Drug WarRant

As we’ve known for some time, the Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has gotten a real hard-on for promoting drugged driving as some kind of big epidemic, despite the lack of evidence showing it to be a significant problem (particularly compared to drunk driving). In fact, if we didn’t keep a close eye on him, he’d be making up evidence of the problem just to support his pet policy.

He’s has a couple of guest writers at the ONDCP “blog” to talk about drugged driving policy.

The first is Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle with The terrible toll drugged driving takes on our communities.

What are his statistics to demonstrate this “terrible toll”? The death of an unborn baby named Luke by a driver, caused in a car crash with a driver who may have been impaired by cocaine. This led to a horrible law (ghoulishly named “Baby Luke Law”) which allows a driver who tests positive to certain drugs (including marijuana) to be charged with homicide by drugged driving (up to 40 years sentence) if a death is involved in a crash, even if they weren’t impaired in any way (and hadn’t even used drugs recently).

Check out the perverted pride in Jim Doyle’s next statement:

In less than the seven years since “Baby Luke Law” passed, more than 4,000 drugged drivers have been convicted who might otherwise have escaped successful prosecution under Wisconsin’s drunken driving law because a prosecutor would have had to prove that drugs caused impairment.

Wow!

Why should prosecutors have to prove guilt, he asks. Let’s just convict people of something they haven’t done without all that bother of deciding guilt or innocence.

What utter contempt for the rule of law, for justice, for even a sense of being part of a free nation of people.

He’s proud of the fact that they’re taking two unrelated things and crafting a crime that doesn’t exist. Sort of like saying that if you’re in an accident where a death is involved and you’ve also got unpaid parking tickets, then you’re suddenly guilty of murder, by definition.

Wisconsin’s law recognizes that driving under the influence of illegal drugs is unacceptable and ensures that justice is served when irresponsible people decide to get behind the wheel.

Actually, Wisconsin’s law insures that justice will not be served. Certainly not for those who were unimpaired, yet are convicted of being impaired.

Additionally, the efforts expended on trying to hang serious charges on unimpaired drivers with drugs in their systems, will distract from the needed focus on actual impaired drivers on the road. And that just makes the roads more dangerous.

In fact, unborn Baby Luke will certainly end up causing more deaths than are ever caused by drivers high on marijuana.

Moving away from the ugly grandstanding of Jim Doyle, we have another guest poster at the Drug Czar’s “blog” who shows a marked contrast in approach.

This one is Robert Darbelnet, the President and CEO of AAA, with Addressing the Drugged Driving Challenge

He pay lip service to the drug czar’s efforts regarding drugged driving, but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of policy, Darbelnet’s approach appears to have an entirely different focus:

As this body of knowledge improves, public policy will need to evolve—states will need to establish enforceable laws that deter drugged driving. Not only does law enforcement need to be able to detect the presence of potentially-impairing drug use among motorists, but they also must be able to distinguish between drug presence and driver impairment.

“to distinguish between drug presence and driver impairment.”

What a night and day approach to policy. The Drug Czar and the Governor of Wisconsin don’t care if their policies make sense, if they work, if they save lives or cause death… all they care about is politics, people be damned.

On the other hand, Robert Darbelnet is head of a company that provides services to consumers. To him, an extraordinarily punitive policy that doesn’t provide safety is stupid and wasteful. He, on behalf of his customers, certainly wants increased safety on the highways. He may not always be right in determining the best way of achieving that, but he’s certainly not going to support the stupidity of a Jim Doyle policy.

I’ll be curious to see how AAA updates information on their site about drugged driving as planned (at this writing that page is not functional). But I think it’s worth letting Robert Darbelnet and AAA know that we appreciate them working to develop good policy based on actual evidence.

Last night. (Via Meidaite)

Al Martinez: Do we need one more drug to shield us from reality? — L.A. Daily News

I predict that by the end of the year the sale of marijuana will become so common in L.A. that Mom will be able to say, “Timmy, run down to Vons and get me a quart of milk, a loaf of sourdough bread, a pound of tomatoes and two ounces of pot.” […]

Kids who don’t already have the habit will pick it up from their friends and parents and before you know it every third person in L.A. will be wearing a dim smile and calling everyone Dude; beggars will carry signs that say “Will work for Weed.”

Ah, yes, the fantasy that liberalization of pot will somehow require everyone to spend their lives completely stoned, wearing a “dim smile and calling everyone Dude.”

At least Martinez is honest about his prejudices.

Marijuana has never been my drug of choice even though the very air reeked of burning hemp during the 1960s when I was covering the student uprisings in Berkeley. You could get stoned by just breathing. I was a martini man then and I’m a martini man now and I rarely smile, dimly or otherwise, and I call no one Dude. […]

I don’t believe you necessarily go from one or two hits to becoming a serial killer. But I do wonder if our culture, already a little screwy, needs one more drug to shield it from the realities of the world we should be moving to face head-on before it’s too late. To cure or relieve pain, sure. But where there’s money to be made, I can’t help but believe that the whole humanitarian process is going to be ridden like a drunken horse over the wishes of the people and we’ll all go to hell smiling dimly and calling everyone Dude.

Translation: I have my own extremely limited view of potheads that has little connection to reality. I also already have my own drug of choice that doesn’t really make me happy, and I’m sure as hell not interested in letting anyone else have a good time.

It’s sad, really. Fear of smiling, fear of something out there that his martini doesn’t understand, fear of using the word “Dude.”

That would be some bonfire.

Nice job by the medical marijuana folks in Illinois to turn this marijuana seizure into an opportunity…

“Depending on its purity, [the seized marijuana] represents a lot of medicine that could have helped so many Illinoisans,” Julie Falco, a North Side woman who uses marijuana to ease the symptoms of multiple sclerosis told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Lisa Lange, another area woman who uses marijuana for medical purposes, agreed with Falco–and said she would rather see the department take another approach.

“Incinerating it is a waste,” Lange told the Sun-Times. “I would prefer to see it tested and then, if safe, distributed to compassionate care clubs.”

There are so many ways that the drug war is destructive, but here’s another — the use of the death penalty for drug crimes in a number of countries around the world.

The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has often claimed to be “concerned” about the use of the death penalty in drug crimes, yet has failed to do anything about it. And drug policy reformers have noted that countries like China routinely execute large numbers of drug offenders on the global anti-drug day.

Now the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) is making a case for the complicity of the U.N. and individual countries that support the drug war in those deaths.

The United Nations, the European commission and individual states including Britain are flouting international human rights law by funding anti-drug crime measures that are inadvertently leading to the executions of offenders, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA), a non-governmental organisation that advocates less punitive approaches to drugs policy globally, says it has gathered evidence revealing “strong links” between executions for drugs offences and the funding of specific drug enforcement operations by international agencies.

It says programmes aimed at shoring up local efforts to combat drug trafficking and other offences are being run “without appropriate safeguards” that could prevent serious human rights violations in countries that retain the death penalty.

The report concludes that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime ( “are all actively involved in funding and/or delivering technical assistance, legislative support and financial aid intended to strengthen domestic drug enforcement activities in states that retain the death penalty for drug offences.

It’s an interesting (and, I think, valid) point. Not sure how much effect the argument would have here in the states, where so many still have a love affair with the government killing people, but in more civilized countries, the notion that drug policy props up execution regimes could be a little disturbing.

Britain joins Canada in approving liquid marijuana as prescription medicine.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — It was announced today that Sativex, a cannabinoid-based liquid medicine sprayed under the tongue, has been approved for use in Great Britain to help treat the muscle spasticity suffered by multiple sclerosis patients. Sativex is a natural marijuana extract that is produced by British-based GW Pharmaceuticals. It has been approved for use in Canada to treat neuropathic pain since 2005.

“Once again, the scientific community has confirmed that marijuana is medicine and it can provide safe and effective relief to patients suffering from certain conditions,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “Sadly, our federal government, through the Drug Enforcement Administration, has blocked effective research into the therapeutic effectiveness of marijuana. The United States could be leading the world in the development of cannabinoid-based medicines, but instead our government has ceded this industry to the U.K., while intentionally prolonging the agony of patients in this country.”

Economist promotes legalization debate. Via Transform

As part of its latest promotional campaign The Economist magazine has launched a series of ‘where do you stand?’ debates built around a billboard poster campaign outlining opposing views on a series of contentious issues. One of the issues they have chosen is whether drugs should be legalised and regulated, perhaps unsuprising given their prominent interest in this debate, and indeed support for the reform position

Danish police officer refuses to arrest pot smokers

Interesting development in the case of drug war victim Rev. Jonathan Ayers.

GBI agents have arrested the Training Coordinator for the Stephens County Sheriff’s Office in connection with an ongoing investigation into the status of training records of the drug task force officer involved in the shooting death of Jonathan Ayers in Toccoa last September. […] The charge stems from false statements Lt. Wilson allegedly made to agents last Friday related to training records of Billy Shane Harrison, an officer with the multi-jurisdictional drug task force in Toccoa

Calderon defends drug war, many Mexicans skeptical

Gunmen slaughter 19 men at a rehab clinic. Sixteen bodies are dumped in a northern city. Twelve police officers die in an ambush. Soldiers kill 15 gunmen outside a tourist town.

All this in less than a week, yet President Felipe Calderon believes Mexico is getting a bad rap and wants to hire a public relations firm to improve its image. He might want to start with convincing his own countrymen, who are frustrated by assurances that the drug war is going well.

Yeah, that’s what the drug war needs. A public relations firm.

This is an open thread.

This time it was a grandmother living alone with her dog. Police conduct a drug raid on the place looking for her grandson who hasn’t lived there in 12 years. She asks if she can put her dog in the backyard or the bathroom, and the police say no problem, put it in the bathroom.

And then, in their search, they open the bathroom and shoot the dog when it “attacks” them.

Naturally, she’s furious.

There’s just no cause for this.

This kind of behavior stems from the “war” aspect of the drug war, where you have police looking at the people they are supposed to serve and protect as “the enemy.” When you go in with that mindset, killing a dog is nothing. Killing a human is just a little bit more.

One of the things that’s curious about all the dog shootings in drug raids is the relative silence of animal rights groups.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has developed a petition to get these groups to act.

The killing of innocent animals is far too common in the context of violent drug raids and needs to end.

Our harsh drug policies create an atmosphere where officers are too often forced into dangerous situations where tragic outcomes sometimes can’t be avoided. The cops, judges, prosecutors, and civilian members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition believe the risks taken and inconveniences suffered by police officers to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, and secure the safety of fellow citizens should be related to keeping the public safe, not chasing drug offenders and their families, children, and pets.

We call upon capable and compassionate animal rights organizations, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, to help minimize the danger to animals during raids by developing “best practices” for police agencies regarding their treatment of pets during raids, assisting police agencies in implementing such practices and training their officers, and joining forces with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and other drug policy reform groups to end the unnecessary deaths caused by these raids.

John Stossel had a very good show tonight on Fox Business Channel. Drug War Disaster

He had a “debate” with Sean Hannity (he couldn’t get anyone from DEA or ONDCP to appear. Talked with guests Jeffrey Miron (libertarian economist) and Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal about the economics of prohibition and the situation in Mexico.

He had on Mayor Cheye Calvo (whose dogs were drug war victims) and Radley Balko to talk about SWAT proliferation. And Paul Chabot — a cop in favor of the drug war, and Neil Franklin — LEAP member opposed to the drug war faced off. Chabot talked the usual nonsense about not wanting to “wave the white flag.” And then he took off with more nonsense during the audience Q and A and I had to turn off the TV.

I watched most of it and it was well worth watching.

If you missed the show tonight, I believe it repeats on Saturday at 7 and 11 pm (Eastern) and on Sunday at 10 pm (Eastern).

Yep, that’s what Big Hollywood’s Kurt Schlichter called Drug WarRant today in a really silly update to his earlier rant.

Hey, I don’t mind. Junkies are welcome here. So are those who have never touched the stuff. Liberals and conservatives. Even Kurt Schlichter, who has by now so denigrated the idea of facts, that to him they’re actually different if conservatives talk about them than if liberals do.

Shorter Kurt Schlichter:

Conservative Person: 2+2=4

Schlicter: I kind of agree with you on that.

Liberal Person: 2+2=4

Schlicter You’re absolutely wrong, and it’s statements like that that are destroying our great nation.

So who’s the one on drugs?

In my post America the Ugly I referred to situations where people were getting deported from this country because of minor drug transgressions.

Here’s how it worked:

Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of two misdemeanor drug offenses in Texas. For the first, possession of a small amount of marijuana, he received 20 days in jail. For the second, possession without a prescription of one anti-anxiety tablet, he received 10 days.

Now, here’s where the trickery was taking place. To deport someone, they must have been convicted of an “aggravated felony.” Jose’s convictions were misdemeanors.

However, a provision of a federal law allows that recidivism (ie, multiple convictions, even of simple possession), may be prosecutable as a felony offense under the Controlled Substances Act.

The feds were taking the multiple misdemeanors and noting that, if they had been prosecuted in Federal Court using those standards, they could have been eligible for the recidivism enhancement (making it a felony), and therefore the person had essentially been “convicted” of a crime that was a felony by definition (even though they hadn’t been sentenced that way), and should be deported.

Right.

Fortunately, this week the Supreme Court, in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, ruled unanimously that the federal government was full of crap.

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion, which included this gem (references removed):

While it is true that a defendant’s criminal history might be seen to make an offense “worse” by virtue thereof, it is nevertheless unorthodox to classify this type of petty simple possession recidivism as an “aggravated felony.”

Of course, as Justice Souter observed in his opinion for the Court in Lopez, Congress, like “Humpty Dumpty,” has the power to give words unorthodox meanings. But in this case the Government argues for a result that “the English language tells us not to expect,” so we must be “very wary of the Government’s position.” Because the English language tells us that most aggravated felonies are punishable by sentences far longer than 10 days, and that mere possession of one tablet of Xanax does not constitute “trafficking,” Lopez instructs us to be doubly wary of the Government’s position in this case.

Common sense from the Supreme Court. Hmmm….

Update: In other good news, this from the Kentucky Supreme Court today in Cochran v. Commonwealth, the court ruled that a woman may not be charged with wanton endangerment of her child based on having ingested illegal drugs while pregnant.

Again, the court showed common sense and noted that such prosecutions were not given to mothers who drank alcohol while pregnant.

The “case-by-case” approach suggested by the Commonwealth is so arbitrary that, if the criminal child abuse statutes are construed to support it, the statutes transgress reasonably identifiable limits; they lack fair notice and violate constitutional due process limits against statutory vagueness.

The court also slammed the prosecution by demonstrating that the sense of the Kentucky General Assembly had been made clear in its Maternal Health Act of 1992, which stated:

… punitive actions taken against pregnant alcohol or substance abusers would create additional problems, including discouraging these individuals from seeking the essential prenatal care and substance abuse treatment necessary to deliver a healthy newborn…