Drug WarRant

“bullet” A Misguided ‘War on Drugs by Manfred Nowak and Anand Grove in the New York Times.

Anything goes in the ‹war on drugs,Š or so it seems. Governments around the world have used it as an excuse for unchecked human rights abuse and irrational policies based on knee-jerk reactions rather than scientific evidence. This has caused tremendous human suffering. It also undermines drug control efforts. […]
Too many lives are at stake for the current head-in-the-sand politics, and if the United Nations and member states continue to bury their heads, they will be complicit in the abuses.

“bullet” What if the President Smoked Pot? by Derek Thompson, The Atlantic.

The government’s effort to manage tobacco rather than make it illegal is exactly what belongs in the debate over pot and other illegal substances that could, at the very least, provide significant boons to medical pharmacology. The FDA has rejected the possibility of making cigarettes illegal by saying the underground product would be “even more dangerous than those currently marketed.” So when you make popular products illegal, it has the potential to make those products more dangerous. Gee, ya think?
I know that Gee, ya think is about as far as you can get from a comprehensive plan for the controlled legalization of marijuana and other substances. But let’s be adults here. Obama understands the limits of cigarette law because he understands the market for cigarettes. Maybe what the drug debate really needs is a joint in the West Wing.

“bullet” “drcnet”

Acting DEA Head Michele Leonhart on the UNODC World Drug Report:

“Today’s newly-released United Nation’s World Drug Report confirms DEA’s global enforcement strategy successes targeting the major drug trafficking organizations, particularly their leadership, financial infrastructure and transportation facilitators ,” said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “Working closely with our domestic and international counterparts , we have realized unprecedented victory in disrupting and dismantling criminal cartels worldwide and impacting the illegal drug market, as this report attests. The dangerous link between drugs and crime is irrefutable, and we continue to face challenges, however, we are certain our global partnership will prevail in defeating this world -wide threat.”

Somehow when reading that I imagined her on a stage full of red and black DEA banners speaking into a large microphone, in front of an obediently cheering crowd surrounded by armed DEA agents.

Link

The Supreme Court ruled today that school officials’ strip search of a then-13-year-old Arizona teen suspected of possessing a painkiller violated the girl’s constitutional rights, despite the school district’s zero-tolerance policy for drugs.
The court said, however, that school officials are protected from personal liability in the case.
The ruling is a partial victory for Savana Redding, who had been summoned from her middle school classroom and was asked to strip down to her underwear as school officials searched for prescription strength ibuprofen.

The one dissenter on the Constitutional right issue was Clarence Thomas, who, as usual, doesn’t think that students should have Constitutional rights. He’s all for them when you get out of school, but his views about how schools should be run are positively scary.
Stevens and Ginsburg would have made the school pay up.
The opinion is available here: Safford Unified School District #1 et al v. Redding.

Note: I don’t consider this a very big win (except for Savana’s specific rights), as the court limited their ruling and said that it might be just fine to search her backpack, or if it had been suspected illegal drugs, a panty raid might have been in order after all. Clarence Thomas wanted to inspect the girl’s panties so badly that he indicated the fact that the backpack search turned up empty was reason enough to search the panties.

I’ve been interested to see what how the media will characterize this report, and what they notice within it, since this one has some significantly differences (the attack on legalizers and the acknowledgement of certain prohibition flaws). A lot of early reports merely parrot back the drug use/seizure data contained about their particular country as if it really meant something without the larger context, but there have been some other approaches.
“bullet” Time Magazine’s Skimmer picked up on some of the more interesting shifts:

This year’s report from the U.N.’s Office on Drugs and Crime did something that last year’s did not: it addressed the “growing chorus” of people in favor of abolishing drug laws altogether. And though its authors maintain that legalizing narcotics would be an “epic mistake,” the office’s executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, does agree that loosening regulations might not be such a bad idea: “You can’t have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933.” […]

[Update: Turns out that quote was from LEAP’s Jack Cole, not Costa. Thought that sounded a little too good for Costa.]

On moving beyond “reactive law enforcement”: “Those who take the “drug war” metaphor literally may feel this effort is best advanced by people in uniform with guns [but] in the end, the criminal justice system is a very blunt instrument for dealing with drug markets … the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of individuals is an extremely slow, expensive and labor intensive process.”

“bullet” On the other hand, the Associated Press really screwed the pooch with their article. It’s like they didn’t even read the damn thing and just asked somebody to give them some talking points.

Marijuana, or cannabis, remained the most widely used and cultivated drug in the world and it is more harmful than commonly believed, the report said.
As a result, the number of people seeking treatment is rising. Roughly 167 million people use marijuana at least occasionally.

Wow. What a mess.
“bullet” Ryan Grim has some great coverage at Huffington Post: UN Backs Drug Decriminalization In World Drug Report

In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal’s decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage “drug tourism.”
But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal’s radical (by U.S. standards) approach.

“bullet” Jacob Sullum has The U.N.’s 10-Year Plan to Eradicate Drugs: How’d That Go?

The shocking (and encouraging) thing is that Costa, an economist with a Ph.D. from U.C.-Berkeley, is a pretty smart guy (though not quite as smart as he thinks he is). The fact that he ends up mouthing the same sort of non sequiturs, unsupported generalizations, obvious falsehoods, Orwellian redefinitions, and empty platitudes that you hear from the average ex-DEA bureaucrat is yet another sign that drug warriors are intellectually bankrupt.
But reformers shouldn’t get cocky….

“bullet” Over at Transform: UN Office on Drugs and Crime admits it is at war with itself

Danny Kushlick, Head of Policy at Transform said:

‹UNODC is officially at war with itself. The Executive Director has admitted repeatedly that the UNODC oversees the very system that gifts the vast illegal drug market to violent criminal profiteers, with disastrous consequences. The UNODC is effectively creating the problem it is claiming to eliminate. Mr Costa has identified five major ‘unintended consequences‰ of the drug control system. Is there a time limit on how long a consequence remains ‘unintended‰? Aren‰t they now just ‘consequences‰?Š

Also at Transform: World Drug Report Preface majors on legalisation

it is the same confused mix of misrepresentations, straw man arguments, and logical fallacies that we are used to hearing from the UNODC’s drug warriors. The particularly strange thing here though is that some of the analysis of the problem, the critique at least, is actually fairly good – it’s where it leads that is so extraordinary…. […]
it might be useful to view this preface as a barometer of the debate globally, and of Transform and other reform NGOs having a real impact on the international debate at the highest levels, including the UNODC. It is a reflection of the progress the reform movement has made that the legalization/regulation issue takes up so much of the space in the preface, and that the UNODC feels the need to go on the defensive this prominently.
Secondly, we would suggest that it is indicative of an institutional problem at UNODC, that something as internally inconsistent as this passes muster and is allowed into the public domain. They fully acknowledge that prohibition, under the auspices of the UN drug agencies and international drug control infrastructure, has been a generational disaster on multiple fronts – and yet then call for more of the same, brushing off those who call for a debate on alternatives with the offensive and childish smear of being ‘pro-drugs’.

At today’s Press Conference…

I just finished reading the Executive Summary (pdf) written by Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa, of the UNODC World Drug Report 2009 that is being released today.
For the first time, the UNODC has acknowledged the legalization movement and is pretty defensive about it. Clearly we’re doing our job very well.
[Note: the somewhat random underlining and italics throughout are Costa’s.]

Of late, there has been a limited but
growing chorus among politicians, the press, and even
in public opinion saying: drug control is not working. The
broadcasting volume is still rising and the message
spreading.
Much of this public debate is characterized by sweeping
generalizations and simplistic solutions. Yet, the very
heart of the discussion underlines the need to evaluate
the effectiveness of the current approach. Having studied
the issue on the basis of our data, UNODC has
concluded that, while changes are needed, they should
be in favour of different means to protect society against
drugs, rather than by pursuing the different goal of
abandoning such protection.

Notice the sweeping generalization of characterizing us as using sweeping generalizations. Note also, that Costa feels so threatened by the our arguments that he can no longer say that things are going just fine — he actually agrees that change is needed. Of course, his approach — finding a “different” version of prohibition — is ridiculous, but it appears we have him on the run.

I. The economic argument for drug legalization says:
legalize drugs, and generate tax income. This argument is
gaining favour, as national administrations seek new
sources of revenue during the current economic crisis.
This legalize and tax argument is un-ethical and uneconomical.
It proposes a perverse tax, generation upon
generation, on marginalized cohorts (lost to addiction)
to stimulate economic recovery. Are the partisans of this
cause also in favour of legalizing and taxing other seemingly
intractable crimes like human trafficking? Modern-
day slaves (and there are millions of them) would
surely generate good tax revenue to rescue failed banks.

Wow! He really is desperate. Equating drug legalization with human trafficking? Legalize and tax is unethical? Perverse tax? He’s provided zero argument, zero fact, but lots of inflammatory language.

The economic argument is also based on poor fiscal
logic: any reduction in the cost of drug control (due to
lower law enforcement expenditure) will be offset by
much higher expenditure on public health (due to the
surge of drug consumption). The moral of the story:
don‰t make wicked transactions legal just because they
are hard to control.

Again, no evidence shown that there will actually be higher public health costs or surges of drug consumption, and again, note the use of the word “wicked.”

Others have argued that, following legalization, a
health threat (in the form of a drug epidemic) could be
avoided by state regulation of the drug market. Again,
this is naive and myopic. […]
Why unleash a drug epidemic in the developing
world for the sake of libertarian arguments made by
a pro-drug lobby that has the luxury of access to drug
treatment? Drugs are not harmful because they are controlled
— they are controlled because they are harmful

What drug epidemic will be unleashed? There is no evidence that one would happen. On the other hand, prohibition is damaging the developing world because they don’t have the resources to deal with all the cartels.
And that last line? What a trite, overused phrase (or at least a variation on it). And totally unsupported by history.

The most serious issue concerns organized crime.
All market activity controlled by the authority generates
parallel, illegal transactions, as stated above. Inevitably,
drug controls have generated a criminal market of macro-
economic dimensions that uses violence and corruption
to mediate between demand and supply. Legalize
drugs, and organized crime will lose its most profitable line
of activity, critics therefore say.
Not so fast. UNODC is well aware of the threats posed
by international drug mafias. […]
Having started this drugs/crime debate, and having
pondered it extensively, we have concluded that these
drug-related, organized crime arguments are valid. They
must be addressed.

Whoa! Costa says our arguments are valid. This is huge, and we should take every opportunity to quote him and the UNODC on it.

Of course, Costa is not about to agree that legalization is the solution. But if prohibition isn’t the solution, and legalization isn’t the solution, what is?

I urge governments to recalibrate the
policy mix, without delay, in the direction of more controls
on crime, without fewer controls on drugs. In other
words, while the crime argument is right, the conclusions
reached by its proponents are flawed.

Note that the UNODC is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, so they can simply shift it over to their other side. Prohibition doesn’t work and causes crime, so we’ll focus on crime while keeping prohibition. (As if crime focus hadn’t already been happening.)
He then goes on to say that countries should shift to a more supply-side oriented approach to drug policy. Yeah, like that’s worked. Some good statements about shifting focus away from drug users, yet he still won’t budge on any meaningful reform.

To conclude, transnational organized crime will never be
stopped by drug legalization. Mafias coffers are equally
nourished by the trafficking of arms, people and their
organs, by counterfeiting and smuggling, racketeering
and loan-sharking, kidnapping and piracy, and by violence
against the environment (illegal logging, dumping
of toxic waste, etc). The drug/crime trade-off argument,
debated above, is no other than the pursuit of the old
drug legalization agenda, persistently advocated by the
pro-drug-lobby (Note that the partisans of this argument
would not extend it to guns whose control — they
say — should actually be enforced and extended: namely,
no to guns, yes to drugs).

Nonsensical statements. The fact that organized crime can find other means of making money doesn’t mean we should continue to shovel money their way through the black market drug trade. Illegal logging? What does that have to do with drug legalization?
And where did this gun argument come from? Drug legalizers range across the political spectrum — some are in favor of stricter gun control, while some are in favor of looser gun control. He acts like this is some kind of “gotcha” against drug legalizers, but it’s meaningless.

So far the drug legalization agenda has been opposed
fiercely, and successfully, by the majority of our society.

No. It’s been opposed fiercely and unsuccessfully by a powerful minority who benefit from the drug war.

Yet, anti-crime policy must change. It is no longer sufficient
to say: no to drugs. We have to state an equally
vehement: no to crime.

Policy must actually change, not just experience a change of rhetoric.
He concludes with:

There is no alternative to improving both security and
health. The termination of drug control would be an
epic mistake. Equally catastrophic is the current disregard
of the security threat posed by organized crime.

??? Babble speak.
So, the good news is that we’ve got them scared. They’re having to address a whole herd of elephants in the room – the failure of prohibition, the damages of prohibition, increased public education, changing public opinion reaching political significance, and, of course, a vibrant and smart reform community.
They’re not going to give up their turf. Costa’s attempts to address the issues by simply re-framing prohibition are the standard prohibitionist response to failure. It’ll buy him some time with those who want prohibition to remain. But the desperation in his attacks (“wicked,” “perverse,” “human trafficking,” etc.), and the lack of any coherent support for what he has to say, puts some more cracks in the prohibitionist power.
The thing that we have learned so powerfully is that once our opposition is forced to engage us (and now they are), forced to actually address the problems of prohibition, we have the solid upper hand.
One more point from Costa’s introduction:

illicit drugs continue to pose a health
danger to humanity. That‰s why drugs are, and should
remain, controlled.

But no. The fact is that illicit drugs are not controlled. They are prohibited. That is significantly different than controlled. In fact, in many ways it is a dramatic lack of control, by turning control over to the black market.
Government likes to claim that prohibition is control, when it is not. (eg., The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy).
Legalization and regulation provides actual drug control.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has made that point in an open letter to Costa they’ve already put together as a response to this report:

I strongly disagree with your claim in the World Drug Report 2009 that people calling for legalization of drugs are somehow endorsing less “control” over drugs than we have now.
Indeed, it is the failed system of prohibition that you endorse which strips society of the ability to regulate and control drugs, including who produces and consumes them, as well as where the profits go.

You can send your own copy of this letter to Costa at their new action page: http://www.DrugWarDebate.com

Here’s a good opportunity to flex your skills. The Yankee Sailor has asked:

So for those of you that are in favor of legalization, I have some questions. As anyone who paid attention in history class knows, organized crime in America really took off trading in alcohol during prohibition. Did the mobsters just disappear when prohibition was ended? I‰d say no. Organized crime is made up of people willing to do anything to accumulate power and wealth, and to suggest they will just disappear with the legalization of drugs is foolish. For every drug that is legalized, the criminals will be working hard to come up with new drugs to traffic or looking for other criminal enterprises to feed their greed.

Be polite and help the guy out.

Covered by both Radley and Jacob…

Officers were trying to serve a warrant for a man wanted on drug charges. The address listed on the paperwork was 4042. The Minton‰s home is 4048, with both house numbers clearly marked.
But Major Mark Robinett of the Marion County Sheriff‰s Department, who is in charge of warrant sweeps, said he was told that officers had a difficult time reading the addresses because of overcast skies. [emphasis added]

Overcast skies? Good thing it wasn’t raining, or the sun wasn’t in their eyes, or it wasn’t… dark. I believe Major Mark Robinett actually just called his officers worthless idiots, who are unable to do the basic job of a pizza delivery driver. How else can you read that statement?
If they’re unable to read a house number because it’s overcast, it makes you wonder how they’ll see the difference between the dog and the owner so they know which one to shoot.

Once again today, we analyze the torturous mental processes involved in being a prohibition advocate.
Today’s subject: Steve Francis: Debunking call to legalize marijuana: Marijuana usage is a social ill that needs to be fought against – not legalized. in the San Diego News Network. Steve is a former candidate for Mayor and a former Assemblyman.
He starts out with a analyzing specific poll results regarding marijuana legalization and complaining about their bias. Fine. Polls are notorious for providing different results based on the question asked (which is why you look at patterns in polling and don’t just use one (and the pattern on marijuana polling has been consistently moving toward legalization). And while people may be additionally influenced toward supporting a question of legalizing and taxing marijuana because the state is out of money, that doesn’t negate their opinion that marijuana is OK to legalize.
Once he gets past the polling, Francis really gets lost.

Surrendering to drug dealers and the billion-dollar international drug trade is not the fiscally conservative, tough-on-crime solution – quite the opposite. More crimes will be committed with legalized marijuana, just as more related crimes are committed in firearm and alcohol friendly nations than those that are not.

Surrendering? How is taking away the entire business from drug dealers and the billion-dollar international drug trade surrendering? Is this some new meaning of the word?
If I’m negotiating with Coca-Cola for exclusive distribution rights in my stadium, and I don’t like what I’m seeing, so I switch and go exclusively with Pepsi, have I just surrendered to Coke? No. I told them to take a hike! Surrendering to Coke would be if I decided that I didn’t like the current system, but I’d go ahead with it anyway.
And “More crimes will be committed with legalized marijuana”? In what fantasy world is this? And I don’t know about the firearm and alcohol “friendly” nations and crime rates, but what does that have to do with marijuana? How is pot like an AK-47? You do realize that shotgunning marijuana smoke is just a metaphor, right? And why aren’t you comparing crime rates in tobacco-friendly countries to those that are not? Or crime rates in caffeine-friendly countries to those that are not? Those are certainly more apt comparisons to marijuana.
Now check out the contradiction in this next part:

Furthermore, consider that all controlled substances in our county (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc.) have grown to develop powerful legal, lobbying and political divisions that seek to reduce corporate liability, weaken regulations and influence public elections to increase profits and market share. Grievous harm and criminal acts inflicted under the influence of controlled substances occur without corporate accountability. Are Golden State citizens to expect anything less from a legitimized marijuana industry?
Taxing pot is not a feasible proposition. Legalization advocates must answer the fundamental question: how would taxes be realistically collected from a controlled substance that is – at its essence – a modicum of soil, a planter, and a weed?

There’s no separation there, no ellipsis showing that I brought those paragraphs from two separate parts of the article. They were right there next to each other. Apparently legalized marijuana will be this massive corporate business, but it won’t be able to be taxed because it’ll only be grown in people’s back yards. That’s the kind of mental disconnect it takes to be a prohibitionist. You have to be able to not know what you just wrote in your previous sentence.
Then he goes on to talk about how the taxes wouldn’t be helpful because…

According to a report released by the Marin Institute last summer, the total economic cost of alcohol use is $38 billion annually, with $8.3 billion shouldered by government agencies for health care treatment of alcohol-caused illnesses and injuries, crime costs, traffic incidents, and reduced worker productivity.

And this relates to marijuana… how?

As recent reports indicated, Los Angeles, which has enforced Proposition 215 for over a decade, now has more dispensaries (600+) than Starbucks coffee shops and McDonald‰s restaurants. If this could happen in lax LA, then why not San Diego?

Who cares?

Our state shouldn‰t consider changes in drug policy when we are unable to treat the drug addicts we already have.

Maybe that’s a good reason to consider changes in drug policy.

According to a recent poll of 505 California adults commissioned by KeepComingBack.com, 45 percent of state residents have tried marijuana, and of those who have abused drugs in the past year, nearly half (42 percent) stated they were not ready to stop using.

What? How does that sentence make any sense at all? Is the second part of the sentence about marijuana?

Our limited public health dollars are better spent upon bringing these addicts into treatment.

Better spent than what? Legalizing and taxing marijuana? How is that costing tax dollars? It is, in fact, increasing tax dollars which you can use for addicts if you’d like.

False restrictions on legalized pot use, such as a minimum smoking age, won‰t deter teenagers and other young people from dangerously experimenting with the drug; the KeepComingBack.com poll found that of those state residents that have tried marijuana, 51% first experimented before they turned eighteen years of age.

What does “dangerously experimenting with the drug” mean? Smoking while standing on railroad tracks? And didn’t that 51% that experimented before they turned 18 do so while the drug was illegal?

Legalizing marijuana is a solution to a problem that doesn‰t exist.

That just baffles me. What is it that doesn’t exist? Marijuana? Marijuana laws? The black market? Corruption? Our fiscal crisis? Maybe Francis didn’t know what he said in the first half of the sentence when he wrote the second half?
This has been another public service in understanding the mind of the prohibitionist.

I used to believe that the ONDCP’s Media Campaign ads didn’t work (in fact, with youth they actually work the ‘wrong’ way). But apparently the New York Times’ Saul Hansell actually was strangely influenced by them.

At least, that’s the only way I can figure out why he lumps marijuana legalization in with UFOs.

Well, the people have spoken. But many of them are not sticking to the topics at hand.
The White House made its first major entree into government by the people last month when it set up an online forum to ask ordinary people for their ideas on how to carry out the president‰s open-government pledge. It got an earful Ö on legalizing marijuana, revealing U.F.O. secrets and verifying Mr. Obama‰s birth certificate to prove he was really born in the United States and thus eligible to be president.
‹Please, as fellow human beings of this great planet Earth, disclose all known information on space/UFO‰s because the world needs to know,Š wrote sprinter5160 on the site, whitehouse.gov/open, which attracted thousands of similar comments on fringe topics.

Saul, marijuana legalization is not fringe. And marijuana doesn’t have anything to do with aliens and UFOs. It’s been here quite naturally for thousands of years.