathroom, or running away in the living room.

It’s a tough sport and the big game hunter must always be vigilant and always shoot first, because who knows what this ferocious beast, who spends his entire day playing with little children, might do to a grown man in body armor.

As always, Radley Balko documents the hunt…

Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force agents, aided by a uniformed Willits police officer, serving a search warrant at 64 Franklin Avenue on July 27, shot and killed a family pet, an 8-year-old half-pit bull mix named Tonka.

When agents searched the home, they found nothing directly linking the residents to the arrest of Craig Anthony Gelber, the target of the search, according to MMCTF Commander Bob Nishiyama. […]

According to resident Anna White, Tonka’s owner, the police shot her pet while it was in a fenced area on her front porch. “We found the shell casing outside by the fence area. Tonka then ran into our house, got onto my bed and died.”

White described her bedroom following the search, claiming Tonka’s body had been dumped from the bed onto the floor and items from her room dropped onto the body and into the dog’s blood. “They destroyed our house and found nothing,” says White. “Tonka lived long enough to die on my bed, which we shared each night.”

Meanwhile, we go to Prince George’s County, location of the slaying of Payton and Chase. In case you’ve forgotten…

Prince George County SWAT, intercepting a package of marijuana addressed to Mayor Cheye Calvo’s wife Trinity, and knowing that criminals were addressing packages to innocents and intercepting them, nonetheless burst into the Mayor’s home without even enough investigation to know he was the Mayor or even notifying local police, shot the two dogs (Chase was running away from them when they killed him), and kept the Mayor and his mother-in-law handcuffed on the floor for hours in their dogs’ blood.

Well, last night, Sheriff Michael Jackson said:

“Quite frankly, we’d do it again. Tonight.”

For more outrage, see Radley’s Federal Cop Shoots Dog at a Dog Park. No Charges.

Had a great time with my friend in Chicago this past weekend, and now have my Dad visiting to see the Shakespeare Festival shows, and my Sister and niece are coming tomorrow for a couple of days, so I still have only a few moments a day to check on news.

I had several hundred spams built up in the comment spam filter and ended up accidentally dumping them all, so I apologize if any of your comments got caught in there and I didn’t rescue them.

And I feel remiss about not having reported about the wonderful Just Say Now campaign put together by FireDogLake and SSDP. Go over there and show them some support.

Not U.S.

MEXICO CITY — President Felipe Calderon said he would consider a debate on legalizing drugs Tuesday as his government announced that more than 28,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he launched a crackdown against cartels in 2006. […]

Calderon said he has taken note of the idea of legally regulating drugs in the past.
“It’s a fundamental debate in which I think, first of all, you must allow a democratic plurality (of opinions),” he said. “You have to analyze carefully the pros and cons and the key arguments on both sides.”

Three former presidents — Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and Fernando Cardoso of Brazil — urged Latin American countries last year to consider legalizing marijuana to undermine a major source of income for cartels. And Mexico’s congress also has debated the issue.

But Calderon has long said he is opposed to the idea, and his office issued a statement hours after the meeting saying that while the president was open to debate on the issue, he remains “against the legalization of drugs.”

In proposing the debate Tuesday, analyst and writer Hector Aguilar Camin said, “I’m not talking just about marijuana … rather all drugs in general.”

It’s not a call for legalization by Calderon, but it’s a recognition of basic facts — you have to discuss all the options. You can’t bury your head in the sand, cover your ears and repeatedly scream “Legalization is not in my vocabulary.”

In response to President Calderon’s call for a debate on drug legalization, Norm Stamper, a 34-year veteran police officer who was Seattle’s chief of police and is now a speaker with the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and an adviser to the Just Say Now campaign, called on President Obama to join the debate on legalizing marijuana:

“President Calderon’s call for a debate on legalization is a big step forward in putting an end to the war raging in Mexico and along our borders. More than 28,000 people have been killed by Mexico’s drug cartels since 2006 – including 1,200 in July, the deadliest month yet in this drug war.

“Legalizing marijuana is the most sensible approach to stopping this border war. Cartels thrive on marijuana prohibition. Around 70% of the cartels’ profits come from the illegal sale of marijuana, which they turn around to buy guns that have killed thousands of Mexicans and that terrorize police on America’s streets.

“Just Say Now welcomes President Calderon to this debate. We hope that President Obama will join this debate to end the war on marijuana.”