Drug WarRant

“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.

It’s April 15, and apparently some people are buying bags of a different kind of tea (Pekoe, not sensi) and waving them around, or mailing them, or something, in some kind of FOXnews-run protest against taxes that don’t exist yet… and gay abortion, I think — it’s been getting kind of confusing (it seemed to start as one thing and get co-opted so many times that I’m not sure anyone knows what it means.)
Also apparently, there’s some teabagging going on, though people seem to be still learning the term.
In the meantime, there are a group of citizens that are begging the U.S. government to let them pay taxes, and, in a time of economic disaster, the government laughs at them.
So today, all they’ll get from that group is a mock check.

The ASA Lawsuit against HHS over the Data Quality Act (see Saturday’s post) was argued today in Circuit Court. ASA is, of course, asking that HHS simply not give false information about medical marijuana on their website and materials.
The government’s defense?

Justice Department lawyer Alisa Klein told the appeals court panel that the government shouldn’t be forced to defend the accuracy of “countless pieces of information” in its massive archives. U.S. Circuit Court Judge Marsha S. Berzon, an appointee of President Clinton, said the law at issue in the case was “amazing” because it did appear to require the government to correct all inaccurate statements, a result she called “troubling.”

Boy, it sure is asking a lot to want the Department of Health and Human Services of the United States Government to give out information that’s, you know, accurate.
It’s sort of like wanting NASA to use accurate numbers for computing trajectories, or asking the Treasury Department to use accurate information for assessing the health of the economy. Should we just say, “Oh, that’s too hard.”

Here’s one I’d like to hear on the radio in 2010…

It’s time for a change from the failed policies of Senator Incumbent. He voted 24 times in favor of drug laws that increase the profits for black-market criminals — from the gangs that roam the streets of our town to the drug cartels causing death and destruction in Mexico.
Senator Incumbent is actually opposed to setting age limits for drugs like marijuana — even cocaine or heroin! He actually prefers that criminals decide at what age kids can buy drugs.
Senator Incumbent refuses to even discuss policy options that have been proven to reduce violence. What is he afraid of? Does he have a reason to keep drug profits high?
It’s time for a change. Vote Challenger for Senate. For smart drug regulation that reduces violence — protecting children, families, and our community.

A criminally stupid war on drugs in the US by Clive Crook

How much misery can a policy cause before it is acknowledged as a failure and reversed? The US ‹war on drugsŠ suggests there is no upper limit. The country‰s implacable blend of prohibition and punitive criminal justice is wrong-headed in every way: immoral in principle, since it prosecutes victimless crimes, and in practice a disaster of remarkable proportions. Yet for a US politician to suggest wholesale reform of this brainless regime is still seen as an act of reckless self-harm.

Hilariously stupid article by James Osborne at FoxNews: Obama’s Effort at Online Transparency Stymied by Internet Trolls
subhead:

President Obama’s pledge to provide open dialogue on his Web site is being tested by Internet trolls — gangs of activists who try to derail discussions — and now the White House faces unique challenges as it tries to manage the posts without infringing on the right to free speech. [emphasis added]

Hmmm… maybe not strong enough. Let’s flesh it out in the first paragraph:
first paragraph:

President Obama’s pledge to open the White House up to the public through online forums faces an irksome challenge: a plague of Internet “trolls” — troublemakers who work to derail cyber-conversations through harassing and inflammatory posts.

Yeah, that’s better.

Three and a half million people participated in the event, but the “trolls” had their way: Following a coordinated campaign by marijuana advocates to vote their topic to the top of the list, questions on the future of the U.S. dollar and the rising unemployment rate were superseded by questions about legalizing pot as an economic remedy.

Osborne then goes on at length to discuss the problem of trolling in general and give specific examples in the history of the internet of trolling, before finally explaining:

While Obama’s marijuana advocates wouldn’t technically be considered trolls, who are defined by their lack of definitive positions and a simple desire for disorder, these special-interest groups do muddle the president’s message and related discourse.

So… the problem with the marijuana activists is that they’re trolls (except that they’re not) and they muddle the President’s message (except that it’s in a forum where the President is asking for the people’s ideas).
But the reason that Osborne is coming down so hard on the “trolls” is to watch out for the interests of the White House. I mean, after all…

Unlike privately run Web sites, whose managers are free to remove nettlesome material, the White House finds itself searching for a way to combat these disruptive users without infringing on their right to free speech and inciting cries of censorship.

Ah, I see, James. So how upset was the White House about this “disruption”?

[White House Spokesman:] “People were informed that this was a community-moderated system, and people should remember that even though they may not like the viewpoint behind someone’s question, everyone has a right to their opinion.”

Verdict: James Osborne, super-moron. (It’s pretty sad when you can thoroughly fisk an article with the author’s own words.)
The fact that people asked the question they most wanted answered was the whole point.
The fact that some organizations suggested that people participate is, well, perfectly normal. That’s part of activism everyday, everywhere. Every organization in existence tells their members to call the White House or write Congress about issues of importance, sometimes giving them online forms to do so easily.
Everytime I hear one of these wankers complain about marijuana activist “trolls,” I find their outrage hilarious, particularly since they have to avoid acknowledging and explaining the obvious fact that the “stoners” were more politically aware and active than other special interests.
Update: Scott Morgan helpfully explains to Osborne what a troll is.

In one of Obama’s recent online forums, I saw this question: “How many donuts can I fit on my dong?” That was a troll, and it got deleted. This is a movement, and it isn’t going away. Our issue is bigger than the organizations backing it. It didn’t win Obama’s forum because marijuana reformers know something about online organizing that other interest groups don’t. It won because it is this defining question that quickly separates petty hypocrites from bold leaders, that distinguishes self-evident truths from antiquated propaganda, and that pits common sense against the mindless drug war hysteria that maintains a frigid stranglehold on our political culture, rendering impotent the promise of change that inspired so many hopeful Americans to lay their hopes and dreams at the steps of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

First, we have the Mexican ambassador yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation calling for a discussion on marijuana legalization…

“This is a debate that needs to be taken seriously, that we have to engage in on both sides of the border: both in producing, in trafficking, and in consumption countries,” Sarukhan said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, when asked about legalization.

Now today we hear that a full national discussion is taking place.

Mexican lawmakers and experts on Monday began a first debate on the legalization of marijuana as part of a possible strategy to tackle the country’s powerful drug cartels. […]
Mexican lawmakers and experts on Monday began a first debate on the legalization of marijuana as part of a possible strategy to tackle the country’s powerful drug cartels.

Looks like our friends south of the border are doing a pretty good job with elevator arguments…
Can we use this to shame our own Congress?

Lawmakers in Mexico are looking at all options for reducing the drug war violence that is tearing apart their country. Regardless of your views on legalization, don’t we owe it to the thousands who have died to insure that every possibility has been fully considered, analyzed, and debated?