Drug WarRant

“bullet” Great headline: Christ to speak on war on drugs tonight [Thanks, Micah]
“bullet” Great editorial: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot

Interestingly, it’s not just the dope smokers in the park calling for legalized marijuana use. Conservative, progressive and libertarian intellectuals alike have argued that we ought to legalize marijuana. The Post’s editorial board has long called for an end to the war on pot.
Our opinion meshes, in this instance, with that of the late conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr., who once argued that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children.”

“bullet” Great data: Plan Colombia and Beyond: A compendium of drug-war statistics
Clear evidence that our efforts to stamp out cocaine in Colombia and the Andes has been a colossal waste and failure.
WOLA has more in this report by John Walsh

Reducing the availability of drugs like cocaine has been a perennial goal of U.S. drug policy, in hopes that higher prices and lower purity would translate into less consumption. But since the early 1980s, cocaine prices have been falling, not rising, according to two comprehensive analyses, one from 2004 and the other from 2008. The 2008 study, which was recently made public by the Obama administration, shows that U.S. cocaine prices continued to fall through 2007, while purity remained high. The new data undermine well-publicized claims by George W. Bush administration officials that supply disruptions had achieved unprecedented cocaine shortages in the United States.

NPR’s John Burnett does a bizarre speculative piece: What If Marijuana Were Legal? Possible Outcomes. In it, they attempt to envisage the U.S. two years after marijuana’s legalization.
Radley Balko says that it might be the worst NPR piece he’s ever seen. And Bruce Mirken’s fisk of the story was passed on to the reporter.
Here’s an example of the ridiculous nature of the piece:

Since the prohibition on cannabis ended, has it delivered the results its supporters claimed it would? […]
Now that it’s cultivated domestically and sold legally, surely that has crippled the cartels? […]
[Robert] Almonte, director of the Texas Narcotic Officer’s Association, says all cannabis legalization has done is force the drug mafias to improvise.
“As far as marijuana is concerned, they have been selling it less expensive than what it can sell for here in the United States,” Almonte says. “But more importantly, we’re seeing a more potent marijuana. And with that we’re seeing á an increase in the emergency room admissions.”

Now I like imagining things, and I think I’ve got a pretty good imagination. I also understand that we can’t know all the details about what will happen for sure with legalization.
But imagining the future isn’t just about pulling random things out of your ass. You can use logic and current knowledge to at least eliminate some of the more ridiculously stupid assumptions, and yet Burnett swallows Almonte’s nonsense uncritically.
Emergency room admissions up from marijuana?
Legalization causing increased potency?
Cartels selling marijuana cheaper than we can sell it for in the United States?
Really?
Did none of this smell just a little bit… off… to Burnett?
Couldn’t he take just one moment to think through the idea of cartels attempting to smuggle drugs into the United States and undercutting legal sales? Or perhaps explain why Mexican bootleg alcohol isn’t dramatically undercutting alcohol sales in the U.S. Are there dealers on street corners offering Mexican cigarettes for $1.50 a pack?
You know, it really is amazing how often we hear the nonsense that cartels will be relatively unaffected. I do understand that there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. Despite all the logic and facts we present about how legalization will cripple the income for cartels and drug gangs, people simply don’t want to believe that it will actually work.
Why? For one thing, they’d have to face the fact that all of the violence, death and destruction was easily avoidable.
There’s a second reason. They really want to be able to show off their dicks by physically beating up an enemy. Destroying the cartels by cutting off their business is extremely unsatisfying from a war perspective. You don’t get to beat them. They just go off and do other things.
So what drug war supporters hear is that we want to take away their “victory” (not that one was actually possible) while simultaneously proving that the avoidable destruction of innocents was their fault.
Uncomfortable.

This is a pretty big victory (Arizona v. Gant), and it breathes a tiny bit of air back into the 4th.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.
The court’s 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect, particularly when the alleged offense is nothing more serious than a traffic violation.

Remember, the whole point of allowing officers to search some parts of the car without a warrant was to protect them from the suspect grabbing a weapon and using it on the officers (kind of hard to do if you’re handcuffed in the back of the patrol car and your weapon is locked in the trunk). Of course, in actuality, it became nothing more than an excuse for officers to go fishing through your personal things in the hopes of finding drugs to charge you with or cash to steal.
As Stevens noted:

“Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result.”

This is interesting:

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.

I have no idea what to make of that.

Scalia said in a separate opinion that he would allow warrantless searches only to look for “evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred.” He said he joined Stevens’ opinion anyway because there otherwise would not have been a majority for that view and Alito’s desire to maintain current police practice “is the greater evil.”

Nice to see Scalia saying that the current practice is evil. Of course, if his other idea had actually been possible (only look for evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made), I can’t imagine a situation where police would ignore evidence found that didn’t fit their search parameters (Scalia sometimes seems to have unrealistic notions of what actually happens in the field — still, I’m thrilled he joined the right side in this one.)

I was caught by the title of this piece: Put the poor before pot: The consequences of legalization by Justin Guiffré, a sophomore majoring in international affairs at George Washington University.
He starts out with the obligatory 4/20 references…

Every year on April 20, college campuses across the nation become flooded with Bob Marley music and a bit more smoke than usual as students discuss the intricacies of life and debate whether or not “Dark Side of the Moon” was meant to sync with “The Wizard of Oz.”

Well, duh!
…and then suggests:

One problem that is consistently ignored by these pro-legalization proponents is that legal marijuana would likely make the world very hungry, and I’m not talking about the kind of hunger that can be solved with a trip to Mitchell Hall’s 7-Eleven.

I was really interested at this point, because I had never heard this argument before. Was he suggesting that legalization would move production to the consuming countries, thereby removing a large (albeit illegal) source of revenue to poorer countries? An intriguing, though seriously flawed, notion.
But no, his suggestion was even more bizarre.

Despite my generally liberal stance on marijuana, I am against making it legal. One of the first things that would happen after legalization would be an explosion in production of marijuana. This would likely come from producers of other crops switching over to marijuana. […]
The exchange of food crops for cash crops is already a very serious problem, one visible in the tragic spread of malnutrition and hunger in Ethiopia and Eritrea. As author William Jobin describes in his book Dams and Diseases, “malnutrition lingers as a chronic condition in the dry areas of the Horn of Africa á cotton production is a primary example of the danger of emphasis on cash crops.”

Well, first of all, we’re not getting much marijuana from the Horn of Africa these days, and I doubt seriously that would change significantly with legalization. Marijuana grows anywhere, which means that it’s not going to be tied to a geographic area, thereby driving those countries to avoid growing food crops. It’s going to mostly be grown in the consuming countries, which tend to have sufficient food crops.
If anything, legalization of drugs in general is more likely to take away drug crops from poorer countries (where the black market reigns) forcing them to grow more food crops instead.
Additionally, when it comes to marijuana, advanced techniques make it possible to grow an amazing amount in a very small space. And legalized marijuana will also mean legalized industrial hemp — an incredible source of nutrition. And there we have it – legalized marijuana means more food.

Surprisingly, this hunger issue is something that both sides of the legalization question fail to address properly. Until pro-legalization groups can come with a plan that would effectively mitigate this, I don’t see any reason to even consider legalizing marijuana. If I have to choose between smoking marijuana legally or feeding the world’s poor, I will choose the latter any day of the week, even on 4/20.

First of all, we haven’t addressed it properly because nobody asked us. It would be like chastising us for not addressing the impact of legalization on intergalactic travel — we never thought we needed to address it.

“bullet” Not-So-Secret Holiday Hints at Change for Marijuana Advocates (NY Times)

On Monday, somewhere in New York City, 420 people will gather for High Times magazine‰s annual beauty pageant, a secretly located and sold-out event that its sponsor says will ‹turn the Big Apple into the Baked Apple and help us usher in a new era of marijuana freedom in America.Š
They will not be the only ones partaking: April 20 has long been an unofficial day of celebration for marijuana fans, an occasion for campus smoke-outs, concerts and cannabis festivals. But some advocates of legal marijuana say this year‰s ‹high holidayŠ carries extra significance as they sense increasing momentum toward acceptance of the drug, either as medicine or entertainment.

“bullet” 4/20: National Pot Smokers Day by Anthony Papa

Whatever its true origin may be, 420 Day is now firmly implanted in the marijuana subculture. The true significance of this day, beyond the fact that it brings together people to celebrate the use of marijuana, is that it’s a day to explore the meaning of the freedom – or the lack thereof – to indulge in its use.

“bullet” Pot legalization favored by some to stem violence – Michael Gleeson, The Hill

A growing chorus of lawmakers is openly calling for the legalization of marijuana as a measure to stop the escalating violence along U.S.-Mexico border.
The legislators who have endorsed legalization are Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), and Ron Paul (R-Texas).
However, the chances of legalization occurring soon seem slim.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recently said that President Obama does not support the legalization of marijuana.
While a change occurring on the federal level appears remote, Paul believes that the tone of the debate is shifting.
As a result of the raising tide violence along the border, Paul said the public and Congress are beginning to ‹wake upŠ and take notice of the relationship between border violence and marijuana.

“bullet” Conservative activist: Pot needs lobbyists

Jessica Corry, the executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights initiative, said 4/20 “smoke-out” events like the one planned for Farrand Field on Monday are a good way to bring attention to the issue.
But she said people fighting marijuana prohibition also need to participate in the political process — and, she said, advocates need to show lawmakers a sober, serious side as well.
“They’re laughing at us,” she said. “The 4/20 events are fine… but let’s also get people down to the Capitol in suits.”

“bullet” Today only! Free 24-hour on-demand screening of the film “HIGH.” This is a great film, and if you haven’t had the chance to see it, here’s a great opportunity at no cost.
“bullet” First-Ever Nationwide Pro-Marijuana TV Ad Campaign Is Launched in Conjunction with ‘4/20’

I apologize for the lack of posts the past few days — every now and then all my other interests overwhelm and I just can’t keep up with what I’d like to do here.
Those only interested in drug policy should probably skip this post, but I know some readers like to hear what I do in other areas now and then.
One of the student groups I work (Theatre of Ted) with held a 4-square marathon to raise money for student scholarships. They started at 5 pm on Wednesday and finished at 9 am on Saturday – 64 straight hours for a new record. And yes, I was there the entire time, cooking for the students, sometimes playing. Then on Saturday and Sunday I slept.
I’m also helping out Illinois State University’s Improv Mafia — the current national college improv champions. Next week, they are performing a fully Improvised Musical, and I am playing the piano for it (which means, of course, that I am performing a completely improvised musical accompaniment). It’s delightful fun and quite a challenge. Performances are free (Thursday at 6 pm, Saturday at 9:30 pm, and Sunday at 4 pm) in Centennial West 202 (very limited seating).
In addition to my full-time job as Assistant to the Dean of the College of Fine Arts, I’m planning some end-of-the-year student social events and plan to be conducting a roundtable discussion at SSDP’s Hempfest on April 22.
On Monday and Tuesday, May 11/12 at 7 pm at National Pastime Theater in Chicago, I’m holding auditions for my newest Living Canvas production: “Living Canvas Nocturne,” which will be performing at that theatre in July.
So every now and then, if it seems like I’m neglecting the blog for a couple of days, there’s probably something going on.

“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Obama declares war on drugs.

“We have a responsibility as well, we have to do our part,” Obama said. He said the U.S. must crack down on drug use and the flow of weapons into Mexico. [AP]

Scott Morgan has more.

Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail

Eliot Ness couldn’t stop booze, but he would win today’s war on drugs

[…] If only our policies were actually punitive. But drug use and possession are almost entirely unpunished, which is why they carry on growing.

As for ‘prohibition‰, the drug lobby uses this expression to mislead the gullible into comparing the winnable struggle against narcotics with the doomed war against booze fought by the ‘Untouchables‰ and others in Twenties Chicago. Alcohol had been legal for centuries, part of the culture of Christian civilisation. You might as well try to make breathing illegal. But cannabis, cocaine and heroin are alien to our world, and could be driven out by firm action.

Actually, US Prohibition recognised that the cause was lost before it began. Congress never made it illegal to drink or keep alcohol, only to sell, transport or make it. Our most important drug laws are utterly unlike Prohibition because they rightly ban possession. And if our cowardly courts and bureaucratic police would only enforce the existing law, we would see a swift decline in the use of illegal drugs.

I particularly like the line: “But cannabis, cocaine and heroin are alien to our world, and could be driven out by firm action.” Right — it’s not like they just… grow in the ground or anything. They came in spaceships. We need to be firm and tell the space aliens to load up their cannabis, cocaine and heroin and take it all back to planet Druggie.
In actuality, Peter Hitchens is whole lot more alien to this world than cannabis.
In one way, I would actually like to see Peter Hitchens’ message spread further. I would like to take all the people in jail for drug offenses and put them in a room* with Hitchens and let him explain to the group that the “cowardly courts and bureaucratic police” aren’t enforcing drug laws.
That would be something to see.

In the New York Observer

It‰s rare, I‰ll admit, but occasionally a good movie raises its head through the muck and mire and leaves me grateful but shocked with disbelief. Such a movie is American Violet, a harrowing, compelling and profoundly true story that dares to tackle an important but too rarely exposed issue of the abuse of power in the American criminal justice system. […]
It‰s hard to believe this kind of discrimination and racial profiling exists today, even in Texas. But American Violet is an eye-opener on several levels. It shows why American prisons are overflowing with more than two million convicts, 90 percent of whom accepted plea bargains, in a country with 13 million convicted felons on the outside of prison walls who cannot vote, apply for passports to leave or enjoy the benefits of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies. It is also an indictment of the hypocrisy of backwoods ‹lawŠ that sanctions all-black arrests in hamlets ruled by all-white cops, scowling court-appointed lawyers and crooked judges. […]
At a time when almost every movie I see is about nothing at all, American Violet rattles a few cages with its story of personal courage against overwhelming odds. Sensational, nerve-racking stuff that leaves you shattered while it teaches you something.

Maybe this will help it get in more theaters.