Drug WarRant

El Paso, Texas – a mere stone’s throw from Mexico and the violent drug war there – naturally has concerns about the drug war there, and the fact that everything we’ve been doing just makes it worse and more violent.
Well the city council apparently must have snapped from the pressure, because they actually suggested, unanimously, in a resolution, that the U.S. government start an “open, honest, national dialogue on ending the prohibition of narcotics.”
Deranged council member Beto O’Rourke tried to defend the radical proposition:

“We think it should at least be on the table and so far it hasn’t,” O’Rourke said.

Hmm, seems like a pretty far fetched idea – to discuss options that haven’t been discussed yet.
Fortunately, Mayor John Cook stepped in to restore sanity and promptly vetoed the non-binding resolution to insure that nobody would think that El Paso wanted the U.S. government to discuss options.

Cook called the request to look at legalizing drugs “unrealistic” and urged the council to adopt a broader resolution that looks for other solutions.

Right. Other solutions. Like the ones that have been working so well for us. You know. Prohibition.
Then the Associated Press writer tried to explain why the resolution wasn’t so smart…

But the request would have been a tough sell to a newly minted Congress facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and two wars.

Yes, it would be a tough sell, because it would deprive them of a third war and another bottomless hole for cash… ?
So U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes (and former U.S. Border Patrol agent from El Paso) steps in to clarify:

“Legalizing the types of drugs that are being smuggled across the border is not an effective way to combat the violence in Mexico, and I would not support efforts in Congress that would seek to do so.”

Ah, yes. That makes it so obvious why we should not discuss options. Thanks for clearing that up.
Good thing we’ve got strong, patriotic citizens like Mayor John Cook and Representative Silvestre Reyes on the job. Without them watching out for rogue City Councils, we could end up with cities, towns, states, and citizens actually calling for an “open, honest, national dialogue.”
Whoa. Scary thought. What could that lead to?
Update: Council Member O’Rourke discusses the issue — extremely well — in this video at El Paso Times. Worth watching. [Thanks to Steve in comments.]

Link

The deep recession expected in 2009 will likely lead to higher rates of crime. Adam Lass says investors can play this trend by picking up shares of commercial jails. Florida-based Geo Group (NYSE:GEO) operates in several countries and is rapidly expanding its detention facilities. Adam says investors could be in line to double their money by the summer.

Obama apparently wants CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta as a high-profile Surgeon General.
So with a celebrity Surgeon General, can we expect controversial truth-telling like Joycelyn Elders or West Wing’s Surgeon General Millicent Griffith?
Maybe not, given Gupta’s incoherent article on medical marijuana in Time a couple of years ago: Why I Would Vote No On Pot.

What does it say about the state of American political discourse that drug policy reform is too… radical to be discussed in the mainstream media, and yet Ann Coulter is on every network this week getting free publicity for her book?

Much of the speculation of how the Obama administration may differ from the Bush administration has been over the degree to which Obama may actively support change, or even passively allow change through benign neglect.
There is, however, another more subtle avenue that may become available.
OK, you regulars — can you remember back to the Data Quality Act (AKA Information Quality Act)? We used to talk about it here quite a lot. The idea was that the government could be challenged on the accuracy of the information they provided and they would be required to respond in 60 days.
Well, ASA decided this was a good tool to use against the government for its propaganda against medical marijuana, and it filed a request for correction.
Go to the HHS page and scroll down to #20. You’ll see that the 60 day period started on October 6, 2004. Delay after delay stretched the non-answer to over four years, and I can’t even tell if it’s still active.
This is just one example, but it was typical. Even when the law was on our side, the government has actively flouted and disobeyed the rule of law without consequence, completely disenfranchising us.
Sure, the Bush administration has been primarily known for its law-breaking in other areas, but it has been pervasive in all areas of the government.
If… if a new administration were to actually reinstate the rule of law for the government, then those of us seeking to petition the government for redress of grievances could conceivably find an administrative structure working on behalf of the Constitution rather than actively supressing it.
Now, it’s no surprise that government (regardless of party) likes to have its power, its secrets, its exclusivity. So there’s no guarantee that the Obama administration will be better than the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration, despite our smaller power as a movement, was no great friend).
However, there are signs.
Glenn Greenwald writes today about one of the latest of Obama’s appointments: Dawn Johnson as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. This is a critical position, important to the independence of the DOJ and the adherence to the rule of law. And Obama selected someone who has written:

[W]e must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power.

She also referred to the Office of Legal Counsel, long before she was even being considered for the position, as “the office entrusted with making sure the President obeys the law.”
This could be really good news. If the government obeys the law, we have a better chance of holding it accountable.

As has been noted in comments, Change.org (not to be confused with Obama’s Change.gov) has moved to the next round of voting. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the administration on January 16 at the National Press Club and will also receive a national advocacy campaign.
Currently, the top two rated ideas are:

Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana.
“Marijuana has been proven to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill, as well as disabled patients undergoing chemotherapy, and other forms of medical treatments, yet using it for medical purposes continues to be a crime in most of the country. We should make it legal not only in medical cases, but for recreational use as well.”
– Jose Torres (Unemployed / Disabled / Activist / Supporter), Newark, NJ
End the war on drugs
We have the highest non-violent incarseration rate in the world. We need to free up our police, jails and courts to deal with people who actually pose a clear and present danger to life and liberty. Stop persecuting non-violent drug users. Prefer regulation to prohibition and give up on this “war” that can never be won.
– dan bachelder (realist)

Go over and vote.
Additionally, voting is still open at Obama’s Open for Questions, where a drug policy question leads the National Security category and dominates the Other Issues category.
Now, to be clear, I don’t really hold out much hope that any of these devices will cause Obama to declare an initiative to end the war on drugs, or to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act Schedules (though, of course, he should).
However, having legalization take such a strong position in these polls serves other important interests — it gains mainstream visibility.
It makes people ask questions like:

“What are all these apathetic stoners on Pete’s Couch doing showing up and participating in a political forum? Maybe I was wrong about these ‘legalizers.'”

It gives more media a chance to report on legalization as a political option.
And, most importantly, it could make more of that vast silently complicit population finally wake up and realize: “Hey! Maybe I can talk openly about it.”
Yes, Virginia, legalization is a legitimate political topic that can be discussed.
Russ Belville, over at the NORML stash has crunched some numbers at teh Google and sees a distinct pattern of increased interest in marijuana legalization within the population (or at least the population that has internet access). More signs of progress.

If there’s anyone who has a finger on the pulse of Congress when it comes to drug policy reform, it’s probably Howard Wooldridge. LEAP’s cowboy-hat-wearing lobbyist has become a familiar figure in the Washington corridors. His LEAP on the Hill posts are always a delight to read.
He makes a strong and important point in an email:

The marijuana contingent of prohibition reform needs to do more outreach and education to the ‘unconverted’ and the uninformed. This will involve moving outside the comfort zone of a hemp fest ‘free the weed’ type meeting and into a Rotary or other such venue. LEAP can use all the help possible to educate the citizens. My wife wears a t-shirt that says: MOMS SAY LEGALIZE POT – Ask Me Why… in my 13 years I have never seen a MJ reformer wear a t-shirt that invites a discussion or even effectively advertises their position. A Shirt that just has MJ leaves on it or NORML is essentially worthless in converting a soccer mom or dad to our side.

Zogby poll shows that 3/4 of America knows the WOD is a failure. Congress knows it by that margin and Obama has called it an ‘utter failure.’ That said, the WOD was NOT an issue in 2008.

In order to end prohibition, dozens of Hill staffers have told me THE PHONE HAS TO RING with constituents insisting on moving legislation on this issue. And the phone is NOT ringing. Politicians are led by the people; they rarely are going to lead. They are mostly cowards by nature. Not one Member of Congress has put on their website a position on the war on drugs/prohibition. That needs to change. All the logic and reason in the world will not move Congress… only voices. Out of roughly 40 million users of illegal drugs, less than 100,000 belong to a drug reform org. We have much work to do in 2009.

This tracks closely with what I’ve talked about — change comes from the bottom, not the top. And we need to spread the word. Tell all your friends, and when they’re all convinced, widen your circle of friends and tell them. When you have all them convinced, convince them to all call their Representatives.
And, by the way, when is the last time you called your Representative?
We’ve got a lot of new ones this year, and both the new and the old need to hear from us — and not just the automated email blasts that come along every so often. Write a letter, call their staff. Be succinct. To the point. Don’t ask them to legalize marijuana — they can’t quite do that (states still have their own laws), but ask them to stop prosecuting medical marijuana patients, or to remove marijuana from Schedule 1, or to support sentencing reform, or to support study into alternatives to prohibition. Make it clear that you’re a voter and you care about these issues.
And more of you need to come out of the closet. I know you all can’t do it, but, quite frankly, lots of you probably can who think that you can’t.
I found the following comment left here regarding questions at change.gov quite strange:

I would probably submit the question “If drugs are so bad, can’t people choose not to do them without having to do so at gunpoint?”, if I thought that any government agency should have a record of my personal political positions. What are you people, fucking insane???

“Personal political positions” is kind of an oxymoron unless you live in a political world of one (Ã la Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Total Perspective Vortex). How do you fight for change if you won’t even tell people what needs to be changed?
Propaganda wins by making us afraid to speak.

An interesting article in Newsweek: Colombia’s Failed Drug War.

By some measures lvaro Uribe is the world’s most successful head of state. Since taking office in 2002, the president of Colombia has routed the ELN terrorist group, broken the FARC guerrillas, demobilized their right-wing paramilitary foes and made Colombia’s cities safe again. Homicides are down 40 percent nationwide since his term began, and economic growth is up, from just 2.5 percent in 2002 to 8.2 percent in 2007. Result: 66 percent of Colombians approve of Uribe even during a global financial catastrophe Ödown from the 80s a few months agoÖthe highest of any president in a democracy.

This is quite positive stuff (at least positive-sounding). At this point, the U.S. government would tout this as proof that the drug war is working. Which, of course, is nonsense. Whether or not you agree that the developments listed above are positive for Colombia and/or the United States, it takes a certain level of self-delusion to use them as measures of drug war success.
Newsweek’s Adam Kushner is not deluded.

U.S. policymakers have also hailed Uribe: President George W. Bush has feted his “determination to rid the country of narcotrafficking.”
Determination is not, however, enough to win the war on drugs. Since 2000, the United States has sent more than $6 billion to Bogot½ to help Uribe and his predecessor stabilize the Andean region, stanch the flow of drugs into America’s cities and cut drug production. In what is known as Plan Colombia, Washington sent pilots and choppers to Colombia, trained commandos and furnished weapons to fight traffickers and terrorists. For his part, Uribe and his predecessor raised the military budget from 4 to 6 percent of the national GDP. But instead of cutting drug production in half by 2006, as Plan Colombia intended, the acreage of land dedicated to coca cultivation is up 15 percent since 2000 and now yields 4 percent more cocaine than it did eight years ago. An October report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, an oversight agency, says Plan Colombia’s goals “have not been fully achieved.”

A doozy of an understatement by the GAO. The notion that Plan Colombia could ever be considered a success with billions of dollars spent and cultivation and output going up is simply bizarre.
Kushner goes on to explain why economics, geography, and logistics actually make it impossible to win the drug war.

To a certain extent, Uribe is struggling against impossible odds. […]
All of which means that the drug war in Colombia may be at a stalemate. With diminishing returns on enforcement, American and Colombian officials are at a loss to say what, exactly, their endgame is. […]
So for now, Colombia and the United States will have to come to terms with the fact that even a popular president has limited power to fight drug traffickers.

Kushner’s article isn’t perfect. He blames neighboring countries for not participating enthusiastically enough, even though he doesn’t show that such participation would make a difference. He also neglects some of the important economic considerations.
However, this is an important moment.
An article in a major national magazine is saying, essentially, that the drug war (at least in Colombia) cannot be won. There is no quick answer, no option for solving it by simply throwing more money at it.
The conventional wisdom about Colombia has gone through quite a transition:

1. We will win the drug war through Plan Colombia.
2. We are winning the drug war in Colombia. We just need more time/money.
3. While there have been some set-backs, if we redouble our efforts, we will win.
4. We need to come up with some different options and get some more help from neighbors, and then we’ll win.
5. There’s no possible way to win this war no matter what we do.

This is good progress. And now we have to help lead them to…

6. What’s next?

And?

Massachusetts officially decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana yesterday, but many police departments across the state were essentially ignoring the voter-passed law, saying they would not even bother to ticket people they see smoking marijuana.

OK.
I think that was kind of the idea, you know. I don’t know why they were having such a difficult time figuring it out. It’s marijuana. No big deal.

It seems that the incessant complaining by law enforcement in Massachusetts about the problems they’ll have administering the new marijuana decrim is starting to get some blowback.
Herald News Editorial: Don’t Complicate Pot Law

The only ones unclear about what Question 2 intends are law enforcement officials who act like a civil violation is some radical idea no one ever heard of. […]
This reefer madness is spreading. […]
The public’s response to the educators, police and prosecutors should be simple: You’re the professionals; work it out. […]
The campaign is over and the voters have spoken.

Eagle Tribune Editorial: New Marijuana Law Shouldn’t Pose Problems

Today, the new law takes effect. Yet some local police departments, as well as others across the state, say they are uncertain about how to enforce it. […]
Nearly two months have passed since 65 percent of Massachusetts voters changed the law. Despite their lack of enthusiasm for the law, state and local law enforcement agencies have had time to prepare. […]
This should not be so difficult. Massachusetts is not the first state to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Eleven other states have done so. Is there no experience from those states that Massachusetts law enforcement officials can draw upon? […]
The public doesn’t see small amounts of marijuana as a problem. Neither should police.