Drug WarRant

Just a little while ago, the California Assembly Public Safety Committee approved a marijuana legalization bill, AB 390, by a vote of 4 – 3.

Apparently, this is the first time that a state legislative committee has voted to legalize marijuana for non-medical purposes.

Update: She just won’t go away…

Andrea Barthwell, a deputy director in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush, countered that drug prohibition “is working to keep our young people drug-free It is a fact that legalization of marijuana will increase its use.”

Drug-free?

One of the curious creatures that we’ve never really talked about here, is one that sometimes shows up in comment threads (or, more often, message boards) that I like to call “pothead prohibitionist.” You know the ones… “hey man, I can get all the pot I want, so don’t legalize it, you’ll just mess things up and have to pay taxes and stuff.”

Of course, they’re ignoring all the destructive aspects of prohibition, but as long as their pot is flowing freely, they don’t care.

Attached to the recent Paul Armentano article I mentioned were two rather extreme cases of this species.

nico1950 wrote on 01/10/2010 07:25:50 PM:
I’ll wager money marbles or cowshit that in the days of bath tub gin and speakeasys when alcohol was illegal people were much happier then todays mostly miserable drinkers. Legalize weed and it will take all the fun out of it. The government has a way of ruining things.

Well, yes, the government does have a way of ruining things (take a look at the drug war). Bath tub gin? Really? Those were the good old days, huh? Must have grown up on the Dukes of Hazard, Beverly Hillbillies and The Real McCoys.

thomasgee wrote on 01/10/2010 08:04:36 PM:
Legalizing marijuana is the worst idea of all. What are you legalizing when it becomes an arrestable crime when you can be arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance? Alcohol and marijuana checkpoints couldn’t be too far behind. Imagine having to pay the same exorbitant fines and hassle as a drunk driver only the arrest was for marijuana used while operating a vehicle. The government and police agencies are drooling over the legalization of pot.

OK, that’s mostly incoherent (and apparently he thinks that marijuana smoking is only to be done while driving a car), but I can assure you that police agencies are not drooling over the legalization of pot. Legalization of pot to them means a likely dramatic loss of grant funding (not to mention loss of seizure funding).

These are fringe elements, I realize, but I’ve always been curious about them. Are they actually pot dealers without enough ambition to go into legitimate businesses once it’s legalized? Interestingly, despite the fact that they favor prohibition, they tend to fit the stereotype that prohibitionists like to use to paint drug policy reformers.

One of the tough jobs we have is that so many people have been led to believe that legalization means chaos, when in fact it’s just the opposite. This is where the LEAP message has been so effective, and it needs to be hammered home time and time again to reach so many of those who are afraid of legalization.

James P. Gray has an excellent OpEd: Ballot Measure Is Way to Properly Police Pot

Our marijuana policy must change in order to achieve the following goals:

• Reduce marijuana consumption by children.
• Stop or reduce the violence that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.
• Stop or reduce the corruption that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.
• Stop or reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase marijuana and by those under its influence.
• Reduce the harm to people who consume marijuana.
• Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons.

He goes on to list a number of advantages of a legalized system (putting street drug dealers out of business, improving purity, etc.), and ends with:

Under this initiative, all crimes committed by people under the influence of marijuana would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses. Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their own bodies, is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.

Interestingly, also at the Sac Bee and following the same general line of thought is Paul Armentano’s Prohibition of pot feeds lawlessness

This absence of state and local government controls jeopardizes, rather than promotes, public safety.

For example: Prohibition abdicates the control of marijuana production and distribution to criminal entrepreneurs (e.g., drug cartels, street gangs, drug dealers who push additional illegal substances).

This is good stuff, and an excellent way to de-fang the crass attempts by some prohibitionist law enforcement lobby groups to claim the high ground on law and order. (see also LEAP’s appropriate press release: Cops & Judges Support Calif. Assembly Marijuana Legalization Votes on Tuesday — Law Enforcers Say Ending Prohibition Will Improve Public Safety)

….

Of course, one can hardly miss the opportunity to check out the comments on articles like this, and there is a pretty spirited comment section on the Armentano article, including one rather vocal prohibitionist named fsteph, who follows a truly bizarre line of thought that I’ve seen pop up more often lately — that libertarianism supports prohibition!

fsteph wrote on 01/10/2010 11:47:56 AM:
NewAmerican – Wrong again. As a lifetime libertarian I know what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness truly means. This new libertarianism is nothing less than a way of keeping our private lives from any moral scrutiny. A true libertarian resists the pull to privatize all morality — and instead argues that society can’t survive unless we all support the public good. We do not live alone in this society. Your actions, especially driving and working loaded (drugs and/or alcohol), can kill your coworker or an innocent bystander (medical research shows that it impairs memory and motivation). Public order is essential for liberty to exist. New libertarians conveniently ignore this truth.

I’ll ask again, is law simply a flexible arrangement whereby we condone any behavior we find inconvenient to restrain?

I just don’t get it. Have these folks actually read anything about libertarian thought? Sure, I understand that some libertarians focus more on civil libertarianism and others focus more on financial libertarianism, but a self-proclaimed lifetime libertarian being… pro-prohibition? Unreal.

The town of Lima, Ohio uses the instruments of war against its own citizens in a destructive effort to achieve something that exists only in their fantasies — a drug-free world. And so, a young mother named Tarika Wilson is shot to death in her own home while holding her 1-year-old son, who is also wounded.

Sergeant Joseph Chavalia, who shot Tarika, is cleared of wrong-doing — after all, he was only doing his job. Because he is white and the victim is black, people in the town think it’s a racial issue, so nobody examines what led to the decision to conduct the raid in the first place.

And now the insurance company for the town is settling the lawsuit for $2.5 million, which is a good thing for the Wilson family, but since it’s done without the city’s agreement or admission of fault, the city has no reason to examine what really led to the tragedy, and since the increased insurance premiums will happen over time and not just in Lima, the taxpayers won’t feel the pinch of the $2.5 million and demand investigation.

So a young woman dies a tragic, needless death at the hands of the government as part of a horrible public policy… and no lessons are learned.

An outstanding article by Paul Campos in the Wall Street Journal: Undressing the Terror Threat.

It’s primarily about the dysfunctional war on terror and the stupidity of playing by “Terrorball” rules:

1. The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and
2. If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win.

It’s a climate that has fostered “the current ascendancy of the politics of cowardice—the cynical exploitation of fear for political gain.”

Terrorball, in short, is made possible by a loss of the sense that cowardice is among the most disgusting and shameful of vices. I shudder to think what Washington, who as commander in chief of the Continental Army intentionally exposed himself to enemy fire to rally his poorly armed and badly outnumbered troops, would think of the spectacle of millions of Americans not merely tolerating but actually demanding that their government subject them to various indignities, in the false hope that the rituals of what has been called “security theater” will reduce the already infinitesimal risks we face from terrorism.

Campus also relates this to the war on drugs:

…not treating Americans as adults has costs. For instance, it became the official policy of our federal government to try to make America “a drug-free nation” 25 years ago.

After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and imprisoning millions of people, it’s slowly beginning to become possible for some politicians to admit that fighting a necessarily endless drug war in pursuit of an impossible goal might be a bad idea. How long will it take to admit that an endless war on terror, dedicated to making America a terror-free nation, is equally nonsensical?

We’ve always said that the current approach to fighting the “war on terror” has its roots in the corrupt war on drugs. They are inextricably linked in their dysfunction.

A former New York City police commissioner backs his car into a pregnant woman and drives off. He faces no consequences.

Interesting.

Yet when drug war victim Jonathan Ayers feared for his life when undercover officers approached his car, and backed into one of them when trying to get away, that was justification for shooting and killing him.

New Jersey Scraps Mandatory Minimums Tied to Drug-Free Zones

Yesterday the New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill, already approved by the state Senate, that allows judges to waive heretofore mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenses committed in “drug-free zones.” Under state law, such zones include any place within 1,000 feet of a school or 500 feet of a park, library, museum, or public housing project. Selling drugs (or possessing them with intent to sell) within that area triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of three years.

Mandatory minimums based on zones have been a particularly ugly aspect of drug law, as they have a greater impact on inner cities and minorities.

Here’s an example of a map from a small town in New Jersey. You can imagine what it’s like in a big city.

Scott Morgan says It’s Time to Legalize Medical Marijuana in Professional Sports

Judge orders CHP to return 60 pounds of marijuana. I would have really loved to watch them return it.

Oregon police chief admits incompetence, says medical marijuana law is “unenforceable.” Seems to me he might want to be a little more concerned about what’s causing those mutant horses in his newsletter’s banner picture.

Couldn’t happen to a better guy… Grand jury investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona

I guess the real question I have is… how can this feudal Sheriff of Nottingham, with such obvious contempt for civilized society, our country’s principles, and our Constitution, operate with impunity for so long?

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.

Congratulations to Russell Barth and Robert Sharpe for being the MAP 2009 Letter to the Editor Writers of the Year.

Russell Barth had 183 letters published. Robert Sharpe had 176 letters published.

Russell Barth writes to Canadian newspapers from his home in Nepean, Ontario. Canada has less than an eighth the number of daily newspapers as does the United States. MAP has archived a total of 678 of his published letters which you may read at http://www.mapinc.org/writers/Russell+Barth

Robert Sharpe writes to newspapers all over the world from his home in Maryland. MAP has archived a total of 2,248 of his published letters which you may read at http://www.mapinc.org/writers/Robert+Sharpe

I write a letter now and then when something pisses me off so much, it’s not enough to talk about it here. MAP has archived a total of 8 of my published letters which you may read at http://www.mapinc.org/writers/Guither

How many have you written?

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union has done some really outstanding work in drug policy reform, and their films are extremely well done.

They took the opportunity at the recent Drug Policy Reform Conference with Transform releasing After the war on drugs; Blueprint for Regulation, to ask drug policy reformers their views on some post-drug war options.

Nicely done. You may not agree with each individual’s ideas, but the dialogue is outstanding.

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on prohibition. Interesting in that it managed to not even mention today’s prohibition once.

Drug prohibition doesn’t work – so what do we do next? – a good OpEd by Chris Middendorp in the Sydney Morning Herald

The focus of any drug debate should not be morals or the law; it should concentrate on the welfare of human beings. The common use of the term “junkie” helps us to maintain the belief that users of substances are in some way lesser beings. Part of the reason we’ve comfortably followed the prohibition path for so long has been mainstream culture’s view of drug users as subhuman creatures who need redemption. What they really need is medical support and laws that make sense.

As long as we’re down under, Logan sent me this delightful article about a real Australian individualist from Mountain Creek.

A MOUNTAIN Creek man told a magistrate yesterday that he grew his own marijuana crops because he refused to fund the Sunshine Coast’s illegal drug trade.

Terry John Lanigan said it did not matter what penalty the magistrate handed down, he would continue to grow organic cannabis for him and his partner to use. […]

“I don’t mean to be cheeky, but I’ll always continue to smoke marijuana and grow a little bit of marijuana for myself.”

Another nice article by Tim King at Salem-News.com. He’s pointing out the position of a particular local candidate, yet manages to take the time to point out the history of hemp in the U.S.

On the other hand, check out this bizarre editorial in the Democrat Herald: Forty years of ‘drug war’ What a pathetic editorial staff. They seem afraid to take a position.

The obvious question: Has the drug war been worth it, especially in regard to marijuana?

Nobody can say for sure.

Really?

Perhaps if, after 40 years, you can’t say for sure that it’s been worth it, then maybe that’s evidence that it hasn’t, hmmm?

This is disturbing. ‘Anthrax heroin’ cases spreading

Health officials believe contaminated heroin – thought to be responsible for cases of anthrax in Glasgow – may be circulating elsewhere in Scotland.

It comes after the death of two more drug users with the infection in Glasgow and Tayside.

Just as with the fentanyl spiked heroin deaths in the U.S., these are sad, but clear reminders that legalization is needed to reduce harm. In a legal, regulated market, such a thing would be unlikely to happen. But no, we turn the safety controls of drugs over to criminals.

Nice job by LEAP getting a punch in after the recent criticism by the DEA of the New York City pamphlet on harm reduction for heroin use.

group of police officers, judges and prosecutors who fought in the “war on drugs” and witnessed its failures is pushing back against the DEA for its criticism of a New York City-funded booklet that encourages heroin users to adopt safer practices. The group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), points out that the booklet is intended to prevent overdose deaths and help reverse the high rate of disease transmission related to injection drug use.

“While we all want to stop addiction to dangerous drugs like heroin, the fact is that some people do choose to use despite the billions of dollars we spend on the failed ‘war on drugs,'” said Norm Stamper, a speaker for LEAP and Seattle’s retired chief of police. “Providing users with tips on how to keep themselves as safe as possible and reduce the spread of disease makes us all safer and cuts down on public health and criminal justice expenses elsewhere. The booklet is like a vaccine that helps reduce some of the harm related to heroin abuse. Who could be against that?”

Anthony Papa also has a response at Alternet.

I ran into an interesting paragraph at Family Security Matters. I’ve run across their site a couple of times and don’t find their views particularly useful, but I was intrigued by this article by Frank Hill, in which he suggested that we should stop blaming others for so many of our troubles.

Here’s the paragraph — it’s worth analyzing because of the power inside these two simple sentences:

The drug crisis would disappear if we and our children stopped using cocaine and marijuana for recreational purposes. Drug pushers don’t force it down our throats; we willingly buy it and use it and talk about it as if it was something to be proud of.

Let’s start with the second sentence: “Drug pushers don’t force it down our throats; we willingly buy it and use it…” Very true. And this is an area where we constantly face blatantly absurd statements. The liberals will talk about the dangerous drugs that poison people, while the conservatives bemoan the evil drug dealers that poison people, but, in fact, the incidents of people being drugged against their will are rare indeed.

Most people who receive drugs seek them out willingly, even eagerly, and voluntarily offer to pay money for them. And, most of them do so with full knowledge of the risks involved (to the extent that they don’t, that’s another bad side-effect of prohibition).

It’s nice to see this point acknowledged, and it’s important that we make it clear to people.

Back to the first sentence: “The drug crisis would disappear if we and our children stopped using cocaine and marijuana for recreational purposes.” Also true. If everyone voluntarily stopped using currently illicit drugs, the problems related to those drugs and the prohibition of those drugs would go away pretty much overnight. Absolutely true. And absolutely irrelevant, because it’s an absolute impossibility.

This is like saying “If everyone stopped having sex, we could eliminate STDs, abortions, and unwanted pregnancies.” True, but absurd — not even worthy of a science fiction short story.

You can take responsibility for yourself, and say “I’m not going to take these drugs,” and you can attempt to encourage those around you to follow your lead, but you have no power to force the rest of the world to suddenly move into your fantasy world where nobody wants to do drugs, and all the hot people want to sleep with you.

In the article, Frank Hill invokes Pogo’s famous cartoon line “Yep, son, we have met the enemy and he is us.” And it’s true, but not in the way Hill envisions. Yes, people choose to do drugs, but that’s not us-as-enemy, that’s freedom. And yes, we could end drug problems by stopping all drug use, but that’s also not us-as-enemy, that’s fantasy.

The enemy that is us… is prohibition. It is the war that we fight against our own people, our own children, with our own money. It is the politician afraid to follow the truth, the neighbor seduced by the propaganda, the cop and prosecutor caught up in the heat of the battle. It’s the academic who just wants to find a better way to make prohibition work, the scientist who goes for the gold and the publicity, rather than the science. It’s the political party member who says this just isn’t the time for reform.

The enemy is us, indeed.