Drug WarRant

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…

So much depends on how you ask the question. Widely publicized 4/20 poll actually shows majority support for drug reforms

As with many instances in politics, actuality can often be obscured behind the wrong frame: ask a question just the right way and results can be wildly tilted, one way or another.

Take the case of an Associated Press/CNBC poll released on April 20, 2010, detailing Americans’ opinions on legalizing marijuana. The poll was widely reported as declaring that 55 percent in the U.S. are opposed to ending prohibition.

Make no mistake, “oppose” is exactly what 55 percent of the people said when asked: “Do you favor, oppose or neither favor nor oppose the complete legalization of the use of marijuana for any purpose?”

However, a more nuanced probing of the issue, carried out by the polling firm but almost entirely unmentioned in the media on April 20th, found that when stacked next to alcohol, often a more debilitating and addictive substance, statistical support for drug law reforms skyrocketed.

Some entertainment for you from Ethan Epstein

The Drug War Does Not Cause Drug Violence. Drug Dealers Cause Drug Violence. In this one, the author claims that the very nature of drugs means that those who sell them will be violent, regardless of whether they are legal. A truly unique, and absurd, proposition.

Opponents of the Drug War Are Manipulating Statistics This was a surprising title for me, since it’s actually the prohibitionists who usually manipulate statistics, but he’s got a straw man to sell you:

Opponents of the Drug War rely on a few central claims in arguing for the legalization of drugs. One is that “the Drug War is causing violence in Mexico” – a tendentious argument that I examined in this space yesterday. Another is that “prohibition has failed,” and that therefore we should stop criminalizing drug use. (I’ll take this up at a later date.) But perhaps the most oft-heard claim is that drugs are “less dangerous” than tobacco and alcohol. Drug War opponents make this claims armed with reams of statistics. Alas, they are misreading and misrepresenting the data at hand.

“Hard drugs are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.” (We’ll leave marijuana out of this for now.) This claim is a mainstay of the anti-Drug War arsenal of arguments.

He then fails to cite a single instance where reformers actually claim that.

Don’t Call It ‘Pot’ in This Circle; It’s a Profession

Like hip-hop, health food and snowboarding, marijuana is going corporate.

As more and more states allow medical use of the drug, and California considers outright legalization, marijuana’s supporters are pushing hard to burnish the image of pot by franchising dispensaries and building brands; establishing consulting, lobbying and law firms; setting up trade shows and a seminar circuit; and constructing a range of other marijuana-related businesses.

Oaklanders Quitting Oxycontin with Cannabis

For years, there’ve been anecdotal reports about people using cannabis to quit harder drugs. The process is called “substitution”, and it’s a tactic that’s beginning to be endorsed by the “harm reduction” philosophy of mental health. Janichek says the philosophy of harm reduction is most popularly associated with needle exchanges, condom disbursement, ecstasy pill testing, and seat belt laws. Harm reduction accepts that some people will engage in risky behavior, and therefore clinicians should seek to reduce the harms associated with such risks. That might include endorsing a little pot over a lot of OxyContin.

More at NORML

Dismantling the 5 Big Talking Points of Marijuana Prohibitionists by DPA’s Tony Newman and Stephen Gutwillig

DrugSense Weekly – a weekly review of the most interesting or relevant articles in the press and on the web related to drug policy reform.

Drug War Chronicle – weekly update of drug war news and analysis from Stop the Drug War.org.

This is an Open Thread

Here’s a fun little thinking exercise for you.

I do my fair share of writing science fiction in my head (ie, daydreaming) and here’s one I thought I’d share.

Imagine, if you will, a device, about the size of a phone booth, that can instantly sober up anyone. A built-in computer detects any substance anywhere in your body at the molecular level, and then can remove it all in seconds by acting through a parallel dimension. It could remove all traces of alcohol, pot, heroin, cocaine, etc., making you instantaneously sober (without the hangover or headache). There would be absolutely no residue — you could pass any drug test no matter how sophisticated.

There would probably be a little shimmer, like with a Star Trek transporter, but the only molecules going anywhere would be the ones you didn’t want.

Of course, such a device could also probably be calibrated to go after cancer cells and other bad things, but let’s not worry about that right now.

One good place to install these booths would be in drinking establishment. Let’s say we charge $5 for the process and the bar keeps half. Other businesses might install them as well, or, perhaps there would even be a home version. Stopping by one of these before taking a drug test would guarantee that you’d pass it.

Seems to me that this would be a pretty handy device.

Here’s the question… How would prohibitionists react to it?

MADD?
Drug Czar’s Office?
Law Enforcement?
Representative Mark Souder?
Drug Treatment Industry?
Bensinger/Dupont/etc.?
Drug Testing Industry?

I had a great time last night speaking to the Illinois State University chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. We had a wonderful discussion, and then watched 10 Rules for Dealing with Police

And, of course, one of the most important things you learn in that video (which I’ve been preaching for years) is “I don’t consent to searches” — a very important phrase that isn’t just for those with something to hide.

Remember that the innocent do not benefit from searches either.

1. The search wastes your time.
2. The search takes up the time of the officers, who should be out solving crime rather than wasting taxpayer dollars searching the car of an innocent person.
3. Police may not be responsible for damage to any of your belongings as a result of the search.
4. If anyone ever rode in your car and something illegal fell out of their pocket, you’re screwed.
5. And now…

… the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that when a driver gave DPS troopers consent to search his vehicle, they were justified in taking out a screwdriver and dismantling his car speakers on the side of the road to look for drugs.

Remember, when police say that they will make sure things go easier on you if you consent, they are lying. They’re allowed to do that.

And, of course, don’t forget this Deep Thought:

Sometimes people say I shouldn’t mind being searched if I have nothing to hide. I immediately accuse them of having a swastika tattooed on their genitalia — if they have nothing to hide, then surely they shouldn’t mind dropping their pants to prove me wrong.

(You probably shouldn’t actually try using that with the cops.)

Welcome new readers from FireDogLake, where voting has begun on their Name our Pot Campaign.

Thanks for the nice mention from Jane.

I’m feeling even better about the victory with my petition to the ONDCP today.

We’ve known that this push to talk about drugged driving was leading to a policy effort, and today’s post at the drug czar’s “blog” makes it clear where they’re going. Pushing for “per se” drugged driving laws in all the states.

For example, when the substance is an illegal drug, there is no need to require a minimum blood level. There is a minimum level with alcohol because it is a legal substance for adults to use. In contrast, if the drug is already illegal to use and we know it affects judgment and reaction time, it is reasonable to say that driving with any level of that drug in the driver’s system poses an unacceptable risk.

Um, no, that is not reasonable. It’s complete nonsense.

But take a look at the tortured way they have to set it up:

One of these challenges is drugged driving. According to a recent NHTSA study, on an average weekend night, one in six drivers tested positive for licit or illicit drugs. The most commonly detected drugs are marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines. Several recent fatal collisions involving drugged drivers have garnered much attention. Each of us who uses our Nation’s roads is at risk from the danger posed by drugged drivers. This is a disturbing problem.

Disconnected statements with no relevance to each other. And since they can no longer say “impaired” or “under the influence” when talking about the NHTSA study, it makes it much less compelling.

Of course, the real truth is that the NHTSA study has absolutely nothing to do with any trends in drugged driving, but the ONDCP has absolutely nothing else to use!

That’s the news here — the fact that they’re twisting an NHTSA study to fit their agenda, rather than creating an agenda based on actual evidence.

How did I manage to miss the fact that one of the top progressive political blogging sites is planning a legalization campaign? I’ve not really followed Jane Hamsher’s FireDogLake much, although I’ve been aware that she’s often worked with civil liberties defender extraordinaire Glenn Greenwald, which makes her a good guy in my book.

Anyway, Jane is holding a contest:

We need a great name for our marijuana campaign.

Some suggested that we simply appropriate the “yes we cannabis” slogan that other campaigns have used, but after perusing a bunch of old High Times covers I became convinced that our readers, inspired by the subject matter, could easily surpass that. So here are the rules:

1. All entries must be submitted in the form below by 8pm ET tomorrow night. [that’s tonight – Wednesday]
2. Slogan must be no longer than 5 words — should be able to fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt.
3. Semi-final voting will begin tomorrow night at 8pm, when we’ll be here at Late Nite once again to let everyone know what the entries are. Voting will close at 8pm the following night.
4. The top 10 vote getters will proceed to the finals on Thursday Night Late Night, and voting will continue through the weekend.
5. We’ll announce the Gold, Silver and Bronze medalists at Late Nite a week from tonight.

Remember — the campaign is not aimed at babes in bikinis roller skating on the Venice boardwalk. Well, not exclusively anyway. When marijuana legislation goes on the ballot in November and beyond, many voters are older and likely to be persuaded more by pragmatism than stoner puns. But, hell. Who are we to limit anyone’s creativity.

If you’ve got some ideas, get over there and suggest. There are prizes.

Update: Jane Hamsher’s post about the contest tonight gives the list of entries so far and extends the contest until tomorrow night.