Drug WarRant

ZANGABAD, Afghanistan Ö American commanders are planning to cut off the Taliban‰s main source of money, the country‰s multimillion-dollar opium crop, by pouring thousands of troops into the three provinces that bankroll much of the group‰s operations.
[…]
‹I‰m very happy to see you,Š the farmer told the Americans.
‹Really?Š one of the soldiers asked.
‹Yes,Š the farmer said.
The interpreter sighed, and spoke in English.
‹He‰s a liar.Š

This is… interesting

Today, Congressman Eliot L. Engel š the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere š introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009, a bill that will create an independent commission to evaluate US policies and programs aimed at reducing illicit drug supply and demand.
Rep. Engel said, ‹Billions upon billions of US taxpayer dollars have been spent over the years to fight the drug war in Latin America and the Caribbean. In spite of our efforts, since the early 1980s, the number of US lifetime drug users has steadily risen for marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Clearly, the time has come to reexamine our counternarcotics efforts here at home and throughout the Americas.Š
The Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission will be required to submit recommendations on future US drug policy to Congress, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 12 months after its first meeting.

I haven’t been able to find this bill on Thomas (probably not available yet). If anyone has the text of it, I’d be interested in reading it.
This could be good, it could be bad. The devil is in the details (particularly the makeup of this “Commission.”)
Update: Text of the bill still not available (Thomas is a bitch to link to), but the remarks of Engel when introducing the bill are not encouraging:

Let me be absolutely clear that this bill has not been introduced to support the legalization of illegal drugs. That is not something that I would like to see, nor is it my intent to have the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission come to that conclusion.

Nothing like pre-judging what the results of an inquiry can be.
And, of course, this means that the composition of the Commission will likely be such that only “proper” (ie, worthless) conclusions will be forthcoming.

Fascinating

Cannabis Science Inc., an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis company, reported today on the current state of development of its whole-cannabis lozenge in response to Homeland Security Administration Secretary Janet Napolitano’s declaration of a public health emergency to deal with the emerging Swine Flu pandemic. The Company’s non-toxic lozenge has properties that could alleviate many of the symptoms and harmful effects of the H5N1 bird flu and H1N1 swine flu viruses, and has offered its assistance to HSA today in a letter to Secretary Napolitano. The Company has offered to produce up to 1 million doses of its whole-cannabis lozenge, and provide them to HSA for distribution at cost.

The claims include the fact that marijuana (although specifically not smoked marijuana) can reduce excessive inflammation that can lead to lethal effects of influenza.
So, what are the odds that Secretary Napolitano will accept this generous offer?

Chicago Sun Times Editorial:

In Illinois, people who suffer from cancer and smoke marijuana to stem their nausea, reduce their pain or improve their appetite — well, those folks are criminals.
This must end, and fortunately a proposal before state lawmakers would bring much-needed common sense to the medical use of marijuana by legalizing it. […]
We suspect many state lawmakers would like to vote for this measure but fear the political backlash, though the vast majority of them come from safe districts.
We suggest they consider a few facts.
By and large, voters are not stupid.
By and large, they understand the difference between legalizing marijuana for severely sick people under tight controls and passing out joints on playgrounds.
The vast majority of voters have a relative or friend who has suffered greatly from cancer, AIDS or another brutal illness.
Are we a compassionate society?
If so, we will pass this bill.

AP story: Government Winning Mexico Drug War, Despite Violence

Now, after daytime shootouts and beheadings Ö 443 murders in the last three months of 2008 alone Ö Tijuana is quieter. Skeptics say the lull could be only a short-term truce among traffickers. But a top Mexican army commander says the powerful gang’s warring factions are spent.
“They wore each other down,” Gen. Alfonso Duarte Mugica told The Associated Press. “They couldn’t keep going at that pace.”

The whole article is an interesting look at the shifts in cartel powers, but has absolutely nothing to do with the government “winning” anything, let alone a drug war.
Let’s take a quick look at the situation…
Violence was relatively low and trafficking went on as usual. Government steps in and violence skyrockets and trafficking goes on as usual, with government claiming victory because of violence. After many, many deaths, there is a reduction in violence (or perhaps a lull) and trafficking goes on as usual, and government claims victory.
The laws of supply and demand are unavoidable. The governments of Mexico and the United States may capture or kill cartel leaders, they may fracture cartels into smaller groups, they may instigate infighting within the traffickers, but they will not, cannot win the drug war any more than they can repeal the laws of gravity.

Time Magazine gives very nice play to the drug decriminalization in Portugal, thanks to this excellent article by the always outstanding Maia Szalavitz.
Glenn Greenwald points out the value of the article in Time at his Salon blog, and then hits us with this paragraph:

Few political orthodoxies have more of a destructive impact than our approach to drug policy. Our harsh criminalization framework results in the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of American citizens, breaks up families, burns tens of billions of dollars every year, erodes civil liberties, turns our police forces into para-military units, and spawns massive levels of violence and criminality — all while exacerbating the very harms it seeks to address. If a measured, rational debate over America’s extremist drug policies can take place in Time Magazine, then it can take place anywhere.

Nice.
…
by the way, if any of you noted the assumptions made by Kleiman and Reuter in the Time article, Greenwald reacts in the comments to his post:

do you see any value in following up w/ these people re their assertions?

Peter Reuter was at my event to comment, so I had ample time to criticize what he said. Mark Kleinman emailed me once about something I wrote and had a major outburst, expressing all sorts of hostility – I’m not saying that motivated him to dismiss the relevance of Portugal, but I am going to write and demand specifics.
I find it so shallow and vapid when people say: “We can’t look to what happened in that country because there are cultural differences and size differences” without being specific — why would drug decriminalization work with a population of 10 million people but not 300 million? What, specifically, are the meaningful “cultural differences” between Portugal and the U.S. that allows decriminalization to work in the former but not the latter?
In fairness to Kleiman, he was quoted in that article and thus not necessarily able to control what was conveyed, but I am going to demand some specifics from him.

I’ll be curious to hear more.

Naturally, the recent flurry of legalization articles and stories in the media was bound to bring out the big guns of prohibition supporters, and they don’t disappoint. Here are three of biggest ones.
“bullet” John Walters: Drugs: To Legalize or Not in the Wall Street Journal.
I’ve always admired Walters for his smooth ability to lie non-stop. He’s absolutely brilliant at cherry-picking statistics to “prove” anything he wants and taking credit for anything positive that happens regardless of the reason. I had wondered if he would continue to do so after no longer required by law, but this article shows he has no intention of stopping – he revels in it.
Check out this move in the beginning of the piece:

What would America look like with twice or three times as many drug users and addicts? To answer, consider what America was like in the recent past, during the frightening epidemic of methamphetamine, so similar to the crack outbreak of the 1980s. Each was a nightmare, fueled by ready drug availability.

Beautiful. Such craft. Notice how he doesn’t state that there would be 2 or 3 times as many drug users with legalization (the evidence, after all, denies it) — he lets you assume it by asking you to imagine it. And then, think about those horrible epidemics that ravaged this country back when we legalized and regulated crack in the 80’s and meth just recently… Wait. We didn’t legalize or regulate them. Ah….
See what he did there? To the extent that these were “epidemics” (there was some media hype, after all), crack and meth were by-products of prohibition. Yes, they were caused by the war on drugs. And their reduction had little to do with a drug war victory and more to do with the natural shifting of drug use/abuse patterns.
He goes on to take credit for the paradise that is Colombia, and claims the violence in Mexico is a sign of victory as well.
He attempts to downplay the comparisons with the violence of alcohol prohibition with this:

Moreover, some of us remember that Bobby Kennedy was leading organized-crime strike forces against extremely dangerous mafia families, decades after the end of Prohibition. Just as ending Prohibition did not destroy organized crime in the U.S., legalizing drugs will not break the terrorist criminal groups in Mexico.

And the reason that Bobby Kennedy was able to do so was because we legalized alcohol and stopped that huge influx of profits (and law enforcement corruption). Legalizing drugs will not eliminate the cartels, but it will greatly reduce their power, their corrupting ability and their recruiting ability.
Walters ends with absolutely offensive, nonsensical, and un-American statement:

We can make progress faster when more of us learn that drug use and addiction can not be an expression of individual liberty in a free society.

Let’s move on to…
“bullet” Ron Brooks: Puff, Puff, Keep Drug Laws Passed at NPR.
Unlike Walters, Brooks is just a first-class moron. He’s president of the National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ Coalition, and is merely interested in pushing the drug war for personal gain. He doesn’t care to actually learn anything but just regurgitates the standard lies and talking points from other drug warriors.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that marijuana legalization is a healthy policy choice Ö physiologically, economically or socially.

See what I mean? He clearly hasn’t heard a word we’ve said.
And check out this paragraph jammed full of all the false talking points.

More than 65 percent of all teens in treatment are there for marijuana dependence, with another 11 percent in treatment for alcohol and drug dependence together, many of whom are using pot with alcohol. In another disturbing trend, hospital emergency room admissions involving marijuana tripled between 1994 and 2002 and now surpass ER admissions involving heroin. And drugged driving accidents Ö many involving marijuana Ö kill more than 8,000 and maim another 500,000 every year.

Well, let’s see.

1. Since the majority of pot smokers in treatment are there because they were referred to by criminal justice and not for dependency, what this statistic says about marijuana dependency is precisely: zero.
2. Since ER admission stats don’t limit it to drug references that caused the emergency room visit, what this statistic tells us about marijuana dangers is precisely: zero
3. Since this statistic is, well, wrong, and yet still says nothing about whether pot had any culpability in causing a fatal accident, what this statistic tells us is precisely: zero.

Thanks for playing, Ron.
I also was confused by one of the commenters on that article: Bill Robinson, supporting Brooks, said:

If you had a cow that kept jumping the fence the answer is not to tear down the fence. It is to make the fence taller.

These bad metaphors confuse me. Is marijuana use the cow and law enforcement the fence? Well, that doesn’t work, ’cause marijuana use isn’t anything like a cow, and law enforcement is more like a bunch of anvils being dropped on cows than a fence. And then I thought, maybe we’re the cows and pot is on the other side of the fence. Well, Bill Robinson has no right to fence me or any other American citizen in like a cow. We’re not your property.
Let’s move on to number 3.
“bullet” Mark Kleiman: Double Drug Trouble in Foreign Policy
Mark’s an interesting case. A schizophrenic policy wonk who wants to legalize marijuana and regularly trashes the excesses of prohibition, yet likes to verbally abuse legalizers for no reason, and supports… prohibition.
Here he does his usual schtick of dismissing anti-prohibitionists without any stated reason.

But simply substituting antiprohibitionist slogans for drug-war slogans, though it adds variety, does not give us clarity. […]
Both no-brainer “solutions” to the drug problem –“a drug-free society” and “ending the drug war” — are equally delusional. The two drug problems [drug abuse and prohibition] are both here to stay. Let’s learn to deal with that fact.

Why would I possibly want to learn to deal with the fact that something as destructive as prohibition is here to stay? That would be stupid.
As usual, he does a great job of dismantling pro-prohibition arguments

The enforcement effort also generates harm: arrest, incarceration, bribery, gunfights between enforcers and dealers. [Kleiman leaves out some of the costs of prohibition here, but still it’s a good overview.] The problem of the illicit market constitutes the second “drug problem.”
Drug warriors tend to focus narrowly on the drug abuse problem and reject any attempt to limit the harms done by trafficking and enforcement, other than by putting dealers out of business. But the logic of the market dictates that incarcerated dealers will be replaced as long as there are customers willing to pay illicit-market prices. After more than a generation of fighting this war, there is overwhelming evidence that drug-law enforcement is a weak tool at best for reducing drug consumption.

But then, what does he come up with (after, of course, eliminating regulated legalization with no reason)?

The United States could — and should — greatly de-escalate its domestic drug war, halving the number of dealers behind bars, without greatly increasing drug abuse.

Really? That’s what you’ve got? Do we just arrest half as many? How do we choose? Maybe just the black ones… (Oh, wait…) Or reduce the sentences by 50%? Or just go after the violent ones? Of course, if we legalized and regulated drugs, we could just go after the violent criminals and greatly reduce the number of dealers behind bars, without greatly increasing drug abuse. And at the same time, we’d dramatically reduce all the destructive costs of prohibition.
But apparently that’s not a serious option.

“bullet” Why wait for the feds? Iowa judge wants to know if marijuana has safe medical uses.

A Polk County judge has ruled that the Iowa Board of Pharmacy must examine whether marijuana has an accepted medical use – a decision some said could thaw the debate on its use for medical purposes in Iowa.
The ruling Thursday by District Judge Joel Novak does not legalize medical marijuana in Iowa. Instead, it requires the pharmacy board to consider whether marijuana is properly classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under state law.
“What this does is it forces the board to address medical marijuana,” said Randall Wilson, the attorney who handled the case for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

“bullet” Neal Pierce asks Decriminalization Ö rather than legalization Ö could this be the sane middle ground we need?

The myth we need to break is that the use of mind-altering drugs is really different from a whole range of activities that humans have engaged in since the dawn of time.
I’d put gambling on that list, but even more deeply entrenched are alcohol, drugs and sexual practices. All have legitimate roles; each, depending on its form and application, can be seriously abused. A mature society warns of problems but holds back on prohibition Ö and sensibly, because rules of total denial will be broken anyway.

My quick answer to Neal’s question is that decriminalization would be an acceptable first step, but not the answer. Anything that leaves the black market in full gear is unacceptable in the long term.
“bullet” Rockefeller Drug Laws officially kind-of over.

Gov. David Paterson did a ceremonial signing today in Queens today of a bill that reduces sentences for non-violent drug offenders. The legislation, which was passed as part of the 2009-10 state budget early this month, gives judges total discretion to divert non-violent addicts to drug treatment, and it expands the state‰s treatment programs.
‹This is a proud day for me and so many of my colleagues who have fought for so long to overhaul the drug laws and restore judicial discretion in narcotics cases,Š Paterson said at Elmcor Youth and Adult Activities Inc., a state Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services-funded drug-treatment center. ‹For years, thousands of New Yorkers have spoken out against the Rockefeller Drug Laws.Š

“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

A must read by Steven B. Duke in the Wall Street Journal

Also hopeless is the notion — now believed by almost no one — that we can keep the drugs from coming into this country and thereby cut off the traffickers’ major market. If we could effectively interdict smuggling through any of our 300-plus official border crossing points across the country and if we eventually build that fence along our entire border with Mexico — 1,933 miles long — experience strongly suggests that the smugglers will get through it or over it. If not, they will tunnel under or fly over it. And there is always our 12,383 miles of virtually unguarded coastline. […]
We can try to deal with the Mexican murderers as we first dealt with Al Capone and his minions, or we can apply the lessons we learned from alcohol prohibition and finish dismantling the destructive prohibition experiment. We should begin by decriminalizing marijuana now.

Mary Ann Akers in the Washington Post has a nice little feature on Howard Wooldridge’s work as a LEAP lobbyist, which includes this video: