Drug WarRant

Whenever I take apart one of Mark Kleiman’s posts — when I take him to task for understanding the failures of prohibition, yet being unwilling to consider drug policy reform points, or being unwilling to give up his “we can make prohibition work better” philosophy — inevitably someone asks why I bother.
This is why.

In addition to his web journalism, Mark is one of the nation’s leading drug policy experts. His book Against Excess remains an essential reference. So he ought to know.

It is precisely because Kleiman is widely considered an expert, and is extremely knowledgeable, that I must hold him to account when his blind spots cause him to lose the ability for rational thought.
[Note: Kleiman’s referenced post is not bad in itself this time, other than the reflexive need to find away to mention his latest idée fixe/silver bullet at the end.]

Jesse has been tearing up the cable networks promoting his book, but mostly demolishing some torture-apologist pundits. He takes a break from torture to speak plainly about the stupidity of our war on drugs with Geraldo.

When you prohibit something, it doesn’t mean it’s going away. It just means it’s going to be run by criminals now, because it’s not above board. The criminals eventually become so wealthy, they become more powerful than the government, which is a great deal of what’s happening in Mexico right now.

Hey, I certainly don’t agree with everything Jesse says al the time, but I gotta admire the man for his ability and willingness to cut through the B.S.

Governor Tim Pawlenty

Bear in mind that the bill the governor says he‰ll veto is so drastically narrowed down that none of the purported concerns of law enforcement, whose direction he‰s supposedly been taking, have even a shred of validity. As passed, it would only have covered terminally ill patients, and even they wouldn‰t have been allowed to grow their own marijuana.

Tim Cavanaugh has the response to people who oppose legalization… for the kids.

Lust, introspection, carelessness, anger, booze, daydreaming, timidity, chronic recurring stupidity and other human beings have caused more misery in my life than weed has.
How can I keep all those away from my kids?
Or rather, how can I imprison hundreds of thousands of people and suspend at least half the bill of rights in a failed attempt to keep those away from my kids?

Ill. medical marijuana vote expected Tuesday

If the Senate votes on Haine‰s bill tomorrow, it will be the farthest a marijuana proposal has gotten in Illinois.

Last chance to call your Senator if you live in Illinois.

A major article in Foreign Policy by Editor in Chief Moisés Naím: Wasted
First, the recognition of the historical disconnect and the damage it causes…

This ‹it doesn‰t work, but don‰t change itŠ incongruity is not just a quirk of the U.S. public. It is a manifestation of how the prohibition on drugs has led to a prohibition on rational thought. ‹Most of my colleagues know that the war on drugs is bankrupt,Š a U.S. senator told me, ‹but for many of us, supporting any form of decriminalization of drugs has long been politically suicidal.Š
As a result of this utter failure to think, the United States today is both the world‰s largest importer of illicit drugs and the world‰s largest exporter of bad drug policy. The U.S. government expects, indeed demands, that its allies adopt its goals and methods and actively collaborate with U.S. drug-fighting agencies. This expectation is one of the few areas of rigorous continuity in U.S. foreign policy over the last three decades.
A second, and more damaging, effect comes from the U.S. emphasis on curtailing the supply abroad rather than lowering the demand at home. The consequence: a transfer of power from governments to criminals in a growing number of countries. In many places, narcotraffickers are the major source of jobs, economic opportunity, and money for elections.

Then, the tentative movement from that stupidity…

Fortunately, there are some signs that the blind support for prohibition is beginning to wane among key Washington elites. One surprising new convert? The Pentagon. Senior U.S. military officers know both that the war on drugs is bankrupt and that it is undermining their ability to succeed in other important missions, such as winning the war in Afghanistan. When Gen. James L. Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant and supreme allied commander in Europe, was asked last November why the United States was losing in Afghanistan, he answered: ‹The top of my list is the drugs and narcotics, which are, without question, the economic engine that fuels the resurgent Taliban, and the crime and corruption in the country. . . . We couldn‰t even talk about that in 2006 when I was there. That was not a topic that anybody wanted to talk about, including the U.S.Š

Moisés nails it with the conclusion…

The addiction to a failed policy has long been fueled by the self-interest of a relatively small prohibitionist community–and enabled by the distraction of the American public. But as the costs of the drug war spread from remote countries and U.S. inner cities to the rest of society, spending more to cure and prevent than to eradicate and incarcerate will become a much more obvious idea. Smarter thinking on drugs? That should be the real no-brainer.

Exactly.

Maybe now the San Diego county officials will stop throwing their ridiculous (and costly) temper tantrum against medical marijuana and follow the state law.
Link

The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to officials from San Diego and San Bernardino counties who challenged Proposition 215, an initiative approved by state voters in 1996 that became a model for laws in 12 other states. It allows patients to use marijuana for medical conditions with their doctor’s recommendation.

Good.
I really did not expect the Supreme Court to take this one, so it’s not that much of a surprise. It was a supremely stupid appeal and every court along the way had already rejected the counties’ case.

“The purpose of the (federal law) is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state’s medical practices,” the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego said in the July 31 decision. […]
“No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California’s medical marijuana law,” said Joe Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, which also took part in the case. He said the decision would strengthen his organization’s case against the two counties and eight others that have refused to issue the identification cards.

The criticism is coming from a right-wing think tank who claims that the British government has been too lax.

It said the UK’s policy of spending most of its drug budget on treatment was less effective than spending more on prevention and enforcement. […]
The report’s author said the UK’s drug policy should bear down on the illicit use of all drugs and feature a tougher enforcement programme to reduce the supply of drugs.

Since that report is kind of bucking the trend, I thought I’d go see what the think tank was all about.

The Centre for Policy Studies believes in freedom and responsibility. One of Britain‰s best known and most respected think tanks, the Centre develops and promotes policies to limit the role of the state, to encourage enterprise and to enable the institutions of society š such as families and voluntary organizations – to flourish.

You can’t make this stuff up. It’s amazing how often “freedom” and “limited government” appear to be code words for using the state to lock more people up.

Adriel Hampton is running for U.S. Congress in the 2009 special election for California’s 10th District.

I‰m asking for concerned citizens of every stripe to help me devise a strong anti-Drug War policy statement for my Congressional campaign. I‰ve given it a brief jumping off point over at MixedInk, a collaborative writing technology that I‰d like to see used more in government.

‹When elected to Congress, I will immediately move to legalize and regulate the sale of marijuana. Tacit legalization through state-by-state decriminalization and ‹medical cannabisŠ (as tested in California since 1996) has proven a disastrous failure. Our prisons are dangerous and overcrowded, non-violent criminals who could easily be rehabilitated languish under harsh minimum sentences, and Mexican cartels and urban gangsters flourish. Prohibition of marijuana, like alcohol before it, has proved foolish and far too costly. Legalization would not only reduce drug-related violence, it would create funds for increased mental health funding and counseling for those who find themselves dependent on the drug.Š

Join me.

Sometimes reading these things just makes you feel better. Russell Yohn, an Illinois resident, writes a letter to the editor.

Before approving any federal legalization of marijuana, it might be well to consider such questions as the following:
Companies, how would you like to be compelled to employ drug users whose use of marijuana makes them less productive and more often sick?
Workers, how would you like to be compelled to work with drug users whose marijuana use makes them open to various mental disorders?
Landlords, how would you like to be compelled to rent to mentally ill and sometimes violent marijuana users, who often steal to pay for their drugs?
Renters, how would you like to be compelled to have marijuana-smoking neighbors, exposing your children to them and their intoxicating smoke?
Those who wouldn’t like to do this might consider that there can be no assurance that following any federal pot legalization, the quite justified discrimination against marijuana users in these situations would be outlawed. Compelled to employ unproductive workers, quality and profits would be seriously reduced, forcing many employers to curtail or end their operations, throwing even productive workers out of work.
The only way to be certain that such an unfair ban of needed discrimination never occurs is to defeat any federal legalization of marijuana (now being sponsored). State laws for medical or any other uses of marijuana are steps to federal legalization and, therefore, threats of such a possible development.

Gee, how can you argue with that?