Drug WarRant

I was quite pleased to receive the following: Drug War Economic Report – A Compilation of Local Costs of Connecticut’s Current Drug Policies, prepared by the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at Central Connecticut State University. Dr. Robert L. Painter. M.D. Research Assistant, and Susan E. Pease, Dean, School of Arts and Sciences.

Among the participants joining in the consensus were many Yale students and Clifford Thornton (pictured), a longtime legalization spokesperson, who ran as the Green Party gubernatorial candidate on a pro-legalization, anti-drug war platform back in 2006.

This report does a nice job of isolating drug war figures when it’s really difficult to do so effectively, and I think it could serve (as Cliff hopes) as a model for other states.

It’s certainly far more accurate than the kind of figures the other side uses, when they tout their “cost of drug use.”

I also believe, as the report states, that it is a conservative estimate of the cost to local communities in Connecticut of waging this ridiculous war on drugs.

A couple of minor quibbles.

It costs the United States about $60 billion per year in state and federal money to interdict the supply of drugs from outside US borders. The US population is presently 307.7 million, so this represents an expense of $195 per person per year. For its 124,512 Hartford residents, that represents $24,279,233 per year.

I believe the $60 billion (which appears to come from the War on Drugs Clock) represents a slight overlap with some other costs that are being mentioned in this report. But then again, it’s such a loose estimate, that I don’t think that’s particularly significant.

And then, there’s this:

Homicides are a downstream cost that is not easily measured in money terms. In 2008, 35 people were murdered in Hartford. 75-80% of homicides across the country are drug-related. The Hartford Police Department has opined that Hartford’s percentage is much higher. If, however, 75% is the correct figure, 26.25 homicides per year are one of the downstream costs of the drug war in Hartford. According to Corso et al , the average cost per homicide is $1.3 million in lost productivity and $4,906 in medical costs for a total of $1,304,906 per homicide. That is equal to $34,253,783 total cost each year attributable to homicides in Hartford.

Overall, the detailing is fine. I just have a personal issue with using “lost productivity” in these kinds of reports. I know that the other side does it all the time, and so it’s perfectly appropriate for it to be used here. I just don’t like it.

I find lost productivity to be a rather arbitrary and meaningless statistic that is always presented outside of any kind of useful context. Why don’t we come up with a number for the “reduced negative impact on the economy” because the dead person is no longer producing garbage? There are all sorts of variables when determining how a person might have affected the world had they lived.

Sure, lost productivity is a real thing, and it shouldn’t be ignored, but I would prefer to see it as a side-bar, rather than part of the computations. But that’s just me.

Anyway, this is a pretty good report and an excellent model. Check it out.

It’s the last week of classes, and a host of fascinating (and time-consuming) activities. Yesterday was a 16-hour work day.

So what’s going on that interests you? Is it California? Medical Marijuana? The inability of Arizona to come to grips with borders? Russia wanting to go back into Afghanistan to fight the drug war? Renn Fayre at Reed College?

This is an open thread.

That’s right, a third round of voting (three whole sets of suggestions) on naming their pot campaign.

Clearly they have a lot of readers that can be reached through this campaign at FireDogLake. On Monday, they’ll combine the top vote getters from the three sets and vote for the overall winner.

(Of course, there are a lot of pretty ridiculous suggestions cluttering up the list.)

Over at FireDogLake voting is still going on in the second set of names for the contest to name their marijuana legalization campaign.

Jane also notes the new website for an opposition group to legalization in California: Public Safety First. This is a much more dangerous (and well organized) group than the pathetic CALM folks (with their stolen stock images).

As Jane says:

It would more appropriately be called the Prison Industrial Complex Profit Protection Racket, because they are the same outfit who organized against California’s Prop 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2008. The deceptive advertising that brought that measure down was financed to the tune of almost $2 million by the Prison Guard’s union, who were afraid that passage would negatively impact their business.

At Colombia Reports: The biggest loser in the presidential campaign is the war on drugs

The article discusses the problems with the war on drugs in Colombia and Mexico, and then talk about the close race for replacing Uribe as President.

Colombia’s presidential candidates need to have a good, long think about what a post-Uribe drugs policy will look like. […]

So, from Santos to Mockus to Sanin, all would do well to answer the following questions – if elected, how would their government work on purging the judicial system and building the rule of law, so that people arrested for drug trafficking would be successfully prosecuted and successfully contained in prison? How would they better root out corruption in police and intelligence forces? How would they crack down on money laundering and arms trafficking? […]

True, as long as North Americans and Europeans want to put white powder up their noses, the drug war is never going to end. But what can be done, is to reduce the amount of power and control that the cartels exert over Colombian (and Mexican) society. How do Santos, Mockus and company exactly aim to do this? I hope it becomes a more profoundly discussed topic in the next few weeks. [emphasis added]

Well, I’d like to answer that question.

I’m assuming that Colombia has some kind of residency requirement to become a Presidential candidate, so it might be difficult for me to actually throw my Chicago Cubs hat in the ring. But if I could…

On my first day in office, I would announce that the cartels in Colombia were free to grow all the coca they wish, process it, and sell it as cocaine outside the country, as long as they didn’t destroy rainforest for cultivation, use violence or terror against Colombian citizens, or interfere with Colombian government activities.

We would also ignore any violent conflicts over territory as long as the violence was kept away from innocents.

Any cartel that used violence would be fair game for government retaliation, but as long as they played along with the new rules, they’d be able to rake in the black market cash and be free of hassle. I’d also encourage them to spend that foreign money locally to infuse the economy.

Yes, I would be a cartel-enabler.

And then I’d say to the U.S. “OK, the ball’s in your court.”

The United States would get really pissed at me, and threaten sanctions, cuts in foreign aid, etc., but I’d throw it right back at them, and make moving speeches about how Colombia was no longer going to be the cesspool for failed United States drug policy.

I’d make it clear that the United States can’t continue to bury its head in the sand regarding real alternatives to failed policy, while forcing us to draft our citizens into cannon fodder to fuel its war.

I think the citizens might back me.

… and there’s be one real sh*t-storm in Washington that I’d love to see.

Illinois Medical Marijuana law close to a vote

Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie), House sponsor of the Illinois medical cannabis bill, has renewed his call for support for SB 1381. He was joined at a press conference by doctors, clergy, patients, and public health authority and Gov. Patrick Quinn’s personal physician Dr. Quentin Young. The legislature is scheduled to adjourn on May 7, so our time is now. We expect Rep. Lang to call for a vote on this bill within a matter of days, quite possibly this Thursday.

We are within striking distance of the 60 votes needed to send the bill to Gov. Quinn for his signature. Gov. Quinn has stated that, “People who are seriously ill deserve access to all medical treatments that will help them fight their illness and recover.” Through his spokesperson, the governor has signaled he will give “serious consideration” to a medical cannabis bill should it reach him.

According to Rep. Lang, “92 [representatives] have looked me in the eye and said, ‘This is a great bill. I hope you pass it.’ But only 52 have said they’ll vote for it. They come up with all kinds of excuses. When you have elected officials who choose to vote against their own conscience for political reasons, that’s a recipe for bad politics.”

A successful House vote would send this bill to Gov. Quinn’s desk.

Help to make Illinois the 15th state to protect patients by once again contacting your Representative to vote “yes” when the time comes.

Call your Representative at 217-782-2000 and tell them to “Vote Yes on Senate Bill 1381.

I agree with what Scott Morgan said about what Eric Sterling said about Michele Leonhart.

Eric’s letter in the Washington Post

The April 19 editorial “Medical marijuana” made a wise observation regarding the D.C. medical marijuana law — “critical details will need to be worked out in its implementation” — but did not mention the key obstacle: the federal drug law and the Drug Enforcement Administration opposition. The D.C. law and those of 14 states are messy because they need to work around federal law. D.C. and the states would benefit from DEA cooperation, not opposition stubbornly grounded on the Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Good news. Court Orders Bail for New Jersey’s John Wilson

The multiple sclerosis patient in New Jersey who was sentenced to five years in prison for growing marijuana plants and has been incarcerated since March may be released today while he appeals his case.

This case painfully reminds me of the case of Jonathan Magbie (although it’s important to remember him).

Want Some Pizza With That Pot? Stoners Weigh in on Legalization’s Big Winners – Daily Finance takes a look at the companies who might gain from marijuana legalization’s “munchie” side-effect.

Now you can download the brochure for Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana and see what they’re pushing to the public.

At FireDogLake, Dale Sky Clare, the Executive Chancellor of Oaksterdam University and the Spokesperson for Control and Tax Cannabis 2010 is interviewed. She talks about both Oaksterdam and the upcoming ballot initiative.

Interesting point she makes is that they now have the support of major labor unions and the NAACP.

Dale speaks very well, and knows all the right points. I hate watching talking head videos, but really enjoyed listening to her. She’s extremely bright, understands the needs of others, and knows how to target her message. I’m really encouraged.

….

This is an open thread.

When the preliminary results of this study came out a while back, it was mentioned here, but now it’s out, it’s official, and it’s an AP story and in the Washington Post:

Study links drug enforcement to more violence

A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating back 20 years found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada.

When communities get tough on drug crime, that drives up the black market profits, prompting fierce battles to control the lucrative trade, their study says. And when powerful and successful drug bosses are taken out, it’s all too common for more brutal and less sophisticated criminals to step in.

“Law enforcement is the biggest single expenditure on drugs, yet has rarely been evaluated. This work indicates an urgent need to shift resources from counterproductive law enforcement to a health-based public health approach,” said Gerry Stimson

Now there is a clear, plain, easy to read and understand, factual imperative for us to re-think using law enforcement in drug policy.

I hope this gets spread in a major way by the AP, because it’s likely to start up some interesting conversations.

Our current drug czar followed his usual pathetic script:

U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, asked about the findings, said the U.S. government is shifting its emphasis toward prevention and treatment of drug abuse, but he said the prohibition on drugs must remain and enforcement must continue.

By that, of course, he means that the budget shows a 6.5% increase in treatment, but also an increase in enforcement, and by the time Congress is done with it, the ratio will be no different than before, and we’ll still have 2/3 of the budget on supply side.

He continued:

“I don’t know of any reason that legalizing something that essentially is bad for you would make it better, from a fiscal standpoint or a public health standpoint or a public safety standpoint,” he said.

Really? Are you deaf? Are you blind? Have you read nothing that drug policy reformers have written? Boy, you really just go around and tell people all the time that you’re stupid. (“not in my vocabulary,” “don’t know of any reasons,” …)

Here are a few for you (and, of course, everything from Twinkies to jogging is essentially bad for you if abused):

• Fiscal: Reduction of billions of dollars in enforcement costs that could be spent elsewhere
• Fiscal: Tax revenues from a legal market
• Public Health: Fewer overdoses with regulated product.
• Public Health: Regulated product also means fewer tainted products and standardized dosage for appropriate drugs, which will save lives and reduce health costs.
• Public Safety: Fewer shoot-outs in the streets
• Public Safety: Fewer people being processed into the criminal system

Former Drug Czar Walters also stepped in.

The former drug czar, John Walters, said the researchers gravely misinterpret drug violence. He said spikes of attacks and killings after law enforcement crackdowns are almost entirely between criminals, and therefore may, in a horrible, paradoxical way, reflect success.

“They’re shooting each other, and the reason they’re doing that is because they’re getting weaker,” he said.

“Yes, I know your daughter was shot to death by a stray bullet in a drug war shootout, but that’s a good thing. It means the bad guys are getting weaker. With any luck, your entire family will be next, and then we’ll know we really have them on the ropes.”

I’m fighting another bout of being ill — this time it’s an intermittent fever for the past three days that’s quite annoying and tiring.

It hasn’t gone much over 101 degrees F, so I don’t think it’s serious, but if it continues much longer, I feel that I probably should see someone — I’m just not sure who.

Should I go to local law enforcement for medical advice? Or the state troopers? Maybe I should check myself in at the regional DEA office? Does anyone know what their clinic hours are and whether you need an appointment?

I mean, sure, I have health insurance and belong to an HMO, but I’m not sure if I should go there since it appears that a doctor’s opinion on medical issues is less valuable than that of law enforcement.

This is why it’s so hard to make fundamental changes in the federal government’s drug war.

As you know, Obama’s Drug Czar has been heavily claiming that this administration is much more concerned about demand side and treatment. In fact, this is nonsense, as the actual proposed budget changes were relatively insignificant.

Of course, the government has admitted that supply-side efforts are primarily a waste of money. All evidence shows that it has very little effect.

And recently, the Drug Czar was raked over the coals in the House hearing over his emphasis on supply-side funding.

And yet, now we have Democratic Senator Charles Schumer wanting to restore a tiny 15% cut of one fund that actually did occur on the supply-side: Schumer pushes for anti-drug funding

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer wants the Obama administration to restore federal budget cuts to a program aimed at curbing drug trafficking and to formulate a comprehensive strategy to fight increased drug-smuggling across the Canadian border. […]

Law enforcement is doing its job, he said, “but if they don’t have the best resources, there is no way they can deal with this scourge.”

Yeah, just give us more money — that’ll solve it.

So many people want their place at the drug war teat. Every time you try to cut any part of it, there’s going to be an outcry from the assholes who want to take more of our taxpayer dollars to fight a counter-productive war that merely harms our own citizens.

Update: Howard Wooldridge nails it.

Based on my 18 years of police experience, I think the drug smugglers are cheering Sen. Charles Schumer’s continued support for drug prohibition (“Schumer: Funds needed to fight drug war,” April 22). Without this modern prohibition, they would not be making billions.

After 40 years and $1.1 trillion tax dollars spent, one would hope that Senator Schumer would admit what we all know; Prohibition is a failure, again. Want to rid New York of all drug dealers and smuggling? Legalize/regulate and tax the drugs.

Title of the piece at The Southern: Local authorties: Marijuana should not be legalized

And what is the reasoning from those “authorties”?

“I’m against it,” said Perry County Sheriff Keith Kellerman. “They’re going to continue to use drugs, so why legalize it?”

That has got to be one of the most amazing pieces of reasoning I’ve ever heard.

A member of the Perry County Drug Task Force and the Illinois Sheriff’s Association’s legislative committee, Kellerman said cannabis prohibition laws aren’t stopping people from using the drug, so removing the laws will only enhance the problem of drug use.

And another Sheriff weighs in. At least he’s a little more… confused.

Union County Sheriff David Livesay said he’s heard information on both sides of the legal marijuana debate, but can’t say he would approve of legalization.

“I don’t know if legalizing marijuana is the answer,” he said. “I hate to say it would be.”

Livesay said he’s heard a lot lately about the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, but doesn’t think evidence supporting the cause is significant enough to merit legalization.

“Until we can see some studies where it showed something of more significance, I’d be opposed to that,” he said.

Given all the studies out there, I wonder what would be required for “more significance.”

As an Illinois resident, I hate to generalize against the southern portion, but…