Drug WarRant

Linda Valdez has an fascinating OpEd in today’s Arizona Republic: Stem the violence, make marijuana legal

Imagine you had a really smart bomb – a genius bomb – that could blow up the leaders of every drug cartel in Mexico.
By the time the smoke cleared, a new pusher would be sitting in every cartel’s big chair and the distribution networks would continue satisfying the demand of every junkie and recreational-drug user in America. […]
Now, imagine a different weapon.
Consider the impact of eliminating the most profitable product the cartels sell.
All we have to do is legalize marijuana.

It’s a very good piece and she uses all the drug warriors’ arguments against them by simply setting up her unimpeachable premise and then quoting their usual stuff.
I love this line, of course:

You’d think a country built on capitalism would understand basic laws of supply and demand. Instead, a failed and irrational national policy blunders forward, costing billions, incarcerating large numbers of people and enriching ruthless crime syndicates.

Update: Also see Debra J. Saunders at Townhall: The Drug War Body Count. Good article, but the check out some of the ignorant commenters:
Doug writes:

It is an understatement to say that you are stupid if you believe that prohibition causes this type of violence.
The people who control this industry are not moral people. They will not simply roll over and be good little sunday school students simply because you tell them it is now legal.
They will conduct their business with the same disrespect for the law, and will laugh at your “regulators” the same way they shoot your peace officers.
Naive band of idiots.

Lolo1 says:

Doug: Well said!

Lolo1 also says:

Amazing!
I see people here honestly think that drug pushers are going to suddenly come out of the shadows and pay taxes and go legitimate.
Wanna buy a bridge?

Um, no, Lolo and Doug. Enterprising Americans will leap at the chance to make money by selling drugs legally and yes, even happily pay taxes. And then anybody who wants to sell drug on the black market will become mostly irrelevant, forced to search for new income sources. It’s really not rocket science, folks.

Who else would actually believe this crap?

On the key issue of illegal drugs–the widely recognized source of criminal power in Mexico–the Obama administration is lurching dangerously in reverse. In his first statement on drug policy, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested he may no longer enforce federal law against trafficking marijuana if the traffickers call their marijuana medical. Both U.S. and Mexican officials at all levels know that medical marijuana is an utter fraud used to undermine drug enforcement in the United States. Mexican officials also know (as does the Justice Department) that much of the marijuana sold in the “dispensaries” of California funds the mafias of Mexico.

Marijuana sales are the single largest source of drug profits for these criminals–on top of funds from kidnapping, protection rackets, alien smuggling, and car theft. Not enforcing our marijuana laws makes these terrorists stronger. Pretending to take legalization seriously makes them stronger still. What do we think the brave officers risking their lives in Mexico feel when our attorney general sounds like he is going to do less to help? Is it too much to expect him to make clear that enforcing our marijuana laws reduces addiction here and saves lives in Mexico?

John Walters has got a lot of experience outright lying, using creative ways to combine totally unrelated things to imply a relationship, and just blatantly attempting to claim that outcomes of prohibition are really outcomes of legalization.
But this is a high point even for him. Rarely do you see such a jam-packed couple of paragraphs — full of fear-mongering, lies, and multiple types of fallacies perfectly demonstrated.

Radley Balko’s been covering the case of Derek Copp, a Grand Rapids student who was shot in the chest by a cop during a drug raid. The police still won’t release whether any drugs were found or, as Radley puts it “why one deputy felt the need to shoot the guy.” (They have admitted that Copp was unarmed and that there was no confrontation.)
So it seems, based on available facts, we’re talking about a student who possibly smokes some pot, and may not even sell any, and an armed drug raid that involved shooting an unarmed young man in the chest who was raising his arm to cover his eyes from the flashlights shining in his eyes.
Unfortunately, as we all know, this kind of thing is all too common (and Copp is lucky to be alive).
Here’s the bizarre thing: Guess what the Grand Rapids News decided was relevant and important to investigate?

Copp, 20, declares himself a “left wing hippie peace-keeping liberal,” on his Facebook page, which frequently quotes Grateful Dead lyrics and highlights his other favorite items. Among the listings:
Ý Copp lists SMOKA DA BOLSKI as an interest.
Ý Groups Copp has joined include “Vote ‘Yes’ for Medical Marijuana in Michigan” and LEGALIZATION.
Ý His preferred movies include drug diaries “Bongwater,” “How High,” and “Drugstore Cowboy” in addition to Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino flicks.
Ý Favored quotes are: “Give peace a chance,” and “Life isn’t like a bowl of cherries or peaches, it’s more like a jar of Jalapenos — what you do today, might burn your — tomorrow …”

Really? That’s what’s important?

It’s something we hear quite often, but of course it just isn’t true.

For more than five years, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Lt. Barbara Ferguson has been helping the men and women of the department protect the public.
But instead of a gun and badge, Ferguson relies on her powers of persuasion as she maneuvers through the state Capitol and the halls of Congress in Washington, D.C., serving as the Sheriff’s Department’s legislative liaison. The High Desert resident lobbies legislators to help pass or defeat bills that affect public safety and the Sheriff’s Department. [..]
Ferguson is not only instrumental in lobbying for the passage of bills but also for the defeat of bills that will hinder the ability of law enforcement to keep communities safe.
“There is currently legislation that will attempt to legalize the use and cultivation of marijuana, and we are opposed to that,” she said, adding that marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead to other harder drugs. “We have a big fight on our hands with that.”

Translation: Our marijuana prohibition laws cause criminal activity and make the public less safe. They also damage our relationship and trust with the public, making it harder to keep the public safe. But prohibition laws give us more power and more money, so we’ll keep lobbying for them.

I saw Martha Clarke’s Garden of Earthly Delights last night at the Minetta Lane Theatre. Stunning. Now I’m off to take my train trip home and will be out of touch until Sunday night.
“bullet” Rob Kampia will be appearing on a program about marijuana hosted by Al Roker on MSNBC on Sunday at 10 pm. I have no idea what you should expect on that one, but boy, it seems that everyone wants to talk about it now!
“bullet” Did anyone see the John Stossel special last night? I haven’t heard anything about it yet.
Update: Here’s the video:

Glenn has been a strong supporter of drug policy reform for some time, and I even helped write a guest post on reform at his site several years ago.
But he’s had a lot of other things on his plate and his support recently has been in the area of fighting against authoritarian government approaches to rights (which certainly impacts drug policy).
However, now Glenn is using his knowledge of Portugal to provide perspective on our own drug policies.

In 2001, Portugal became the only EU-member state to decriminalize drugs, a distinction which continues through to the present. Last year, working with the Cato Institute, I went to that country in order to research the effects of the decriminalization law (which applies to all substances, including cocaine and heroin) and to interview both Portuguese and EU drug policy officials and analysts (the central EU drug policy monitoring agency is, by coincidence, based in Lisbon). Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense. […]
There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the “War on Drugs,” are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address. “Strictly on empirical grounds” means excluding from the assessment: (a) ideological questions regarding the legitimacy of imprisoning adults for consuming drugs they choose to consume; (b) the evisceration of Constitutional and civil liberties wrought by drug criminalization; and (c) the extraordinary sums of money devoted to the War on Drugs both domestically and internationally.

Instead of just delivering his report, Glenn will be presenting it at CATO and participating in a sort of debate about it…

On April 3, at 12:00 noon, at the Cato Institute in Washington, I’ll be presenting the 50-page report I wrote for Cato, entitled Drug Decriminalization in Portugal. Following my presentation, a supporter of drug criminalization laws — Peter Reuter, a Professor in the University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology — will comment on the report (and I’ll be able to comment after that), and then there will be a Q-and-A session with the audience. The event is open to the public and free of charge. Details and registration are here at Cato’s site, where the event can also be watched live online (and, possibly, on C-SPAN).

These are the discussions we need to be having. Great to have Greenwald in the game.

This was a last minute deal no advance notice to speak of…
Here’s a transcript of Friday night’s debate between Ron Paul and Stephen Baldwin on legalization.

So I was looking out the window at one point last night and saw a guy walk by, and I exclaimed “Hey, there’s a guy walking by with a cat on his head!” and the person I was talking to, without looking up, said “Yeah, I hate that guy.” And I remembered I was in New York.
I saw “Hair” last night on Broadway. It’s in previews and I think it’s just about 95% there. Really good show. Had the entire audience on their feet clapping and singing at the end, with about a hundred audience members on stage (and I’ve still got those tunes going through my head).
“Hair,” of course, was about the counter-culture in the 60’s and the show’s message of peace, love, and psychedelic drugs was controversial then — much less-so now. It’s time for “Hair” again – not only as an historical piece, but as an opportunity for a new affirmation. I loved seeing the audience — multiple generations, from those who may have seen it when it first opened in 1967, to the 10-year-old kid brought by his mother. There were teenagers with flowers in their hair as well as folks with white hair or no hair. And nobody had any trouble with the nudity or the pot smoking. Of course, while the nudity was real, the pot smoking was fake (stage cigarettes for the cast) and I did have a couple of moments when I realized that this would be an amazing show to watch while high, and I thought about the fact that you can drink a six-pack and go enjoy a sporting event, but you can’t smoke a joint and go watch a musical. Why?
“bullet” There really is a buzz in the air. Legalizers are being kept busy. LEAP’s Howard Wooldridge debates Ron Brooks on Al Jazeera (some audio problems)

“bullet” Drug Czar Appointed, Makes Ridiculous Remark

For too long, we have operated, as the Vice President said, in silence when it comes to making our country drug free and reducing the demand for drugs.

“bullet” Time Magazine: Can Marijuana Help Rescue California’s Economy? Halfway decent article, but Joel W. Hay is a real moron:

Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. “Marijuana is a drug that clouds people’s judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties,” says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. “It’s one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they’ve caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities.” He adds: “There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can’t, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones.”

What a load of crap. I guess Joel’s OK with people getting killed in the streets, then, and drug gangs getting rich. He doesn’t mind that as long as we’re able to jail people who get high responsibly.
“bullet” “drcnet”

Thanks to daksya in comments for the head up. Noon today, Eastern time, on CNN Mark Kleiman will be debating somebody from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition on drug legalization.
Mark has already charted the course of the debate, including what his opponent’s arguments will be. Oddly, he seems, in my mind, to be conceding before the debate begins.
Mark says the LEAP rep will (parenthetical responses are Mark’s):

1. Assert that prohibition results in violent drug markets that wouldn’t exist under legalization. (True.)
2. Point out that Mexico and Afghanistan are suffering badly from the drug war, in ways that threaten U.S. national security. (True.)

Well, if they agree on the big points, then what’s left?

3. Claim that since “anyone who wants drugs can get drugs now,” legalization wouldn’t increase consumption, or that if it did increase consumption it wouldn’t increase abuse. (Ludicrously false, as the example of alcohol illustrates.)
4. Claim that legalization would reduce access for kids by limiting the supply to legal an therefore regulated channels. (Ludicrously false, as the example of alcohol illustrates.)

You see, Mark has this bizarre notion, totally unsupported by any facts, that everything is alcohol. That somehow, any new legalized substance will automatically reach the societal use/abuse level of alcohol, and do so without affecting the levels of alcohol use/abuse.
This is nonsense.
Alcohol is one drug. Heroin is another. Cocaine is another. Marijuana is another. Each has its own profiles for use and they’re different. Even alcohol has differences of use/abuse within itself (compare beer to single-malt scotch, for example). There is also substitution that occurs when legal status changes. Some alcohol users may switch to cocaine, some to marijuana. Sure, there will be shifts, and some drugs will see increased use/abuse, while alcohol may see decreased use/abuse all depending on a host of factors.
But in general, those who are likely to abuse drugs (whether due to psychological, financial, genetic or other factors) are going to do so whether a particular subset of abuse-potential drugs is legal or not. Their drug of choice may change, but their numbers won’t change significantly. Certainly not enough to offset all the other benefits of ending the war on drugs.
I think Kleiman may also be wrong here in asserting what the LEAP opponent will say. The LEAP rep is actually more likely to assert that drugs are potentially very dangerous and need to be regulated. Kleiman thinks that prohibition can regulate drugs, and that’s just false.
His final point – that his opponent will:

5. Refuse to specify the set of taxes and regulations that ought to replace prohibition.

This is silly and childish on Mark’s part. It’s not LEAP’s job to set taxes and regulations. There are tons of models and all of us would be happy to discuss which models would work the best in different situations (and no, nobody with half a brain thinks that alcohol would be the model for all drugs). The reason we often don’t talk specifics, is that we’re usually shut down before we get that far as we’re constantly told that even an “open, honest national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics” is unacceptable.
And we’re not just told that by politicians in Texas.
You know, when it comes to suggesting options of taxes and regulations for legalized drugs — some concrete information for politicians to consider — if only there were a type of person with a skill set — an academician maybe, or somebody who works with a think tank. People who specialize in, say, public policy.
It looks like I’ll miss the debate. Document it here. I’ll put up a transcript later if one is available, and Mark promises to post the video.
Update: It’s going to be Jack Cole and according to Tom Angell, it’ll be at 12:15 on CNN International. This should be good.

Made it to New York. The train ride was long, but quite enjoyable.
It’s actually kind of nice to be out of touch for a while every now and then — the problem is when you get a chance to get online again, and you have 200 emails and 4,000 unread news articles.
It’s always great to be in New York City. The energy of the town is amazing (although I personally tend to prefer it now as something to enjoy on a visit rather than as a way of life).
I highly recommend the Blue Fin Restaurant at 47th and Broadway. They’ve got an incredible bartender (Christen is a former student and an old friend of mine) and their food is always superb. Their salmon sake was perfect, and then for an entree, I had the Crispy Skin Salmon (medium rare) with potato hash, smoked bacon, brussels sprouts, pommery mustard butter. Amazing. (and reasonably priced)
“bullet” There are two members of Congress who just make me smile when I see their names together: Ron Paul and Barney Frank. In the real world, these two individuals would be such polar opposites in so many ways that it would be hard to even picture them in the same room. And yet, in the fake world of Congress, these two individuals distinguish themselves by being real and thus have a lot in common.
Barney and Ron use reason more than political consideration. So even though they differ dramatically politically, there are certain issues where reason and truth get you to a specific place far from where politics takes you. And that’s where you’ll find these two alone together.
On Tuesday, Paul and Frank (just another reason to love them – between the two of them, they have four first names) co-wrote a letter seeking co-sponsors for the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

In recent years, industrial hemp has been put to many popular uses. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil, as well as food products containing hemp seeds and oil. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One ofthe more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door panels of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel. Nevertheless, under federal law, all industrial hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of grown by American farmers.
Industrial hemp was grown legally in the United States for most of our nation’s history. In fact, during Wodd War II, the federal government encouraged industrial hemp farming to help the war effort. Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of
industrial hemp in the definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of
THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be
psychologically affected by consuming industrial hemp. Federal law concedes the safety
of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported as food.
Please stand up for American farmers by cosponsoring the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

VoteHemp has an Action Alert on this for writing your Congressional Representatives.
“bullet” Bolivia’s Morales calls on Obama to back coca campaign.

U.S. President Barack Obama should recognise traditional uses of the coca leaf because not all production becomes cocaine, Bolivian President Evo Morales said on Wednesday.

It’ll be very interesting to see what changes occur in our relationships with Latin American countries over the next four years.
See also this article about the coca leaf and UN prohibitions: Leaves of Wrath Led US to Blackmail WHO
“bullet” They keep doing it! The AP continues the ridiculously stupid meme: Drug war’s violence is called a sign of progress
Really?

“The reason you see the escalation in violence is because U.S. and Mexican law enforcement are winning,” Garrison Courtney, spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Tuesday. “You are going to see the drug traffickers push back because we are breaking their back.”

Give me a break.
“bullet” Time Magazine “reviews” UNODC head Antonio Maria Costa’s recent paper in The Disturbing Rise of Drug Gangs. Time’s Alyssa Fetini demonstrates no knowledge of anything by simply uncritically presenting Costa’s propaganda.
“bullet” Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page has an excellent OpEd on medical marijuana Is it reefer madness?

President Obama recently reversed much of what has been called the Bush administration’s “war against science.” He needs to turn around the war against medicinal marijuana too.

“bullet” The 52nd Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs is going on right now (through March 20) — and this will determine the UN direction on drug policy for the next 10 years.
Transform kicks off their coverage with Fear prevails at the UN as voices for drug law reform are smeared
If you want to follow the proceedings in depth, visit CNDblog which has been set up completely for that purpose (they have close to 50 posts already in the first 2 days of the session).