Drug WarRant

From liberal blogs:
“bullet” Dave Neiwert at Crooks and Liars

the “war on drugs” is a kitchen-table issue that affects millions of Americans in their homes, especially as we watch the tremendous waste of national resources spent criminalizing people who need medical treatment, and we witness the costs to our national and personal security in the form of the raging drug war on the Mexican border. […]
At what point will we finally wake up and recognize the high cost of an ineffectual drug policy maintained purely out of political cowardice?
It’s understandable that Obama wants to keep his eye on the ball and not let his agenda get derailed by a national argument about drugs. But dealing intelligently and effectively with drugs in the end is part of that economic and national-security picture too — perhaps not as big a driver as health care or energy, but it plays a role. The president would be wise to heed his own words about listening to what people outside the Beltway are actually saying to him.

“bullet” DDay at Hullabaloo

…while I didn’t see it, the President apparently snickered, along with his snickering staff, made a crack like “This is a very popular question to you online folks,” (did he mime taking a hit off a doobie at this point?) and then categorically said no, that it wouldn’t grow the economy, and moved on. Thus insulting the audience about their very popular question and giving it little respect.
There are two issues here. First, legalization actually does deserve a serious response. You don’t have to agree with it – I’m not certain that I do – but you ought to engage with it. The war on drugs has utterly failed, so it’s not like the status quo is any less silly. But the second issue is even more damaging. Obama’s Administration wants to bypass the media filter and open the tools of communication to a much larger community. And then a non-Village approved question gets asked and he snickers about it? For a real community interaction to work there has to be a certain level of respect, and that was apparently sorely lacking. […]
In Washington, every day is Punch a Hippie Day.

“bullet” TalkLeft

No surprise here, except for those who perhaps expected something different

“bullet” From live comments at Daily Kos

But did he have to be so…. Amused with it? I’m sorry, I understand that it’s marijuana, ha ha funny funny…but it was a serious question asked by a lot of people and I really think it deserved just as serious of an answer as the rest of them did.
I don’t have a real opinion either way (lean towards legalization, but no real dog in the fight…) but it was a JARRING difference from how he approached all the other questions. […]
Well, they chose a question that could be used to dismiss all the others; the actual question presented was about economics.
I found the use of this particular question, and using it as a mechanism – an excuse to laugh off serious questions about the myriad of issues about pot – to be very disingenuous. […]
I have to agree, I thought Obama was a little above that. But he’s in a position where he chooses not to be brave on this issue. Perhaps at the next townhall, after he sees some of our feedback, he will address it differently.

“bullet” Jim Gilliam, Huffington Post

Pot saved my life. […]
The President will be asked this question again, and maybe next time he won’t laugh at us.

“bullet” Sam Stein, Huffington Post

Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), said in response:
“Despite the president’s flippant comments today, the grievous harms of marijuana prohibition are no laughing matter. Certainly, the 800,000 people arrested last year on marijuana charges find nothing funny about it, nor do the millions of Americans struggling in this sluggish economy….”

“bullet” Dan Sweeney, Huffington Post

Barack Obama can certainly be against legalization, but he owes it to nonviolent drug offenders caught in the horror show that is the U.S. prison system, the families of innocent victims of the Mexican drug wars and economically bloodied U.S. taxpayers to explain why. Ganja may cause the giggles, but legalization shouldn’t be a laughing matter. And it certainly shouldn’t be treated as cavalierly as it has by the current administration, especially when it has been proven to be a popular issue every time Obama has tried to go straight to the people.

“bullet” Via Hullabaloo, excerpts from live-blogging at TechPresident:

[Comment From Karen] Not sure making fun of the “online audience” for asking is the best way to have handled that.
[Comment From Josh] Probably not, he turned the question into a joke […]
Matthew Burton: Josh is right. There will be blowback from this.
[Comment From Karen] Now how many million people feel that they weren’t taken seriously? Frustrating. […]
Matthew Burton: He made it even more likely that the most popular questions in future town halls will be about marijuana
[Comment From Josh] The fact that he made light of one of the most popular questions being asked does not say a whole lot for mr. obama
Joan McCarter: It was a simplistic response on the pot question, particularly in light of the border violence that Napolitano talked about yesterday. There’s a connection he could have drawn to give a serious answer.

… and a conservative:
“bullet” Andrew Sullivan

Obama’s Pathetic Pot Answer. The chuckle suggests a man of his generation. The dismissiveness toward the question of ending Prohibition as both a good in itself and a form of tax revenue is, however, depressing. His answer was a non-answer. I’m tired of having the Prohibition issue treated as if it’s trivial or a joke. It is neither. It is about freedom and it’s deadly serious. As for your online audience, Mr president, have you forgotten who got you elected?

… and a media response:
“bullet” Chris Selley in the National Post

In other words: get a job, ya bunch of hippies. He couldn‰t really have sounded any more condescending unless he‰d thanked contributors, complete with air quotes, for their ‹groovyŠ questions. I‰m sure the audience would have lapped it up.
Now, admittedly, the President might well be right about what legalization would do for the economy. Imagine all the out-of-work drug enforcement workers, prison guards and support staff, the mass suicides from correctional industry lobbyists, and the tens of thousands of newly released inmates thrust into an already terrible job market. But that‰s hardly the point he was trying to make. Rather, he was aiming for laughs.

I’m sure there are plenty of others out there I missed.
So when will we be getting that apology?

At today’s Town Hall, Obama acknowledged that a whole lot of folks voted marijuana questions to the top (once again).

The query, which received more than three million votes, was: “With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?”
Obama actually interrupted the M.C of the event — Jared Bernstein, chief economist to the Vice President — in order to tackle the topic. He kept his answer brief.
“There was one question that voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation,” he said. “And I don’t know what this says about the online audience, but … this was a popular question. We want to make sure it’s answered. The answer is no, I don’t think that’s a good strategy to grow our economy. All right.”
Responded Bernstein: “Thank you for clearing that up.”

This approach is, of course, the traditional political approach — don’t want to actually dignify the legalization question or you’ll be considered fringe.
But times are changing. Perhaps we can make that no longer true. Wouldn’t it be great if we could make enough people care about this subject that when a President denigrated a popular viewpoint in this way, the uproar would require him to apologize the next day?
We need to continue increasing our power from the ground up.

Illinois: Approved yesterday by the Senate Public Health Committee. It’ll be debated next week in the full Senate.
Minnesota Approved by the House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee on Tuesday, which sends it to the Finance Committee.
New Hampshire Passed by the New Hampshire House (234-138). It goes to the Senate next.

Link

Authorities said a 63-year-old man suspected of drunken driving crashed his pickup truck into a neighbor’s house, leaving a gaping hole and revealing a small marijuana farm inside.
San Diego police got a search warrant after the Sunday afternoon crash and confiscated more than 20 pot plants from the house.

Sad in so many ways.
The story gives no details, but I’d like to know who got in more trouble with the authorities:

1. The drunk driver who ruined someone’s house.
2. The peaceful homeowner who didn’t hurt anyone, but had his house ruined.

And one nit to pick. Pot farm? Really? 20 tomato plants isn’t a tomato farm. It’s a garden. 20 trees isn’t a tree farm.

[post revised and updated]
Emmalyn’s California Cannabis Clinic at 1597 Howard Street in San Francisco.
SSDP’s Micah Daigle was on the scene and reported that all the local press were there. (Protesters were there as well.) Micah also reported that the DEA agents went in with a sledgehammer and crobar, so they certainly weren’t there to talk.
Later, DEA agents carried out tubs of marijuana and loaded it into a van.
Note: Keep in mind that, if the dispensary was violating state law, or violating other federal laws, then this would not theoretically be any kind of repudiation of Holder’s clear position to let state laws in medical marijuana occur without DEA interference.
Thanks to Tom Angell in comments:
Quote from the DEA

“The documents relating to today’s enforcement operation remain under court seal. Based on our investigation we believe there are not only violations of federal law, but state law as well. As of now we are prohibited from releasing further details of the case. Items of evidentiary value were seized and no arrests have been made. The investigation is currently ongoing,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Anthony D. Williams in a written statement.

There’s also some video at that link.
Regardless of whether the dispensary was violating state law, this is extremely stupid.
Having federal agents (all marked “DEA” and “Federal Agent”) bust a dispensary is politically tone-deaf. A smart person in the Justice Department right now would say, regardless of the potential laws being broken, “if it’s a dispensary, send only the state cops. We don’t want people seeing the DEA logo at a dispensary.”
However, we didn’t even see any state or local cops.
I mean, really. Are the state cops that incompetent, that they can’t bust a dispensary by themselves if state laws are being broken?
Someone needs to be asking the state police why they are perceived as so incompetent by the feds that they’re unable to enforce their own laws.

New York Times

‹Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,Š [Hillary Clinton] said, using unusually blunt language. ‹Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.Š […]
She came bearing a new White House initiative, announced Tuesday, to deploy 450 law enforcement officers, and new equipment, along the border.
For instance, Mrs. Clinton said, the United States will help supply Mexican law enforcement officers with helicopters and night-vision goggles and other equipment to take on the cartels, which are armed to the teeth.
‹We‰ve got to figure out how to stop these bad guys,Š she said. ‹These criminals are outgunning the law enforcement officials.Š

BBC

“These aircraft will help Mexican police respond aggressively and successfully to the threats coming from the cartels,” she said. […]
[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano told the BBC on Wednesday that there had been a significant escalation of violence in Mexico, in part because of US efforts to clamp down on trafficking routes.
But, she said: “The most important thing is that the federal government of Mexico is now battling these cartels, and they weren’t in the past. And as a result the violence between the cartels and the government of Mexico has really increased.”

NY Times:

[Clinton] mentioned the litany of failed efforts, going back to First Lady Nancy Reagan‰s ‹Just Say NoŠ campaign. She talked about a shortage of drug treatment centers. And she said a lack of health insurance prevented many drug addicts from getting proper treatment.
‹Clearly what we have been doing has not worked,Š she said. ‹It is unfair for our incapacity to have effective polices that will either better interdict drug traffic or lower demand for the illegal drugs, or intercept the weapons, to be creating a situation where people are holding Mexican government and people responsible.Š

Sigh…
No. I don’t expect our government to have the political will at this time to step up and say that it’s prohibition that causes all this grief.
Conservatives blame the druggies. Liberals blame themselves for their failure to come up with the right programs to stop the druggies.
But the druggies don’t exist. Oh, sure, there are people who use and people who abuse drugs, and individually you can interact with them.
But the concept of “the druggies” that is in the mind of the politician is a fantasy. It’s the notion of a limited and specific set of players that can be targeted, appealed to, cured, and/or apprehended. Total nonsense.
Drug use is. You can’t appeal to it, arrest it, or treat it. You may as well try to stop the rain.
So while these politicians think that they’re dealing with “the druggies,” they’re actually battling the laws of economics, which are no more amenable to their pleas, threats, or interventions than the law of gravity is to a request to keep the rain from falling.
So yes, we’re sending helicopters to battle… what?

Well, that’s something, at least…

LIMA, Ohio – In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of a Lima woman by a police sergeant, community members agreed the police department needed to get back to talking to residents and getting to know the neighborhoods it patrols.
To that end, all 80 sworn officers and 25 civilian employees at the Lima Police Department are undergoing eight hours of training this week in community-oriented policing.

Link

I’ve got a huge presentation to prepare by Wednesday morning, so I have no time to blog, but here are a couple of things to discuss…
“bullet” Charlie Lynch’s sentencing has been postponed

U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu asked prosecutors for a written response from the Justice Department about its position on medical marijuana prosecutions in light of recent comments from Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.

“bullet” Marijuana legalization bills have been introduced in Massachusetts. That’ll be interesting.
“bullet” Fascinating article about the history of cocaine at infozine in a review of Paul Gootenberg’s new book: Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug
“bullet” Since I don’t have time today to debunk these, take a stab at it yourself:

1. Byran Myrick in the Seattle Conservative Examiner: Former Seattle Police Chief Stamper proposes radical legalization of ‘all’ drugs
   

   Even if the government could resist the temptation to perpetuate a drug market to put funds in the public coffer, it would still be in the business of violating a code that doctors live under and which should be adopted as the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the U.S Constitution: ‹Do no harm.Š

   According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy‰s 2004 report on the economic costs of drug abuse in the United States, (the full report can be accessed here) the costs in terms of health care and lost productivity resulting from drug abuse was more than $180 billion in 2002. It would be foolish to expect those costs to disappear due to legalization. It might be wiser to assume their increase.

   The reasons for and against legalization often seem more like constructs that are used to defend purely moral arguments in which the rules of evidence and debate do not suffice. In this way, Stamper‰s proposal seems to suggest an amoral approach toward drugs at best, or an embrace of their effects at worst. As a society we have, by and large, recognized that drugs an intrinsically destructive force. For now, I am confident that moral clarity will be enough to halt efforts like Stamper‰s in their tracks.

2. Barrett Duke in the Baptist Press: Legalizing marijuana incrementally (Note: this article is also available at opposing views where it’s possible to comment.)
   

   The last shoe to drop will be the legalization of marijuana distribution for recreational purposes. As marijuana use becomes part of the culture, we can expect to see a movement toward decriminalization of all marijuana use and distribution. If marijuana is decriminalized, we will see the rise of every kind of drug related problem, from performance impairment to family disruption to addiction to crime to premature death. This is not the kind of change America needs. What we need is the enforcement of laws that protect the vulnerable and that help all Americans achieve their greatest potential. What we don’t need are more threats to that goal.

   Medicinal marijuana is a threat to our nation’s wellbeing and health, not a prescription for a better life. The Obama administration has just made life more difficult for many of our fellow citizens and threatened the future of many millions more.

Have at it.
Oh, and a note: Absolutely no name calling against other commenters in the comments. And that means, if necessary, turn the other cheek. Come on, guys, you know better. I really have better things to do than play den mother. Thanks.

The notion of change in the air just won’t go away… and it’s great.
An excellent article in the Toronto Star: A Fresh Approach

Could this be Armistice Day for America’s decades-long war on drugs? Not quite. Not yet, at least.
But the new government’s reversal of the Bush-era’s zero-tolerance on pot comes amid a confluence of signals that America may be nearing a turning point in its approach to prohibition. Exit “reefer madness” and enter a more reasoned debate on what works…

Regardless of the specific points (economy, medical marijuana ruling, Mexico, etc.) that seem to be driving it, there is no doubt that there is a new perception developing that actual public dialog about alternatives to prohibition is not only allowable, but overdue.
And it’s about time.

“This awful reality is forcing us toward a debate that for the past couple of decades we just couldn’t have because America’s official drug policy was controlled by wild-eyed ideologues,” said Dan Bernath, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington-based reform lobby group.
“But attitudes toward marijuana law reform have changed, even if policy hasn’t. The opposition today is dwindling down to an ideological fringe rooted in a cultural war that doesn’t really matter to people any more….”

Of course, Dan’s using a good device there, but it’s true.
Remember when people used to refer to us as the wild-eyed ideological fringe?
Times sure have changed. And it’s becoming obvious all over the place that times have changed. Check out this comment from J. D. Tuccille in the Examiner: Public more sophisticated than politicians on marijuana legalization.

After Ammiano introduced his bill, CNN held an online poll and solicited phone and email comments on the legalization proposal. Online polls can be easily gamed, so the 95% vote in favor of legal pot is less impressive than it might seem. What is impressive, though, is that many of the comments made by the public were a lot more sophisticated than the simple-minded anti-drug rantings that usually emanate from the political class. [emphasis added]

That’s you guys. It’s all of us out there who have refused to give in to the propaganda, learned the truth and become more knowledgeable than the opposition. The old stereotypes are in the trash. The new ones are pretty unflattering to the drug warriors.
Back to the Star article, Glenn Greenwald agrees that:

“I do believe the space is opening up now to debate the issue based on empirical analysis, based on what works and what doesn’t. “

And that’s all we’ve wanted. The honest debate.
Greenwald also notes, though, that while this is our time, it won’t be easy…

“The emotion surrounding America’s drug war is very deeply entrenched, and the irrationality that has sustained it for so long is very difficult to uproot. I truly believe the unquestioned premise š that changing the laws will create a spike in usage š is a myth. But even as attitudes change, myths take time to break down,” he said. […]
“There may be few more grotesque wastes of money than the drug war. But the industries that have sprung up around it are enormous and lucrative and powerful,” he said.
“Decriminalization would be a huge blow to the American prison industry, which is the largest in the world. Lots of defence companies and paramilitary firms would suffer greatly. They all have a strong interest in maintaining the drug war and they will not just go quietly.”

Interesting times. Tough battles ahead, but we’ve come a long way.

Mark Kleiman, despite his support for prohibition in many forms, has, for quite some time, advocated limited legalization of marijuana, on a “grow-your-own” plan. Here’s one mention of it from earlier this year:

So I continue to favor a “grow your own” policy, under which it would be legal to grow, possess, and use cannabis and to give it away, but illegal to sell it. Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales. But there wouldn’t be billboards.
That beautifully-crafted policy has only two major defects that I’m aware of: it wouldn’t create tax revenue, and no one but me* supports it.

It wasn’t the only defect (at least in my opinion). I have always felt that a grow-your-own-only plan was problematic in that only a very small portion of the population would grow their own (either from the position of ability or desire).
Additionally, something that isn’t discussed enough is that marijuana is (and should be) a connoisseur drug, much like certain kinds of alcohol. For example, I have The Balvenie 10-Year single malt scotch for those peaceful evenings when I want honey-smooth relaxation, and I have Lagavulin 16-Year for those bold nights when drinking a campfire stirs my blood.
Cannabis has the potential for working in the same way. Some strains are perfect for watching a funny movie, while others are great for a hike in the woods, or for an evening talking with friends. This cannabis connoisseur approach should be encouraged as it tends toward more responsible use than the marijuana equivalent of binge drinking that is the natural tendency under prohibition.
Just as it is impractical for me to bottle my own Balvenie and Lagavulin, it is impractical for the grow-your own plan to allow for the cannabis connoisseur.
So there clearly needs to be some public sale method, as I indicated in my response to Mark in the comments of this post, when he challenged me to actually propose a legalized option.
Knowing his concerns about commercialization (concerns that bother me much less than him, but I am willing to also look at options that would avoid commercialization), I proposed a legal variation of the Amsterdam model:

Marijuana: Legal to grow non-commercially (no sales, but you can give it away). Also sold to the public through “coffee shops,” which are licensed to sell and to contract with growers. Call it the Amsterdam/Starbucks model, where coffee shops can advertise, but brand names cannot. (That stops the Philip Morris model from emerging.) Something more than a grow-your-own is necessary to stop significant black market, since most people will not grow their own. Any level of taxation works as long as they keep pot cheaper than it is now. Regulation should be in the form of insuring that there are no additives and that the production meets basic safety (ie, no mold, etc.)

I don’t know if Mark read my response to his challenge or not, but he has now shifted his marijuana legalization position in Second thoughts on “grow your own” pot

This idea [the original grow-your-own] runs into two reasonable objections: It’s a bad idea to have one more law that is routinely broken and which can be enforced in an arbitrary way, and it would be an inconvenience to cannabis-smokers not to be have access to professionally-grown material. For example, an open market might lead to labeling various products according to the amounts and ratios of the several different psychoactive chemicals in cannabis. A less potent objection is that if there are no sales there can be no revenue to the government.

Good points. His solution?

That then suggests yet another option: in addition to allowing production for one’s own use or for gift, perhaps the law could allow the formation of consumer-owned co-operatives, limited in size, barred from advertising and from selling other than by mail-order. Each co-op would be required to produce its own material rather than buying it from manufacturers or wholesalers. That system would provide much though not all of the convenience, choice, and potential tax revenue of the alcohol model, without creating an another addiction-promotion industry.

This is definitely a step in the right direction. Certainly far superior to the grow-your-own-only model (and infinitely better than prohibition), although personally I believe that it’s overly cautious.
I’m not sure I understand why mail order only, and I’d be interested in knowing the reasoning. I don’t know what dangers are introduced by being able to see and smell your item before purchasing it.
And I’m uncertain about the restriction requiring the coop to sell only what they grow. I’m assuming that there could be some distribution of seeds etc. to allow popular strains to be available in different locations, and today’s indoor farming techniques probably make it possible for a coop to provide quite a variety. Additionally, mail order would make it possible for additional cannabis connoisseur approaches (ie, one particular coop specializes in a particularly unique strain.)
It’s certainly interesting. I like my coffee shop plan better, but if Mark’s idea was the one actually looking possible to happen, I’d be happy to get behind it.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had some kind of mechanism in our country to try out different ideas? You know, if there were some sub-categories within the country (maybe like 50 different regional areas) with their own sub governments and laws, where you could try something in one of them, and try something else in another one and see which one works better? That sure would be useful.
…
Several readers have suggested that we should put together a collection of legalization options, so I have started the process at LegalizationFacts.com/options. Over the next couple of weeks I plan to collect the suggestions I’ve given, along with those from other sources (and there are quite a few) and putting them all up there along with pros and cons of each one.
I could use your help. Send me links or references to other proposals for legalization schemes. Even if you think it’s unworkable (in which case, let me know why).