Drug WarRant

I’m seeing more articles like this these days:

Marijuana starting to look like a new revenue source for states by David Harrison

Mary Lou Dickerson had seen enough. After wrenching cuts to Washington’s state drug and alcohol treatment programs, Dickerson, a Democratic representative, introduced a bill this year to sell marijuana in state liquor stores — and tax it.

Dickerson is an unlikely crusader for marijuana legalization. A 63-year-old grandmother who doesn’t use it, she says money was the only reason for proposing her controversial bill. “According to the state’s own estimates, it would bring in an additional $300 million per biennium,” she says. “I dedicated (in the bill) a great deal of the proceeds from the tax on marijuana to treatment.”

The proposal died in committee, but Dickerson, who chairs the House Human Services Committee, expects to reintroduce it. Other advocates in almost two dozen states have been making similar efforts to loosen marijuana laws.

This has been a bumper year for marijuana legislation, according to state policy observers. Crushing state budget deficits gave advocates in California, Washington, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York and elsewhere an opening to pitch marijuana as a new source of tax revenue.

You know what else is interesting about this article?

The lack of puns.

No references to “joint efforts” or “legalizers’ high hopes.”

Maybe it’s my imagination, but is seems like we’re seeing less of that these days. Used to be that every article about pot had some kind of snickering tone. Now, more often, we’re seeing serious news articles and analysis, treating it like a real topic and not “News of the Weird!”

That’s a good step.

Mexican drug cartel leaders know the realities of the drug war, and apparently, compared to their government counterparts, they are willing to state the obvious.
Mexican cartels cannot be defeated, drug lord says

Mexico’s war on the drug trade is futile even if cartel bosses are caught or killed as millions of people are involved in the illicit business, a senior drug chief said in an interview published on Sunday.

Ismael “el Mayo” Zambada, the right hand man of Mexico’s most notorious drug lord, Sinaloa cartel boss Joaquin “Shorty” Guzman, blamed the government for surging drug violence and said President Felipe Calderon was being duped by his advisors into thinking he was making progress.

“One day I will decide to turn myself in to the government so they can shoot me. … They will shoot me and euphoria will break out. But at the end of days we’ll all know that nothing changed,” Zambada told the investigative newsmagazine Proceso.

“Millions of people are wrapped up in the narco problem. How can they be overcome? For all the bosses jailed, dead or extradited their replacements are already there.”

Simple point of fact. It doesn’t even matter if the cartels actually have that many people on tap at any one time — the supply of people to replace those killed or arrested is virtually infinite.

This is the obvious part of the drug war that prohibitionists hate to face. At great cost and great violence, you succeed (if things go well) in accomplishing… nothing. And those that are able to grasp this simple concept have nothing left than the self-delusion that legalization would somehow cause an increase in drug abuse so great that it would add up to more than all the violence, cost, and corruption of the drug war (despite all evidence to the contrary).

Today, the Buffalo News asks the question in the first part of a two-part series: Aren’t the drug kingpins replaced?

The same scenario plays out in many other Buffalo neighborhoods where small armies of cops move in for a day, arresting drug dealers by the dozens, only to have them replaced by new drug dealers.

The continued demand for drugs and the willingness of a fresh crop of dealers eager to replace those who have gone off to prison raise some serious questions:

• How much do major drug investigations cost taxpayers? In an age of dwindling funds, is the investment worth it?
• If such investments are not cost-effective, what would be the cost to society of allowing drug dealers to run rampant?
• Would better drug-treatment programs dry up the demand for pushers such as Battaglia?
• Is the drug war — which costs $15.5 billion for the federal government alone — a nationwide exercise in futility?

And the story goes on to point out some of these costs:

While declining to give specifics, law enforcers estimated that a long-term drug investigation lasting six months or more can easily cost up to $100,000 for personnel alone. The Battaglia case was smaller than many, lasting about three months.

A team of investigators may work on a case for months, with some conducting surveillance and interviews on the streets, while others spend endless hours listening to wiretapped conversations among the targets. Thousands of dollars more are often spent to pay informants and to make undercover drug buys.

On the day of the arrests, it is not unusual for more than 100 police officers and federal agents to take part in the raids. Some officers receive overtime for their participation.

After that comes a wave of court costs. Officers, prosecutors, judges and other court personnel all must be paid for the hundreds of hours they spend in court.

In drug busts where 20 to 30 people are arrested, it is not unusual for more than half the defendants to receive court-appointed attorneys at taxpayer expense. In federal court, the court-appointed attorneys now receive $125 an hour.

After that comes perhaps the most expensive part of all — the cost of imprisonment. In New York alone, more than 9,700 people are serving prison time for drug felonies. The state estimates the cost of housing a prisoner at $44,567 a year.

Of course, the opinion of those interviewed in law enforcement in this article is generally, “what choice do you have?” Well, there is a choice. The article appears to be setting up part two: “Debate over legalizing drugs” in tomorrow’s paper.

Scientists stand up to the government in the UK. Drug ban chaos after resignation of adviser

The war of attrition between the Government and its scientific advisers over how to curb illegal drug use claimed another casualty yesterday as an eighth member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) resigned over claims of ministerial interference.

Eric Carlin said he believed the Government’s decision to rush through a ban on the dance drug mephedrone had been politically motivated in order for the Government to look tough prior to the election.

Tons of entertainment… It’s the Stanislaus County Insider — an entire publication for the semi-literate prohibitionist.

It’s nice to have Sting come out on our side…

“The war on drugs has failed but it’s worse than that. It is actively harming our society. People who genuinely need help can’t get it. Neither can people who need medical marijuana to treat terrible diseases,” he said.

And yet, the majority of the Indo-Asian News Service articles worldwide with that article curiously had the headline:

Sting angers anti-drug activists over marijuana campaign

Who were all the upset anti-drug activists? One DARE spokesperson who wouldn’t even use their name.

“Sting should stick to singing and not meddle in matters he doesn’t understand. We do not need pop stars coming out and making irresponsible statements like that,” said a spokesperson for DARE, which teaches schoolchildren about the dangers of drug use. [And yes, that’s an incorrect description of DARE]

Excellent OpEd by Charles Bowden at CNN: U.S.-Mexico ‘war on drugs’ a failure

The U.S. approach to the killings in Mexico never looks at an economic reason, just as the consequences of our free trade treaty (NAFTA) are never brought up.[…]

We also never question our four-decades-old War on Drugs, which has produced cheaper drugs of higher quality at lower prices in thousands of U.S. cities and towns. It has helped create one of the largest prison populations in the world. If our drug policy were a ship, it would be called the Titanic. […]

We need to have a public discussion of the obvious: Legalize drugs or keep caging Americans for taking drugs — unless of course they are booze, tobacco or happy pills from the doctor — and keep financing the murders of Mexicans.

Talk about a stretch. Social worker Clark Williams claims that legalizing marijuana will lead to an increase in hard drugs, which, then will lead to further unfair enforcement!

Legalization will likely lead to more use of marijuana and other illicit drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin, especially among young people. This would bring a deepening of the societal problems associated with substance use and addiction: the unfair application and prosecution of drug laws, increased poverty and social inequality in communities of color, high unemployment, increased traffic crimes, homelessness and poor health.

… and meteorite strikes.

The Atlantic says The Push to Legalize Marijuana: It’s Real

Lee now has a a team of pros working for him as campaign consultants.

It includes Chris Lehane, the former Bill Clinton communications adviser and press secretary for Al Gore, both as VP and in the 2000 campaign; Dan Newman, whose firm SCN Strategies consults for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D) reelection campaign and is heading up communications for Level the Playing Field 2010, the independent-expenditure campaign against multimillionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman; and Doug Linney of The Next Generation, a firm that has worked for state and local candidate campaigns, as well as major issue-advocacy drives and marijuana decriminalization/law-enforcement-prioritization efforts in California.

In short, this will be a legitimate campaign operation. Tax Cannabis is already airing a radio ad in the state’s largest and most expensive media markets, L.A. and San Francisco, featuring a former law enforcement official.

“This isn’t some…whim of a couple of hippies,” said SCN’s Dan Newman, who is handling communications for Tax Cannabis. “It’s a serious, well crafted, well funded campaign that was put together very carefully and professionally run and hopes to win.”

Afghanistan now world’s top cannabis source: U.N.

It’s amazing. Whenever we show up with our military or military aid in a country, and they somehow become incredible producers of illegal drugs.

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.

Article in The Daily Tontería:

San Hoyo, California: A coroner’s report released yesterday by police confirmed the presence of marijuana compounds in the system of Jonah Ellis, a 23-year-old man who was killed last Thursday just outside the town limits when struck by a meteorite.

Police Chief Dirk Jackson refused to speculate whether this news would have an impact on the upcoming referendum on the legalization of marijuana in California this November, but noted that, “In the 10 years I’ve been in San Hoyo, 100% of meteorite fatalities have been marijuana-related, demonstrating a clear link. It’s certainly got to make you think.”

Calvina Califano, spokesperson for Citizens Resisting Against Pot, had harsher words to say about the referendum. “If legalization passes,” she said, “you can absolutely count on an increase in meteorite strikes. And we won’t be as lucky the next time. People will be smoking pot outside day-care centers, and when that meteorite strikes, the collateral damage will be measured in mothers sifting through the rubble for the mangled corpses of their infant children. Marijuana: harmless? Let those legalizers tell that to the grieving mothers.”

A representative of the Coalition to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in California claimed that the meteorite strike was unrelated to marijuana use, but was unable to precisely explain why Jonah Ellis was hit.

Scientists note that meteorites are formed from the debris of asteroids, and that there are literally millions upon millions of asteroids. If marijuana is legalized, it could take many years to exhaust the supply, and some say the damage to society could be permanent.

Drug Czar Ducks on California Pot Measure

Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said he wouldn’t speculate on what the Obama administration would do if California voters approve a ballot initiative that would make marijuana legal for consumption but subject it to regulation. […]

When pressed, Kerlikowske said Thursday that a number of responses, including lawsuits to litigate the differences in state and federal drug laws, could spring up if California voters legalize marijuana.

“You can envision a lot of different things,” he said.

You can envision a lot of different things? Now there’s a definitive statement.

The California Republican Party has already made up its mind.

The California Republican Party just made it official: They are opposed to the effort to leg-a-lize and tax cannabis that is coming to the November ballot. No, we’re not stopping the presses. […]

Republican Party chair Ron Nehring said Wednesday that “The last thing California needs is hundreds of thousands of more people getting high, and the costs to society that would come from widely expanded drug use.”[…]

“Whatever ‘taxes’ dope smokers would pay would not come even close to covering the societal costs of hundreds of thousands of more Californians getting high, the accidents and health problems they would cause, and other societal costs.

“California Republicans will fight this and any other measure to expand drug use in California. When it comes to this kind of legislation, there’s a reason they call it ‘dope.'”

Yep. Accidents and health costs seem to be the preferred boogie men to be used by the prohibitionists, even though they have no evidence (other than anecdotal) to support their case. Interesting that for years they’ve been complaining that medical marijuana evidence is only anecdotal, that it doesn’t have the rigorous evidence to support it (despite the existence of tons of evidence). Now they’re falling back on absurd* anecdotal evidence with absolutely nothing to back it up.

California Democrats aren’t expected to weigh in until July. Since I don’t expect them to endorse it, seems to me they’d do best just to stay out of it.

Scott Morgan notes this embarrassing grammar mistake in the main slogan on the website of CALM (Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana):

Our children’s future are in your hands…

Scott thinks it’s a typo. I’m not so sure — they may actually believe it’s correct. Let’s hope that the future isn’t going to be in the hands of CALM.

*Talk about anecdotal evidence… Check out the lead story on the CALM site:

Man Crashes 13 Times – Says He Was High on Pot

Temecula, San Diego – A man who admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana caused at least 13 crashes yesterday afternoon, police said. The spree ended when he hit a vehicle head-on, disabling the 1998 Nissan Pathfinder he was driving.

Over 100,000,000 Americans have smoked pot, and this idiot is supposed to be representative of its effects?

Thanks to new reader swansong for tipping me off to this video of Gabor Maté talking about addiction and the war on drugs:

Drawing on his experiences with drug addicted patients from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, Dr. Gabor Mate discusses how the medical and legal systems are failing in the so called “war on drugs”.

It’s a long video (54 minutes) and I haven’t watched all of it yet, but what I have seen seems right. He talks about the real underlying elements that are part of addictive behavior — how the drug itself isn’t addictive by itself, but that there’s always some other factors, and how we all have our various addictions, taking it out of the realm of just those drugs.

Gabor is ADHD himself, which may make listening to him or reading his books difficult, yet lots of people are discovering his work and being affected by it.

Regarding his newest book, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction Gabor says:

Addiction, or the capacity to become addicted, is very close to the core of the human experience. That is why almost anything can become addictive, from seemingly healthy activities such as eating or exercising to abusing drugs intended for healing. The issue is not the external target but our internal relationship to it. Addictions, for the most part, develop in a compulsive attempt to ease one’s pain or distress in the world. Given the amount of pain and dissatisfaction that human life engenders, many of us are driven to find solace in external things. The more we suffer, and the earlier in life we suffer, the more we are prone to become addicted.

The inner city drug addicts I work with are amongst the most abused and rejected people amongst us, but instead of compassion our society treats them with contempt. Instead of understanding and acceptance, we give them punishment and moral disapproval.

Reminds me somewhat of a Guitherism:

As anyone who has tried to quit smoking knows, dependence is hardest to overcome during difficult or stressful times. That must be why, when the government helps drug abusers quit, they arrest them and take away their job, possessions, and children.

It is that basis that leads to his condemnation of the war on drugs (particularly as it is waged and promoted by the U.S.).

“A riveting account of human cravings, this book needs to get into as many hands as possible. Maté’s resonant, unflinching analysis of addiction today shatters the assumptions underlying our War on Drugs.”
—Norm Stamper, former Seattle Chief of Police and author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing

On the heels of the extensive discussion we had recently on addiction, I think this may be an interesting viewpoint to explore.

There was a huge hubbub around a raid in Michigan this week of members of a “multi-state Christian militia.”

Disclaimer. I have no idea as to the guilt or innocence of the people involved, (nor am I looking for a discussion about that), nor do I have direct knowledge at this point as to the Constitutionality of the investigation, raid or arrests. Additionally, I am firmly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and if what is alleged is true, I find the planned acts to be despicable.

Here’s what caught my attention.

Federal authorities say the 21-year-old was a member of a militia group known as Hutaree, or Christian warrior, that plotted to kill a police officer sometime in April and hide homemade bombs along the funeral processional route in hopes of taking out scores of others.

Stone’s father, David B. Stone, 45, of Clayton, and his stepmother, Tina Stone, 44, were among seven militia suspects who appeared in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Monday, charged with attempted use of weapons of mass destruction and seditious conspiracy. [emphasis added]

If you go to the article and click on the link at right, you can read the indictment (which reads like what a seven-year-old would get sent to his room for by his parents as punishment for exaggeration).

Weapons of mass destruction? If we’re calling IEDs weapons of mass destruction, then what do we call chemical or nuclear weapons? Weapons of a whole bunch of mass destruction?

Whenever I see law enforcement come out with a proclamation like that for the press, I immediately become suspicious of their entire case. If they’re exaggerating that much about that point, then how much of the rest of it is true?

This is unhealthy in establishing trust with the public, and unfortunately, it is a major national trend. We see it all the time, and I know that it’s in part a way of technically piling on charges in order to have more leverage (which is bad form in itself), but the only reasons to tell the press are to prejudice the public against the defendants and provide favorable press for law enforcement (the public thinks “Boy, if the person’s being charged with all that, they must have caught a really, really bad guy.”).

My sensitivity to it may be due in part to the time I’ve spent studying the drug war, where this kind of thing happens constantly. I never believe police reports in the press anymore.

In fact, I have my own internal translation that I do with press reports of arrests that you may find useful:

• Possession — twig found under mat on car floor
• Trafficker — passed the joint after it was handed to her
• Dealer — “Hey, can you pick me up a dime bag when you go?” “Sure.”
• Big-time dealer — no longer lives in mother’s basement
• Kingpin — has someone working for him
• Cartel — has someone working with him
• Criminal Organization — wife sometimes answers the phone
• Accomplice — gave friend a lift
• Conspiracy — two guys talking while stoned “Hey, we should sell some of this.”
• Money Laundering — sold drugs and then used the money to buy a pack of cigarettes
• Drug House — any house that no longer has a front door
• Grow-op — a seedling, which could grow into a large marijuana plant, which could produce over a pound of pot, which could be rolled into more than 2,000 joints with a street value in excess of $5 million.

Oh, I forgot one…

• Weapons of Mass Destruction — a meth lab

Why should we believe anything they say?

A good short piece by Alex Massie in The Spectator (UK)

Current laws amount to a kind of rent-seeking that protects organised crime and discriminates against both the consumer and the small producer.

This is obviously offensive for any number of philosophical, moral and economic reasons. If Drug Warriors were really motivated by health concerns […] then they’d favour legalisation since nothing would do more to spur innovation and the development of high-buzz, low-risk narcotics. But they don’t really care about that because what they really object to is the buzz itself. Hence their determination to prosecute a pointless, expensive, futile, counter-productive, grubby, shameful war that won’t be won. It’s about scolding people and controlling their choices and never mind anything else.

Yep. That’s the hallmark of the authoritarian sadomoralist.

A good short video on forfeiture from the Institute for Justice.

More here: Policing for Profit

Quotable:

“We need to consider what drug prohibition has done to the vital profession of law enforcement. It has divided police officers from the communities we serve, alienated us from young people, sent our call-loads through the roof, placed huge financial strains on police budgets and, sometimes, my colleagues have been injured or murdered while enforcing these drug laws. Every police officer should question whether the War on Drugs is worth fighting, particularly when there are other policy options that would result in less crime, addiction, disease and death.” — David Bratzer

I want to restore the rightful place of the police as public servants who protect and serve. I want the people to feel that they can turn to the cops in times of need. “Divided from the communities they serve” is exactly what we have now. And that needs to change.

…

Something struck me when reading about the scandal in San Francisco regarding their drug lab (and the fact that police apparently knew about the problems and didn’t share them with defense attorneys).

What hit me was the numbers.

San Francisco prosecutors may be forced to drop a total of 1,400 cases in the growing scandal at the police drug lab, including hundreds in which defendants have been placed in drug treatment programs.

The list of cases that could be dropped as soon as this week now encompasses 1,000 awaiting trial and 400 in which defendants are in drug rehabilitation programs

1,400 drug cases, with 1,000 awaiting trial? What is this – an assembly line?

Those 1,400 cases come on top of 500 that have already been dropped, including 46 on Friday when prosecutors told judges they could not “ethically go forward” with the prosecutions.

That’s a lot of drug cases. How is it that they have time to do it right, or to do anything else?

Oh.