Drug WarRant

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.

More words of wisdom from the rat-speakers.

Fatty foods may cause cocaine-like addiction

A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. When rats consume these foods in great enough quantities, it leads to compulsive eating habits that resemble drug addiction, the study found.

Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain, according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida. Eventually the pleasure centers “crash,” and achieving the same pleasure–or even just feeling normal–requires increasing amounts of the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study.

“People know intuitively that there’s more to [overeating] than just willpower,” he says. “There’s a system in the brain that’s been turned on or over-activated, and that’s driving [overeating] at some subconscious level.”

Guess what. If I was a rat trapped in a cage, set to be experimented on until I died, I’d take all the heroin, cocaine, and fatty foods they gave me.

But I’m not a rat. I’ve got a pretty decent intellect, unlimited opportunities of interesting and stimulating activities and pursuits, a fairly strong sense of self-awareness, and, yes, some will-power.

And what about the scientists who work with the rats? They have access to all that cocaine and fatty food. Why aren’t they addicted?

Perhaps the real truth is that scientists cause cancer in white mice and that caged rats will become addicted to anything their handlers desire.

Oh, wait! Wait a second! Clear at the very bottom of the article almost hidden under a dozen advertisements within the text for health.com articles, is this tiny little disclaimer…

Although he acknowledges that his research may not directly translate to humans,

So why the huge picture of an upscale slice of cheesecake nicely on a plate with a raspberry garnish with the caption “Cheesecake and other fatty foods overload the pleasure centers in the brain.”?

Is that what they fed to the rats? No, of course not. It’s just typical bad journalism from the rat-speakers.

With the marijuana legalization vote coming up in November, I’m hearing some people say that it’s practically a sure thing — after all, the logic is there, and everybody in California smokes pot already.

Well, I thought I’d take a little more realistic look at what reformers are facing.

Caveat: I’m no expert in voting trends or California, so this is not intended to be anything definitive; rather it’s a set of points to consider, or a jumping-off point for further discussion.

The latest Gallup poll shows 44% of Americans support legalization — an all-time high — and in the west, that number goes up to 53%. Not bad, but far from a sure thing.

While it’s certainly an over-simplification, there’s some truth to the notion that those who have tried marijuana at some point in their lives are more likely to be sympathetic to legalization (since they realize first hand that much of the hype is false). So let’s take a look at those numbers.

Pacific West Marijuana use (2008 SAMHSA)

Now, based on past use, 45-50% (lifetime use) may be sympathetic, but is that a powerful enough factor to actually get them out to vote in November? Uncertain. Past month is more of an indicator of strong motivation.

Now, let’s take a look at midterm voting trends.

Californians voting in 2006 election

The old people are more likely to vote. The young people are more likely to support legalization.

Now the good news is that mid-term elections tend to have low turnout, so a motivated group getting out the vote can have a more significant impact. That could change, however, given the level of public interest in the financial woes of the state and the country, or if there is a hotly contested race for Congress.

But as you can see, it’s about far more than getting the marijuana enthusiasts to vote. (In fact, even within the marijuana enthusiasts, you may have to contend with the bottom-feeders who prefer to keep it illegal, either through financial interest or some misguided “I don’t want the government taxing my pot” nonsense.)

The key is going to be motivating the casually sympathetic (all those lifetime marijuana users who haven’t touched it in years and have kids of their own), and those who may not be sympathetic to marijuana use at all.

That probably means focusing on arguments that do not require an affinity of use, such as:

• Economic value of legalization (reduced costs, increased tax revenue)
• Practical value of regulation (age limits, place and time restrictions)
• Reduction of violence (street and Mexico)
• Environmental protection (illegal grows in public lands)
• The Economic self-interest of those opposing legalization (law enforcement unions, prison guard unions, cartels, DEA, etc.)

Opponents will do everything they can to get us sidetracked arguing over whether marijuana is dangerous or not.

Given the cognitive distortion factor I’ve discussed before, it’s going to take a lot of repetition to get people to actually hear the right message. To begin with, there will be a lot of discussions like this:

Reformer: It’s time to stop giving in to the criminals and lobbyists at the drug war trough and begin the legal regulation of cannabis so we can take back control, set appropriate age limits, and de-fund the criminals. As a side benefit, we could also dramatically help the budget.

Listener: Marijuana bad.

Don’t get cocky. California is a tricky state and doesn’t fall in line in the ways that some people think. After all, it seemed a sure thing that if any state would protect gay marriage at the polls, it would be California, but the last election showed that to be a miscalculation.

“Your gun control policy doesn’t have anything to do with public safety, and it’s certainly not about personal freedom. It’s about, you don’t like the people who do like guns. You don’t like the people.” — Ainsley Hayes, “The West Wing”

I’m not quite sure how to say this, but there’s a sociological phenomenon that sometimes results in a backlash factor in situations where a type of social change becomes publicly visible. Let’s call it the “uppity” factor. “Good” people may say that they support rights for blacks/gays/potheads in general, but become annoyed when they become uppity — flaunting their blackness or gayness or dope-ness in public as if they were equals, rather than keeping it hidden behind closed doors where it belongs.

Let’s face it. California cannabis culture can appear uppity. That doesn’t mean that people should stop being who they are — that’s impossible (and wrong). But awareness of the phenomenon can help with strategy.

So, maybe “Free the Weed” and “Ganja Rulez” may not be the best slogans for the legalization movement. Public appearances by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition will have an extra powerful impact. People in suits going door to door will lend the movement credibility. Professional-looking printed materials that are well-designed (and proofed!), focusing on facts (preferably sourced), are essential. These are obvious things, but still important to remember.

Again, I’m no expert, and these are just some ruminations on what the California legalization effort may face. I’m sure others have thought this through even more thoroughly, but this might help get some discussions going. With enough effort and the right message, I think success is possible, but certainly not easy.

This really is about perfect:

An unconventional cure for Mexico’s drug violence: Legalization of marijuana is the cartels’ worst nightmare by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune

Criminal organizations would no longer be able to demand huge premiums to compensate for the major risks that go with forbidden commerce. If the referendum passes, some 39 million Californians will have access at lower prices, from regulated domestic producers.

So the drug cartels would see a large share of their profits go up in smoke. Those profits are what enables them to establish sophisticated smuggling operations, buy guns and airplanes, recruit foot soldiers and bribe government officials. Those profits are also what makes all those efforts — and the murderous violence the merchants employ — worth the trouble.

By now, it should be clear that using force to wipe out the drug trade is a task on the order of bailing out the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon.

The whole thing is that good. Just go and read it.

Here’s the ending:

On a recent trip to Mexico City, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Americans’ demand for drugs helps sustain the Mexican merchants and resolved to address the problem. “We are looking at everything that can work,” she said.

Well, almost everything.

The most viable option is the one that is considered unthinkable. The head of Obama’s Office of National Drug Control Policy has said that “legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary nor is it in mine.”

No, but failure is.

The logic is so clear that you wonder how anyone could fail to follow it… and then I read the comments and about 5 of the first 6 failed. Fortunately, saner minds followed.

So what if thousands die in Mexico. It’s a small price to pay to make you feel reassured when you go in for eye surgery.

Good video piece on the Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC (it’s MSNBC, so the video is a pain to load, but if you can, it’s probably worth it).

Dylan’s guests are Paul Armentano of NORML and former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. The impressive part of this piece is the work done by the host. Ratigan does an incredible job setting up the story and really pointing out the host of negatives that might be solved by legalization. His piece is smart and reasoned. He doesn’t give Paul Armentano much time, but that’s because he was busy taking on McCaffrey himself.

McCaffrey’s participation was pathetic. He failed to answer any of Ratigan’s direct questions, kept throwing in irrelevant issues, and this was his big argument:

“What it will do, undoubtedly, is create a credible situation where California truck drivers, and eye surgeons, and teachers in theory could be smoking pot, standing around the corner from students or their jobs. It doesn’t make any sense. Or airline pilots! So I don’t think it’s going to pass, I hope.”

That’s not the first time I’ve seen the ‘truck drivers, eye surgeons and teachers’ bit, and I think they’re going to try to use that a lot. It’s nonsense, of course. Your eye surgeon isn’t going to operate on you while stoned because marijuana is legal any more than he’s going to operate on you while drunk because alcohol is legal.

The guest host for Shepard Smith’s Studio B on Fox had Fox News Judicial Analyst former Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is a libertarian in favor of legalization, on the show to talk about the proposed law in California.

Napolitano was great. But does anybody know who the schmuck host was? [The schmuck guest host was Rick Folbaum.] Check out his response to the idea of legalizing marijuana:

“I’m just not sure. I’m not sure and I worry that you get these drugs in the house. We’ve seen what happens with legal firearms that are in a house that are not stored properly. Kids get their hands on them. Terrible, terrible tragedies take place, and I worry what happens when you start allowing people to have pot in their house.”

Radley Balko‘s take on this…

“It would be dangerous to legalize pot because… kids might shoot each other with joints?”

This is a huge story that’s been developing for awhile, but I just haven’t had a chance to address it. But this is really blowing up:

DA on verge of mass drug-case dismissals

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco prosecutors told judges Friday that they could not “ethically go forward” with 46 narcotics trials because of evidence problems arising out of the scandal at the Police Department’s drug lab – signaling that the district attorney is likely to dismiss nearly all 750 pending drug cases in the city.

“Based on what the district attorney’s office knows about the issues within the narcotics division of the crime lab, we cannot ethically go forward with this prosecution,” Assistant District Attorney Nancy Tung told a judge overseeing a case that was serving as a test of how much police and prosecutors had to disclose to defense attorneys about problems at the drug lab.

Prosecutors dropped that test case, a cocaine-sales trial, after having been deluged with 1,500 pages of police files about the lab that a spokesman for the district attorney called “troubling” and said pointed to possible larger problems in the Police Department.

DrugSense. I often link to DrugSense Weekly and the Drug War Chronicle at the end of weekend Open Threads. They’re always worth reading.

I have an extra interest in DrugSense Weekly this time —

• Their Letter of the Week is my letter to the editor that I recently had published in the Pantagraph
• Their Feature Article is my post about Cognitive Distortion (discussing the reaction to my letter)
• And one of their Hot of the Net stories is my post: “Department Of Justice – We Have Met The Enemy, And He Is Us”

Thanks for the nice recognition and the wider distribution!

There’s going to be a lot of stories like these coming out now that marijuana is on the California ballot:

High Anxiety: Pot Growers Fear Legal Weed

“The legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating economic event in the long boom-and-bust history of Northern California,” said Anna Hamilton, 62, a Humboldt County radio host and musician who said her involvement with marijuana has mostly been limited to smoking it for the past 40 years.

Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat. Among the ideas: turning the vast pot gardens of Humboldt County into a destination for marijuana aficionados, with tours and tastings – a sort of Napa Valley of pot.

Unusual alliances form in California to legalize pot

SAN FRANCISCO – Now that a proposal to legalize marijuana is on the ballot in California, well-organized groups are lining up on both sides of the debate. And it’s not just tie-dyed hippies versus anti-drug crusaders.

So far, the most outspoken groups on the issue are those affiliated with California’s legal medical-marijuana industry and law-enforcement officials who vehemently oppose any loosening of drug laws.

But the campaign that unfolds before the November election could yield some unusual allies: free-market libertarians joining police officers frustrated by the drug war to support the proposal, and pot growers worried about falling prices pairing with Democratic politicians to oppose it.

The trick will be sorting through the hype, and the reporters willing to cut corners for an interesting story.

Here was an interesting item in the second article:

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said it was too soon to speculate on whether federal authorities would sue to keep the measure from becoming law.

What does that even mean? Who would they sue? And I can’t see any court procedure they could use to prevent a state from passing a law. After it’s passed, there could be a court case examining the Constitutionality of the law given its conflict with federal law, but that’s different.

Marijuana Legalization on the CA Ballot: Separating Fact from Fiction by 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.