Drug WarRant

There’s been a lot of talk about Justice Stevens’ imminent departure from the Supreme Court, including some folks that seem to remember him as a champion of civil liberties.

I’ll admit that at one point, I felt quite strongly about Stevens, in a positive way. It was when he wrote this in the decision that shot down the horrible Communications Decency Act (which I fought hard against)

“As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.”— Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority

But that’s only one moment in his career.

Radley Balko does a great job of showing just how far around the map that Justice Stevens traveled.

Stevens wrote the majority opinion striking down the censorious 1998 Child Online Protection Act, yet voted with the dissent to uphold a Texas law prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. […]

In dicta from the 2007 case Morse v. Frederick (more commonly known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case), Stevens became the first Supreme Court justice to explicitly question the wisdom of marijuana prohibition […]

Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, the notorious case that upheld the federal government’s power to enforce its prohibition on medical marijuana[…]

He did author the Court’s opinion in 2009’s Arizona v. Gant, which limited the scope with which police can search a suspect’s car after making an arrest. […]

In the 2001 case Kyllo v. The United States, Stevens wrote the dissent, arguing that police shouldn’t need a warrant to use thermal imaging equipment to look through the walls of private homes in search of marijuana growing operations.

All over the place.

The one Radley left out is the one that currently leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. And that’s Caballes v. Illinois, where Stevens wrote the majority opinion stating that a dog alerting on a car was sufficient cause for a search even in the absence of any other suspicion.

The kicker was this statement:

“A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

In other words, because the substance found was illegal, the decision to search was OK. Classic ends-justifies-the-means thinking and an open invitation for police to go fishing, as long as the dog they trained will cooperate with them.

You’d think after a certain number of years in the Supreme Court, he could have had a staff person explain the Fourth Amendment to him.

The sad part is that I unfortunately agree with Radley:

It’s regrettable that a justice with a record like Stevens’ would be considered the Court’s last bastion of protection for the rights of the accused. Not only is it accepted as a given that Stevens’ replacement will be more deferential to government on these issues, the issues themselves won’t even be part of the debate.

Every now and then, it’s fun to check the logs and see whence some of my visitors hail. Today was a good day.

It appears that we’re getting closer to the confirmation hearings of Michele Leonhart for Administrator of the DEA. Her committee questionnaire has been posted.

Coincidentally, there were a couple of visits today from the U.S. Senate to my web page: DEA Bad Girl Michele Leonhart. Guess they’re doing some research.

Someone in the House of Representatives stopped by today to learn Why Marijuana is Illegal.

And the Department of Justice took the time today to stop by my Vigil for Lost Promise, remembering those who have died from the Drug War.

I’m glad to be there help out.

MPP’s Steve Fox does a pretty good job on the O’Reilly Factor with Laura Ingraham

Ingraham: We still don’t really know, do we, long term effects of pot use except we do know head and throat cancers…
Fox: [shakes his head] No.
Ingraham … and obviously lung cancers…
Fox: [shakes his head] No.
Ingraham: … all the things that… No? No cancer risks at all for pot smokers?
Fox: No. No, and you can look it up. [crosstalk] Nope. No, there have actually been studies…

The ONDCP has shut down its old blog — PushingBack.com — and replaced it with ofSubstance.gov.

The ONDCP’s Aya Collins explains the change in So, What’s in a Name? After reading it, I still have no idea what the change means. One positive thing is they’ve removed the comments field. The existence of a comments field with no comments ever posted in the old blog was an obvious sign that the ONDCP was clueless about blogging. Since they never have intended to have an open dialog on their site (nor will they ever), it’s appropriate to switch to a simple “Contact Us” option.

They still have some basic coding problems. The main page isn’t designed properly, so the text extends below the white background (at least in the two browsers I use) and becomes unreadable.

Back to the title of this post…

Director Kerlikowske can certainly try to bury his head in the sand and pretend that if he can’t see legalization, it doesn’t exist. But that obviously hasn’t worked. He’s facing the “L” word everywhere he turns, and now it’s getting to the point where he has no choice but respond to it.

For this purpose, he selects useful tool Viridiana Rios — a graduate student at Harvard who hails from Mexico City — with a guest post at ofSubstance: Legalization will not end the violence.

As the situation in Mexico and along U.S. border towns has become desperate, calls for legalization are intensifying. The city of El Paso, Texas, passed a resolution calling for studying the merits of legalization as a means to curb violence, and the Arizona Attorney General has also discussed the option of legalization in front of the US Congress. California is considering a measure in November’s election.

Might legalization help the situation? My view is likely no. Any legalization attempt focuses on the marijuana markets which are not the core of the violence problem. It is highly valued drugs such as cocaine or heroin the ones which organized criminals are fighting for, it is these drugs that fund terrorist and criminal groups around the world.

The highly valued drugs are those that provide profits to the criminals. Just because cocaine or heroin have a higher value per pound, doesn’t make them more valued. Some estimates have indicated that Mexican cartels get 60% of their income from marijuana. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, then it has a major impact and marijuana is a highly valued drug. The fact that Afghanistan is also turning heavily to marijuana growing indicates that it’s a very valued crop to them.

The cartels are not fighting over drugs. They’re fighting over control of the economics of drugs. As an economist, she should understand this.

Even in the unlikely scenario of an all-drugs liberalization, it is unrealistic to expect a significant diminishing of the influence of Mexican cartels. Cartels are organizations involved in multiple activities that cause harm, such as human and weapons trafficking, kidnapping, and extortion. They have bought politicians and officials in Mexico not only for the purpose of freely conducting their drug trade activities, but also to have a safe haven for their other businesses. It is hard to imagine that they would simply disappear, especially if the government still relied on sources in Mexico and Colombia to import their legal cocaine. In fact, it is likely that they would compete with open market sources to import cheaper and purer drugs and avoid paying tariffs or associated legal costs associated with the new regime. Cartels are in business because illegality pays, and pays well. They will not become legal entrepreneurs because such is not their competitive advantage. They have the know-how of illegal trafficking and will find a way to do in other markets.

There’s so much sloppy scholarship there, it’s really embarrassing. First of all, the reason that they’re able to buy politicians and officials is because they’re getting obscene amounts of money from the drug trade. Without that money, there’s no way that they could maintain their infrastructure — again, basic economics. And kidnapping, extortion, etc. cannot begin to match the money in drugs.

As far as competing with legal supply, name one other instance where this has occurred. Oh, sure, there will be some relatively small black market in drugs in a legal market framework, but in a legalized market, the vast majority of consumers prefer to follow the law.

The cartels could end up being like the DVD pirates, or those who sell cigarettes out of their car trunk to avoid high taxes — a pathetic shade of their former selves. That would be a far greater win over the cartels than we have ever experienced through prohibition.

Part of the problem is with the naiveté of Ms. Rios, who thinks “the solution is in fixing the judicial systems” — a tall order when the cartels can buy them wholesale. But we also hear this from a lot of prohibitionists… “Legalization won’t stop the cartels, because they’re evil, and they won’t just go away peacefully.”

The real problem is that when we talk about cartels, drug reformers are talking about the common noun, and prohibitionists are talking about the proper noun.

Legalization will eliminate the cartels (common noun) in that it will eliminate the economic conditions for cartels in general to be created, develop and flourish. Legalization will not eliminate the violence of the “Smith” Cartel or the “Jones” Cartel. It will cripple them, but the core of their groups will still be bad guys and have to be hunted down (more easily without their financial infrastructure).

The problem with prohibitionists is that they keep going after the Smith Cartel (proper noun), and when they take them down, think that they’ve accomplished something. But prohibition provides the conditions for an endless supply of cartels (common noun), so eliminating one does nothing in the long haul.

Legalization is the only solution that can eliminate the conditions for the existence of cartels. And while going after the murderous criminals who are in individual “Cartels” is a good thing, ultimately it’s a pathetically fruitless enterprise unless you take away the black market that will fund their replacements.

Politifact also caught the drug czar playing loose with the drugged driving statistics. The quote they caught on C-Span was a less egregious one than Director Kerlikowske has used other places, but it’s still good to see that others are catching on to this dishonesty.

Still no word from the ONDCP on my Petition for Correction Under the ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines although they have 60 days to respond and it’s been less than 30.

Their Significant Corrections Made page is an “interesting” read.

By the way, we’re not the only ones who are going to be interested in hearing the outcome of my petition. The staff of Senator Richard Durbin (IL) are also aware of the petition, and since he serves on the subcommittee that oversees the ONDCP, I believe that they would want to see a substantive response.

…

Gateway to Violence by Dan McGraw

The move to legalize marijuana shouldn’t be dominated by the stoners trumpeting their right to get high but by the general public, who bear the social, economic, and political costs of the illegal drug trade. Keeping pot illegal is a bad policy that, in essence, prints money for murderers.

Reports that Afghan president Karzai has a fondness for hashish, opium and heroin.

At least he won’t have to worry about running out of his supply.

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.

I’m going to visit my dad and may be out of touch for a day or two. This is an open thread.

DEA Official Announces Successful Drug Bust On Son's Room

Go to the Onion site to watch the video. The flash implementation by The Onion has been freezing up certain browsers, so I’ve taken it off this post.

After Steve Chapman had his outstanding OpEd in the Chicago Tribune: An unconventional cure for Mexico’s drug violence, former DEA administrator emerged to pen this letter to the Tribune: Fighting for health and safety

In it, he basically tosses out every prohibitionist argument in a row, without any context or attempt to explain or defend them. It’s a really pathetic attempt.

It would not stop crime but would increase health problems and costs, highway deaths, workplace accidents, absenteeism at work and school, and lower academic achievement, and it would open up a bigger market for the drug cartels. […]

Health consequences would be enormous.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves all medicines in the U.S., as it should, but has never approved smoked marijuana nor any medicine that is smoked.

Marijuana has cancer-causing elements and tar content.

Chronic use would flood California emergency rooms.

Health costs will skyrocket with accidents and when the negative impact on immune and respiratory systems occur.

Violence in Mexico has escalated because traffickers feel the heat from the Mexican military. […]

Highway accidents from drugged drivers are already a problem.

With marijuana legal, California highways would become death traps.

These are the ravings of an Alzheimer’s patient who is just throwing words out there that he’s used a thousand times, with no context or meaning.

And yes, this truly is the level of discourse to which our opponents have sunk. And people are starting to notice.

That’s right, the media is starting to notice.

John H. Richardson at Esquire Magazine writes Losing the Drug War in California and notes:

Opponents of the proposed law to legalize and tax marijuana need better arguments, because just saying they’re concerned that kids will start driving high is sending the debate up in smoke.[…]

… the New York Times ran a story with comments from the president of the California Peace Officer’s Association, John Standish. “We just don’t think anything good will come of this,” he said. “It’s not going to better society. It’s going to denigrate it.”

Later he was quoted again: “We have a hard enough time now with drunk drivers on the road. This is just going to add to the problems — I cannot think of one crime scene I’ve been to where people said, ‘Thank God the person was just under the influence of marijuana.'”

My jaw dropped. That’s it? That’s the best you’ve got? For that, thousands of people die every year in the drug war? For that, we arrest more than seven hundred thousand Americans a year? For that, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on police, prisons, and international eradication efforts?

Richardson goes on to tell how other spokespeople responded and added more arguments…

These are the arguments he came up with:

“First off, the figure of seven hundred thousand arrested is factually inaccurate — people do not get arrested for simple possession. The most that happens is they’re given a citation and release. In California, the penalty for simple possession is $100 fine.”

In other words, pot isn’t all that illegal, which strikes me as a weird argument for keeping the drug war going full tilt. It also suggests they don’t take the stoned driver problem as seriously as their rhetoric suggests.

“Second, I think what John was trying to say is that the burden of proof is on the legalizers, because right now what you have is serious public safety problems caused by alcohol abuse, pharmaceutical abuse, tobacco that kills people. Given all that, the question is, What is the public policy good of adding another substance that alters their minds?”

Also, “this substance is a registered carcinogen.” […]

At that point, I had to stop him and ask the obvious question: Isn’t the drug war exactly like Prohibition? Didn’t the legalization of booze make Al Capone’s mobsters pack their Tommy guns back in their cello cases so semi-law-abiding citizens like Joseph P. Kennedy could take over the liquor “cartels.”

“That’s a theoretical argument,” he said.

“But isn’t it true?

[…]

“For sure, it’s going to cost every employer more in insurance,” he said. “If you look at section 11340C, the only thing an employer can do is address consumption issues of an employee that actually affect their workplace performance — if you’re in possession, an employer can’t take any action. If you test dirty, the employer can’t do anything.”

So you can only punish an employee for something that “actually affects his workplace performance” – these are his words, folks. In other words, if a person gets stoned on Saturday night and comes in Monday morning 100 percent sober, there’s no way to punish him? And the problem with this is?

[…]

This war is lost. The only question now is how much more blood and treasure we’re going to waste before we all admit it.

Nicely done by John Richardson. And it’s so true. The prohibitionists just keep throwing stuff out there hoping something will stick, even though it makes no sense. I love the “this substance is a registered carcinogen.” Registered? Well, let’s see… it’s been registered with NIDA through the largest study to date as a substance that most definitely will not cause cancer.

And the pathetic whining that the only way to fire someone for drugs under legalization is if it actually affects their job performance. How much more obvious can you get? These people don’t care about drugged driving or workplace accidents or cancer or kids smoking pot. These are just arguments they’re using to disguise their real reasons for being against legalization (money, jobs, power, and just not liking the people who like marijuana).

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

For over 5 years, I lived in New York, and daily took the D train home to Brooklyn, which came out of the ground and passed across the Manhattan bridge. Each night, I would stand up and go to the door and look through the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge in the distance and watch for the lit Statue of Liberty to appear from behind the skyline. It was a life-affirming act.

When I had time, I also loved to take the Staten Island Ferry with its incredible majestic view of Lady Liberty (I still do it each year when I visit New York). I never took the tour, though, of Liberty Island. To set foot on her as a tourist seemed… sacrilegious somehow. I admire her from a distance and think about the principles of freedom and humanity embodied in our great country that she represents.

At Reason, Jacob Sullum writes: Smoke a Joint, Lose Your Country

Another victim of such imaginary charges is Jerry Lemaine, a 28-year-old New Yorker who was born in Haiti but has lived in this country since he was 3. Caught with a joint on Long Island in 2007, Lemaine pleaded guilty and paid a $100 fine, only to be shipped off to Texas by immigration authorities. They detained him there for three years after determining that he, like Carachuri, qualified as an “aggravated felon” in the 5th Circuit (though not in the 2nd Circuit, where he was cited for the marijuana).

Lemaine, you see, had also been charged with possessing a small amount of marijuana as a teenager. Although the charge was ultimately dismissed, in the federal government’s view it still made him a recidivist, which made him an aggravated felon, which made him deportable without recourse for drug violations that in New York do not even qualify as criminal offenses.

How do we, as a country, look at ourselves in the mirror?

Is that a tear in Lady Liberty’s eyes? Or just my own?

The new video by Flex Your Rights.org, “10 Rules for Dealing with Police” (which I reviewed here), is now available for free on YouTube. You can also pick up the DVD for $15 so you can have your own copy and give showings to friends and groups.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

So the Drug Czar is pretty excited. He got to check out some seized drugs when he visited with the Arizona Region of the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) office. This was a pretty major operation that “netted 15 pounds of methamphetamine, 650 pounds of marijuana, 30 kilograms of cocaine and $800,000 in cash.”

Yep, that’ll win the war.

Let’s see now, we add that to the other drugs that the DEA has seized since 1986 and what do we have…

• 31 thousand pounds of heroin
• 54 thousand pounds of meth
• Over 3 million pounds of cocaine
• Almost 15 million pounds of marijuana*

Well, that’s certainly got to be all of them, right? There can’t be anything left.

And yet.

The supply continues on unaffected.

When it costs so little to produce, traffickers can produce twice as much, three times as much as the demand if they wish, and it doesn’t matter how much you seize, there’s always more that will make it through.

Posing in front of seized drugs is like proudly holding up a bucket of water to fight a flood when the water’s up to your knees.

…

*By the way, the marijuana seized by the DEA would be enough to give every adult in the U.S. an ounce.