Drug WarRant

Calif. voters to decide whether to legalize pot

It’s been pretty clear for awhile that this was a sure thing, but it’s nice to get the confirmation.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified that the petitions seeking to place the question on the ballot had more than 433,971 valid voter signatures, the minimum number needed to qualify.

If approved, the initiative would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes. Residents also could cultivate the plant in limited quantities.

I love this one:

“How can our kids say no when the adults around them are saying yes?” asked Aimee Hendle, a spokeswoman for Californians for Drug Free Youth.

Really? OK, let’s think about that for a moment.

How can our kids say no to drinking when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to driving a car when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to watching an adult movie when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to smoking a cigar when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to running for President when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to taking prescription drugs when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to moving into retirement communities when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to having kids when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to touching a hot stove when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to owning a gun when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to having a mortgage when the adults around them are saying yes?

How can our kids say no to using power tools when the adults around them are saying yes?

There are kids and there are adults. There are differences. And it’s monumentally stupid to think you can require adults to live their lives as if they were 12.

Some of you may have heard that Congress passed some kind of health care reform bill. I’m not sure if it’s been discussed much publicly (I don’t watch the cable “news”) — in fact, I don’t know a single person who’s read it, so I’m sure they wouldn’t have much of an informed opinion to share. [Note: This is not an invitation to discuss the merits of health care reform — there are other places for that.]

One thing that I found interesting in the aftermath of passage was the fact that eleven state attorneys general are filing lawsuits claiming that the new law is unconstitutional before the ink is dry.

Those of us in drug policy reform would only need one word to explain to these attorneys general why their chances lie somewhere between slim and none. That word is:

Raich

Their claim is that the federal government doesn’t have Constitutional authority under the commerce clause to require individuals in states to participate in a national health insurance mandate. Well, that may have been true once. That may even have been the intent of the founders.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Raich that an activity involving purely non-commercial activity entirely contained within a state where that activity was legal (growing a medical marijuana plant and giving it to a sick person for free) somehow affected interstate commerce sufficiently to allow the federal government to interfere.

In light of that decision, it would be pretty hard for them to argue that health insurance didn’t affect interstate commerce, especially since allowing some to opt out would have a direct effect on the cost for others.

I’d love to see Raich reversed, but that’s not going to happen in a court that gives such uncritical deference to the executive and legislative branches. It’s unlikely that the case will even make it to the Supreme Court, but it would be kind of fun if it did, just to watch all the people come out of the woodwork calling for the overturning of Raich.

Analysis on this available from American Progress and from Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy.

It’s been kind of nice the amount of attention my recent local letter to the editor received (including some very nice emails from acquaintances in the community). The letter has been in the top 10 most commented recent stories for the paper, with over 130 comments.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that all the comments have been particularly intelligent — this is the letters to the editor section of a central Illinois newspaper. And a lot of the volume has come from some strange back and forth exchanges in the nature of “You need to prove why marijuana should be made illegal.” “No, you need to prove why marijuana should be legalized.”

What’s interesting to me is that my letter had purposely avoided any discussion of the relative benefits or harms of marijuana and focused solely on the harms of prohibition versus the benefits of regulation. And yet, the discussion immediately was all about whether marijuana was bad or good. Several attempts in the discussion thread to force anti-legalizers to address prohibition were simply ignored.

It’s as if they can’t see past their… hatred(?) for marijuana (or marijuana users) to even reasonably discuss the facts surrounding prohibition.

I just found it interesting.

I think the most humorous moment for me in the comment thread was when one very vocal anti-marijuana legalization advocate decided to show how absurd legalization was by giving “ridiculous” similar examples…

Then why not legalize prostitution? After all, it’s between consenting adults, and one could make the argument that you pay for it anyway – dinner, entertainment, gifts, etc. This would put all pimps out of business, or at least regulate and tax them, require them provide insurance to their whores.

Why not legalize all drugs, including cocaine? After all, it’s my body and I should be allowed to shoot up, snort, sniff, smoke, etc., as much as I want! The government could tax and regulate the drug dealers who would be required to provide insurance in their pre-teen lookouts and other junkies.

I’m sure none of this would cause any legal, political, moral, ethical, or medical issues in the least, and I’m sure that by having it taxed and regulated, there will be no cause for alarm for anyone abusing the system to get their fix, or have any sort of increase in crime as drug use increases.

Although completely unintentional, it was the most logical and reasonable argument he made in the entire thread. Other than some of the snark thrown in there, that’s a fine argument for legalization.

So I’m browsing the news about all these high-level officials going to Mexico to solve the violence problem there…

AP headline: Obama officials say US drug demand fuels violence
Hmmm…Must be a mistake by the headline writer. Surely he meant to say that the drug war fuels violence. It’s probably clarified in the article.

Let’s see what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to say.

Clinton said the administration is “looking at everything that can work” to combat the drug cartels.

Excellent.

But when asked by a reporter whether that included considering decriminalizing narcotics in the United States, she replied with a single word: “No.”

Well, of course. And then I’m sure she went on to say…

“No. Decriminalization is not a proper solution, because it leaves the cartels in charge. The only real solution is full legalization and regulation, so we can re-claim the controls from the criminal element.”

But apparently, if she did say that, if failed to get reported.

Instead we got…

A cast of senior U.S. security officials pledged long-term support for Mexico’s drug war while acknowledging Tuesday that an insatiable U.S. appetite for illegal narcotics, coupled with a flow of U.S. arms into Mexico, is at the core of the problem.

And the solution?

Clinton said the administration would make public very shortly a new drug policy and that it would include strategies for reducing drug demand.

Ah, a new policy. Well, maybe not a new policy. It’ll still be prohibition. But maybe with some lipstick.

Could she be referring to the new National Drug Control Strategy, which was supposed to be unveiled today by Vice President Biden and Drug Czar Kerlikowske? They were sending out press advisories about it yesterday.

WASHINGTON – Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 23, at 2:00 PM ET, Vice President Biden and Drug Control Director Gil Kerlikowske, along with several Cabinet Secretaries, will lay out the Administration’s inaugural National Drug Control Strategy, which establishes five-year goals for reducing drug use and its consequences through a balanced policy of prevention, treatment, and international cooperation. This event will take place in the Roosevelt Room. The Vice President and Director Kerlikowske will deliver remarks. These remarks will be pooled press.

And yet, that oddly got changed to: **THIS EVENT HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE.

Don’t know why. Could it be that they didn’t have it quite together? Or could it be the lipstick was showing?

Curious.

(Yes, of course, it was because the health care bill is a big f**king deal. Kerlikowske is actually in Mexico with Clinton.)

Flex Your Rights, producers of the excellent short documentary “Busted,” which has been shown on college campuses everywhere, has upped the ante with their new film, which I just watched tonight:

10 Rules for Dealing with Police

This 40-minute movie should be shown on college campuses, but also in community centers and black churches in inner cities. It deals with the rights of all of us, but particularly focuses on the kinds of encounters that are most likely to plague those who are disproportionately targeted by police.

Trial lawyer William “Billy” Murphy, Jr. leads an audience of individuals from all walks of life who have had negative encounters with the police. He patiently and painstakingly takes them through the basic principles that guide all encounters, including having them memorize such incredibly useful phrases such as:

• I don’t consent to searches
• I’m going to remain silent. I’d like to see a lawyer.
• Are you detaining me or am I free to go?
• I can’t let you in without a warrant.

Parts of it are also a little bit depressing, hearing Murphy explain how flimsy some of our rights have become.

All of the encounters are acted out (with much better production values than “Busted”) and I found the 40 minutes flew by.

It was also fun to see some familiar faces in drug policy reform sitting in the courtroom audience.

But the pièce de résistance has to be the performance by our friend Scott Morgan who blogs at Stop the Drug War. Scott plays Thug #1. Oh, yeah. Not Thug #2, which is played quite competently by Steve Silverman. No, the number one thug in this movie is definitely Scott Morgan.

I’m thinking there may be an Oscar nomination. That lean-back double-take when he starts running from the police is exceeded in style only by the intentional dive and double roll shortly after, ending with his grotesque mug frozen on the screen, which left me doubled up with laughter (and will give me nightmares tonight). Please, please, please, flex your rights.org — turn that sequence into a youtube video so I can watch it over and over again!

Seriously, there’s some excellent stuff on the entire video, and the story of the older woman who lets the cops into her home is very powerful.

Bonus features on the DVD include “10 Rules for Non-Citizens” and “Q&A with 10 Rules’ Creators” (from a session at the 2009 Drug Policy Conference).

Buy 10 Rules for Dealing with Police – it’s only $15. Be entertained and enlightened by it. But don’t stop there. Show it to a group. A large group. There’s no extra charge to do so. Maybe you can get your local library to show it as part of their citizenship series.

This is important.

In Canadian cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, one of the most pressing priorities for police is combatting an illegal drug trade that has spawned a rash of gangland violence in recent years.

A provocative new report from a B.C. HIV-research agency, however, suggests that throwing more police resources at the problem will only make the bloodshed worse, not bring peace to the streets.

The majority of studies conducted on the issue over the last 20 years in the United States and elsewhere indicate that gang violence increases as law-enforcement activity against the drug trade steps up, says the report from the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

The authors suggest that the Conservative government’s emphasis on law-enforcement to confront drug addiction, and a proposed new bill that would send more drug offenders to prison, are destined to backfire. […]

Alternative measures are needed to lessen narcotics-linked murder and mayhem, says the report, to be released today. For Dr. Wood, that means changing the status of illicit drugs ranging from marijuana to heroin, making them lawfully available to adults but under strictly regulated access to minimize their use. That way, he said, there is less incentive for criminal gangs to get involved in the trade, the way organized crime took over alcohol sales when liquor was banned during the Prohibition.

There are, of course, some who dispute this report. Do they have studies that show something different? No, they have… well, nothing, actually. They’re just sure it’s wrong. And they all work in law enforcement or pro-prohibition groups. Fancy that.

Some great stuff in this article:

“In the current situation of prohibition, which enriches organized crime, we are powerless to reduce the availability of drugs and meaningfully reduce violence,” said Dr. Wood.

Stephen Easton, an economics professor at B.C.’s Simon Fraser University who has called for legalization of marijuana, said the report’s findings should be heeded closely.

“I think this would certainly contribute to the debate in no uncertain terms,” he said. “I think it needs to be talked about … It’s not a question of whether you will have illegal drugs, it’s a question of who will make money off it.”

Easton’s right on the money.

Oh, and one more word: Mexico.

The always excellent Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes in Monday’s Wall Street Journal: The War on Drugs Is Doomed.
Strong demand and the high profits that are the result of prohibition make illegal trafficking unstoppable.

The source of the problem is not Mexican supply. It is American demand coupled with prohibition.

It is doubtful that this will be acknowledged at tomorrow’s meeting. The drug-warrior industry, which includes both the private-sector and a massive government bureaucracy devoted to “enforcement,” has an enormous economic incentive to keep the war raging. In Washington politics both groups have substantial influence. So it is likely that we are going to get further plans to turn Juárez into a police state with the promise that more guns, tanks, helicopters and informants can stop Mexican gangsters from shoving drugs up American noses.

Ouch. I swear, every time Mary writes another drug war column, she takes it a step farther. This time she practically says the “L” word.

…

More Monday morning reading…

From The Crime Report

• Pipe Dreams: Will Marijuana Ever Be Legal in the U.S.?
• Oaksterdam: California’s Experiment with Medical Marijuana

…

Former Camden officer admits planting evidence, stealing cash and drugs

Wow.

Parry — who joined the force in 2006 and resigned in November — admitted that he charged people with planted evidence, threatened certain individuals with arrest using planted evidence if they did not cooperate with law enforcement, conducted illegal searches without a search warrant or without consent, stole drugs and money during illegal searches and arrests, paid for cooperation and information with illegal drugs and prepared false police reports.

Parry admitted that, on between 30 and 50 occasions, he or other members of the conspiracy added drugs to the amount of drugs seized during an arrest in order to make the arrest appear more significant, and on as many as 20 occasions, paid cooperators and informants, who were often prostitutes, with drugs in exchange for information. Parry further admitted that he and the other officers falsified police reports, and that he testified falsely under oath, all in an endeavor to conceal their actions.

Parry detailed for Judge Kugler during his plea that on one occasion in September 2008, he and three other officers conducted various searches at an apartment complex in Camden with no search warrant nor consent from the residents. On another occasion in January 2009, Parry admitted that a person only identified by the initials R.M. was charged after searching a house which he was in without a warrant or consent. The police report, Parry admitted, falsely stated that R.M. fled the scene and discarded drugs during R.M.’s escape from police when, in fact, neither the flight, nor the discarding of drugs, occurred.

… unless it’s filled with… tobacco.

That’s right. In case you missed it in the Drug War Chronicle or Hit and Run, the following will be banned

“individual tobacco wrappers, known as wraps, blunt wraps, or roll your own cigar wraps, whether in the form of a tobacco leaf, sheet, or tube, that consist in whole or in part of reconstituted leaf or flavored tobacco leaf.” The bill includes an exception for “a tobacco leaf wrap that is used in the manufacturing of a cigar intended for retail sale.” But all other cigar wrappers are presumed to be sold for use with marijuana.

Other than the fact that it’s extremely bad law, I find these bans to be oddly hilarious in the way they show these lawmakers (and those promoting the laws) to be pathetically insecure.

Because, of course, the entire reason to ban blunt wraps is because they’re used with marijuana (by some people). So why not just ban marijuana? Oh, right. So what’s the point in banning something that’s used with something that’s banned, merely because of the connection? Absolutely none.

But you see, prohibition of marijuana doesn’t work. Never has, never will. And they know it. They don’t really believe that glass pipes or tobacco leaves will enable marijuana smoking. It’s just that every time they see them in stores it’s a slap in face at the failure of their precious drug war.

And so the list of banned objects gets ever longer, adding all sorts of bureaucratic garbage to law enforcement without ever really even inconveniencing drug users.

Sometimes I hear from those who oppose legalization because they’re afraid people who smoke pot will end up working in jobs involving children.

I wonder if they’re also as concerned that people who practice celibacy will end up working in jobs involving children.

It’s this week

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Mexico City, Mexico for the Merida U.S.-Mexico High Level Consultative Group meeting on March 23, 2010. The Secretary will be joined by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates; Secretary of Homeland Security Janet A. Napolitano; Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair; Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John O. Brennan; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen; Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security John Morton; Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler; Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Director Adam Szubin; Office of National Drug Control Policy Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Supply Reduction Patrick Ward; and Drug Enforcement Administration Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart.

Now that’s an all-star lineup. They’ll be partying hard, I imagine.

Of course, they’re not really going to Mexico for spring break. They’re going to talk about the drug war. And they know their actions will be scrutinized even more now that U.S. Embassy personnel have been killed.

Secretary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa will chair an interagency discussion on the evolution of the Merida Initiative that focuses on enhanced engagement in support of our shared goals of breaking the power of drug trafficking organizations; strengthening the rule of law, democratic institutions and respect for human rights; creating a 21st century border; and building strong and resilient communities.

Don’t you love it? The less actual idea they have of what the hell they’re doing, the more poetic the description of it becomes: “enhanced engagement in support of our shared goals” Ah, beautiful. Meaningless, but beautiful.

The reality is that they have no idea how to stop the cartels. As long as the drug war is ratcheted up, human rights and the rule of law are out the window. The attempt at a 21st century border has already failed. Strong communities? They may as well look to the cartels for help, there.

What will certainly not be discussed is any solution that would actually make a difference. The translators won’t have to know the English word for “legalización.”

Besides… Clinton, Gates, Napolitano, Leonhart? These aren’t people who can actually do anything. These are politicians.