Drug WarRant

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.”

I’ve got a good friend flying in from Seattle to spend a long weekend and we’re going to spend the time in Chicago exploring the city (as we do every year) until Tuesday. And then my Dad is coming to town and we’re going to see all the shows at the Illinois Shakespeare Festival on Tuesday through Thursday. So while I’ll be checking it, posting will probably be a little light.

Keep sending me tips. I apologize that I seldom have time to respond to them and am behind following up on some that really interest me.

Obama administration clueless as to what to do about drug policy. If California legalizes marijuana, not clear what Obama administration would do

I realize that the current administration isn’t going to do anything to actively help reform. The best we can hope for is a kind of negligence. Something that looks like incompetent and inefficient efforts to be tough on drugs. It appears that they’d rather be seen as doing a bad job at being prohibitionists than as leading for change.

A fascinating This Week in History from StopTheDrugWar.org

Excellent overview of what’s going on with Prop 19 in California by Daniela Perdomo at Alternet.

Because it’s been working so well so far… US Congress Approves More Funding for Plan Mexico

A measure passed by Congress to provide emergency funding for the war in Afghanistan is also being used by US lawmakers to pump an additional $175 million into Mexico to support the drug war this year. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed a budgetary bill referred to as the 2010 supplemental appropriations act, which along with providing $60 billion to war efforts in Afghanistan also allocates more funds to “international narcotics control and law enforcement” in Mexico.

Odd. What is this feeling? Not sure how to handle it. Today, I read the Drug Czar’s “blog” and… actually mostly agreed with it.

“I applaud the passage in the House today of the Fair Sentencing Act, which will dramatically reduce a 100-to-1 disparity between trafficking offenses for crack and powder cocaine,” said White House Drug Control Policy Director, Gil Kerlikowske. “The Obama Administration is committed to the fair and equal application of our Nation’s laws. The Fair Sentencing Act marks the first time in 40 years that Congress has reduced a mandatory minimum sentence.

Hmmm.

This is an open thread.

My, that certainly is a provocative question. Is Roger Salazar channeling funds to terrorists? Is he, in fact, providing money laundering services for terrorists? These are real questions, based on absolutely nothing, that I feel that I need to put in front of the public, so they can think about it.

Who is Roger Salazar? Well, he’s a Democratic spokesman and media consultant. He is also the spokesperson for California Working Families for Jerry Brown (for the Governor race), which is heavily funded (millions of dollars) by certain unions (which includes public employee unions in California). And he is the spokesperson for Public Safety First, which opposes Proposition 19 (the legalization of marijuana in California) and which is responsible for this new ad on the left.

So, given that, and the fact that those facts do not in any way add up to evidence that Roger Salazar is channeling funds to terrorists, it still is a provocative question that we may feel needs to be asked: Is Roger Salazar funding terrorists? He is dealing with a lot of funds, and there are terrorists out there. Just sayin’.

That’s the relevance of this offensive ad. It’s Salazar going fact-free and negative, and trying to deceive voters by scaring them. I mean, you could just as well put a number of captions there:

— Is My Teacher Drunk?
— Is My Teacher Stupid?
— Is My Teacher Holed Up In The Classroom With A Semi-Automatic?
— Is My Teacher Sleeping With Roger Salazar?

All disturbing questions. All equally unrelated to the passage of Proposition 19.

But we’ll see more of these ads. Why?

These are the questions that morally bankrupt political hacks who don’t have the facts on their side are forced to ask.

…

Oh, and to California voters? You may want to vote Green, not Brown.

Some oppose medical marijuana because patients who aren’t that sick can still get a doctor’s note.

I’ve noticed that people who can walk pretty well still get permits to park in the close spots. Maybe we should outlaw all handicapped parking.

Absolutely brilliant video. Anti-prohibition cartoon by Haik Hoisington.

Visit the artist at Black Mustache.com.

Crack/Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reform bill passes House and heads to President’s desk

Today, the House passed legislation reducing the two-decades-old sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The Senate passed an identical bill in March and the legislation is now heading to President Obama, who supports the reform effort. […]

Before the changes, a person with just five grams of crack received a mandatory sentence of five years in prison. That same person would have to possess 500 grams of powder cocaine to earn the same punishment. This discrepancy, known as the 100-to-1 ratio, was enacted in the late 1980s and was based on myths about crack cocaine being more dangerous than powder. […]

Advocates pushed to totally eliminate the disparity but ultimately a compromise was struck between Democrats and Republicans to reduce the 100-to-1 disparity to 18-to-1. The compromise also eliminated the five year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of five grams of cocaine (about two sugar packets worth). The repeal of that mandatory minimum is the first repeal of a mandatory minimum drug sentence since the 1970s.

It’s a halfway measure, but it’s still extremely significant. Finally, politicians actually voting to reduce a prohibition measure.

And there’s no outcry… no threats to run “druggie” ads against those who passed it… no riots from concerned voters. It’s almost as though they wouldn’t have had to resort to a halfway measure.

The House also passed the Webb Criminal Justice Commission. Great news, but it still needs to pass the Senate.

An interview with Major Neill Franklin, new Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

A federal-state law inconsistency shouldn’t stop Californians from legalizing marijuana by Hanna Liebman Dershowitz. Excellent piece in the LA Times.

Instead of hewing to a misguided and unworkable federal hegemony in this area, encouraging innovation at the state level would be a more rational federal policy. And to be clear, legal scholars have long disagreed with Kleiman’s conclusion that the feds must and will intervene to try to quell state action in this area.

States need not shrink from countering federal policy on marijuana. California can show leadership in driving needed reforms, as it has before. In other words, the law need not be the law if you’re willing to stick your neck out. Cautious academics and politicized public employees will always embrace the status quo, joined by risk-averse politicians who misconstrue a lack of constituent “noise” on this issue as satisfaction with current law, not fear. But voters know better.

Not only can Californians regulate and tax marijuana, we should.

Here’s a challenge for my loyal readers.

I need an organization.

It doesn’t generally work for bloggers to send out a press release and the title of “blogger” doesn’t work well in trying to get OpEds, etc. If, however, you’re the Executive Director of Concerned Citizens for Legislative Reform, then you get some respect even if your entire organization is a web page… or less. It’s stupid, but it’s true.

Take a look at Bishop Ron Allen of the International Faith-Based Coalition or Al Crancer of Crancer and Associates, for that matter. Andrea Barthwell had about a dozen of them.

So come up with an organization name. It could be something complementary to Drug WarRant that shows our focus (probably should avoid the word “rant,” though), or it could be something abstract like RAND that would be further explained. This is not going to replace Drug WarRant, but give us an organization name when we need one.

The one to come up with the final name for the organization will be offered an honorary officer position in it.

Sometimes I just really get tired. Tired of fighting against all the bullshit and lies. Tired of the fact that for years, prohibitionists have come to the conclusion that they have no need to tell the truth at all. Tired of tracking down and reading through yet another “study” to find out that it’s a whole lot of crap wrapped up with a pretty ribbon, so that others can pretend to tell the truth as they peddle their lies to eagerly vapid reporters. Tired.

And yet… and yet.

The lies need to be exposed.

I found out about this Fox News interview video from a tweet from the folks at No on Proposition 19 who were quite excited about it. As soon as I saw the segment’s logo “Going to Pot,” I knew it would be a bad bit of business. But I wasn’t prepared for these two zombie flesh-eaters staring out at me from the video.

This was just after she said (with wide-eyed amazement):

Who would of thunk, that in 2010, we’d be actually having a debate, about legalizing… pot!… to make up and balance a budget?

And then she actually held that look for a couple of seconds.

My thought, however, was who’d have “thunk,” that in 2010, we’d still have idiots like this trying to keep us from legalizing something that should never have been criminalized?

And, not to get off on a rant here, but who are these morons? I guess there’s a reason I never watch television news channels and why in particular I use the parental control feature to lock FOX News (Oh, I’ll DVR Stossel or Napolitano if they’re talking about the drug war, and of course, anytime Balko is on…, but I would absolutely freak if I accidentally flipped through channels in the morning and landed on these two!)

I could understand (not like, but understand) such mindless zombies having an anchor job if they were, well, attractive, but these two are so ugly, their mommas would have to tie a pork chop around their neck to get the dog to play with them.

Anyway, police chief Raney (who’s not at all like those two) lays it on really thick. He’s not an idiot. Just a deceiver. Here’s what he has to say…
Continue reading →

The Economist has a devastatingly powerful attack on the U.S.: Too many laws, too many prisoners. Never in the civilised world have so many been locked up for so little

This is a must read and it should be used to hold lawmakers accountable.

As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan. Overcrowding is the norm. Federal prisons house 60% more inmates than they were designed for. State lock-ups are only slightly less stuffed.

The system has three big flaws, say criminologists. First, it puts too many people away for too long. Second, it criminalises acts that need not be criminalised. Third, it is unpredictable. Many laws, especially federal ones, are so vaguely written that people cannot easily tell whether they have broken them.

In 1970 the proportion of Americans behind bars was below one in 400, compared with today’s one in 100.

We have been through an orgy of legislators passing criminal penalties and prosecutors pushing for maximums, regardless of the costs.

Jim Felman, a defence lawyer in Tampa, Florida, says America is conducting “an experiment in imprisoning first-time non-violent offenders for periods of time previously reserved only for those who had killed someone”.

And the results of this experiment include enormous incarceration costs and enormous medical costs as we end up locking up more old people than ever before, as well as the increased danger of incarcerating innocents (as fear of being locked up for decades sometimes pushes innocent people to plead guilty).

Plus, sometimes people don’t even know that they broke the law!

There are over 4,000 federal crimes, and many times that number of regulations that carry criminal penalties. When analysts at the Congressional Research Service tried to count the number of separate offences on the books, they were forced to give up, exhausted. […] In many criminal cases, the common-law requirement that a defendant must have a mens rea (ie, he must or should know that he is doing wrong) has been weakened or erased.

“The founders viewed the criminal sanction as a last resort, reserved for serious offences, clearly defined, so ordinary citizens would know whether they were violating the law. Yet over the last 40 years, an unholy alliance of big-business-hating liberals and tough-on-crime conservatives has made criminalisation the first line of attack—a way to demonstrate seriousness about the social problem of the month, whether it’s corporate scandals or e-mail spam,” writes Gene Healy, a libertarian scholar.

If we’re supposed to obey the laws (which reasonably assumes that we should know what they are), then it seems to me that lawmakers shouldn’t be allowed to pass any more criminal penalties unless they can recite all the ones that are already on the books.

Thanks to Logan for pointing out this nasty internet ad by the anti-proposition-19 folks:

The ad goes on to read…

As California goes, do does the
rest of the country.

“do does”? OK, we didn’t say they were literate.

This November, Californian’s [sic] will go to the polls and decide if they want to legalize the use and cultivation of Marijuana. Your state could be next. Bus drivers, forklift operators, hospital technicians, crossing guards who might be stoned could be coming to your community.

Seems to me that bus drivers, forklift operators, hospital technicians, crossing guards, doctors, teachers, judges, police, and (ironic mothers? — not sure what the image on the left is supposed to represent) should be pretty offended by the implications of this ad and want to support the other side.

On the radio, we have Democrat Michael Rubio, a Kern County supervisor who is running for state senate in Bakersfield. He apparently decided he could get more visibility for his campaign by running radio ads against legalization. (Maybe someone from Bakersfield can explain this.) Listen here.

Of course, he rails against “legalized potheads driving around.” I’m afraid we’re going to hear a lot more about those in the days to come. Facts, of course, won’t matter much from that side of this debate.

Oddly, he starts by calling it “legalizing the — quote — recreational use of marijuana —”

Um, no. It is in fact legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. I’m not sure what the purpose of the “quote” is. I know it was fashionable for prohibitionists to put quotes around the term “medical marijuana” to ridicule the idea that it was really medicine. But is he saying that “recreational marijuana” isn’t… recreational? What is it, work?

When pot is legal, will the following conversation be taking place?

Sarah: “Hey, you want to go to a movie?”

George: “Oh, I wish I could! No, I have to get stoned and drive a car and run over some kids. Hey, it’s a living.”

…

Update: They’re probably alerted to the mistakes in the ad, so Roger Salazar will be stepping in to clean it up and straighten out the drunks on his staff. When that happens, here’s a pdf of how it originally appeared.

Update 2: The ad has been removed. Currently, I’m getting a “Directory Listing Denied” at that page, and another ad they had aimed at California audiences is also gone.

Update 3: The ads have returned. And now they’re fixed (in terms of grammar and spelling — but still offensive). Jacob Sullum has more:

But Public Safety First, which is running the campaign against Prop. 19, is all about fear. Its website features photos of a doctor, a teacher, a judge, and a cop with joints dangling ridiculously from their mouths, suggesting prohibition is the only thing that prevents people from getting stoned at work. It says “bus drivers, forklift operators, hospital technicians, crossing guards who might be stoned could be coming to your community.”

Yes, these people might be stoned, but that is true whether or not Prop. 19 passes. And even if marijuana disappeared tomorrow, all of these people could come to work drunk. Yet Public Safety First is not campaigning for a return to alcohol prohibition, because it understands that workplace intoxication can be addressed through less sweeping measures that do not penalize responsible consumers for the sins of a reckless minority.

If we remove the terror-tinted lenses of Prop. 19’s opponents, we start to see the benefits of treating marijuana more like alcohol.

The British Medical Journal last week published a special edition: ‘Drug users and HIV: treat don’t punish’. It had a series of excellent articles, including one by our friend Steve Rolles at Transform Drug Policy Foundation: An alternative to the war on drugs.

As Transform notes…

In a significant endorsement, the editor of the BMJ Fiona Godlee, in an editorial titled ‘Ideology in the ascendant’ , concludes by noting that:

“In a beautifully argued essay Stephen Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs. He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it.”

You can’t be more clear than that.

And she’s right — it’s a wonderful piece.

I’m going to quote a few passages, but you should go read the whole thing.

The criminalisation of drugs has, historically, been presented as an emergency response to an imminent threat rather than an evidence based health or social policy intervention. Prohibitionist rhetoric frames drugs as menacing not just to health but also to our children, national security, and the moral fabric of society itself. The prohibition model is positioned as a response to such threats, and is often misappropriated into populist political narratives such as “crackdowns” on crime, immigration, and, more recently, the war on terror.

This conceptualisation has resulted in the punitive enforcement of drug policy becoming largely immune from meaningful scrutiny. A curiously self justifying logic now prevails in which the harms of prohibition—such as drug related organised crime and deaths from contaminated heroin—are conflated with the harms of drug use. These policy related harms then bolster the apparent menace of drugs and justify the continuation, or intensification, of prohibition. This has helped create a high level policy environment that routinely ignores or actively suppresses critical scientific engagement and is uniquely divorced from most public health and social policy norms, such as evaluation of interventions using established indicators of health and wellbeing.

After talking about how movements for reform have grown in recent years, including actual efforts in decriminalization and harm reduction (the most that law will allow), he continues…

The logic of both, however, ultimately leads us to confront the inevitable choice: non-medical drug markets can remain in the hands of unregulated criminal profiteers or they can be controlled and regulated by appropriate government authorities. There is no third option under which drugs do not exist. The choice needs to be based on an evaluation of which option will deliver the best outcomes in terms of minimising the harms, both domestic and international, associated with drug production, supply, and use. This does not preclude reducing demand as a legitimate long term policy goal, rather it accepts that policy must also deal with the reality of current high levels of demand.

Rolles then goes on to talk about Transform’s After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation, which I’ve promoted here before (and which is free online). It’s an outstanding piece of work — the only legitimate report to actually lay out a post-prohibition set of workable models for drug regulation.

The British Medical Journal is one of the most influential peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. For it to warmly receive and endorse a full-throated call for legalized regulation of recreational drugs is a major step.