Drug WarRant

Mary Anastasia O’Grady has previously shown a willingness in the Wall Street Journal OpEd pages to recognize the damaging effect of prohibition on the stability in Mexico.
She does so even more explicitly in today’s OpEd: Mexico Pays the Price of Prohibition

In a developed country like the U.S., prohibition takes a toll on the rule of law but does not overwhelm it. In Mexico, where a newly revived democracy is trying to reform institutions after 70 years of autocratic governance under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the corrupting influence of drug profits is far more pernicious. …
Drug profits going to organized crime only complicate the matter. Writing in the latest issue of the Milken Institute Review, former U.S. foreign service officer Laurence Kerr takes a page out of U.S. history. “America has been in Mexico’s shoes: flush with the bounty of illegal liquor sales, organized crime thoroughly penetrated the U.S. justice system during Prohibition. As long as Americans willingly bury Mexican drug traffickers in greenbacks, progress in constraining the trade is likely to be limited.”

She fails to go the necessary next step and point out the logical conclusion: prohibition is the wrong answer.
However, it’s still nice to see any public acknowledgement of the dirty little secret of the drug war — it has damaging consequences.

Every now and then, I hear a common argument (from someone who partially supports drug policy reform) that goes something like this:

I agree that marijuana should be legalized — it’s really less harmful than many legal substances. But I’m convinced that harder drugs like cocaine are really dangerous and harmful to people, so they should remain illegal.

It’s a fairly common (and superficially understandable) viewpoint — at one time, I was even close to thinking this myself.
But here’s the problem. It is a valid argument only if:

1. Criminalization can be shown to reduce the harm of a particular drug. AND
2. There are no negative side-effects of prohibition.

Now there are many out there that automatically assume that A is true — they’ve heard from the government time and time again that some population group over some period of time has experienced a reduction in use, which is assumed to be credited to prohibition. But those of us in drug policy reform who have seen more of the data and analyzed the dynamics realize that it isn’t that easy.

• There’s very little evidence to show that prohibition can actually be shown to cause overall reduction in drug use over time.
• Merely reducing drug use doesn’t mean that you reduce drug harm. If you reduce casual non-problematic drug use without addressing harmful abuse, then even if you reduce drug use, you’re not fixing anything.
• Prohibition may actually increase drug use through the forbidden fruit effect, and may increase harm through unregulated purity and safety.

And, of course, “B” is huge. The fact that prohibition has negative side-effects cannot be disputed. When considering legalization, failing to address prohibition side-effects as part of the equation completely negates the validity of the argument. You have to actually acknowledge the side effects and then somehow argue that their existence is an acceptable price to pay for the supposed decrease in drug harm that you also have to demonstrate.*
And the negative side-effects are numerous and dramatic. I don’t know that it’s possible to provide a comprehensive list, but they include:

• Increased black market profits
• Violent Crime
• Corruption
• Massive incarceration
• Destruction of families
• Damage to civil liberties
• Dysfunctional foreign policy
• Loss of respect for law enforcement
• Disenfranchised populations
• Racism
• … and on, and on…

When you get a chance to lay out the elements of a proper argument, it becomes completely impossible for someone to defend the view in the opening paragraph.
…
Unfortunately, too often, the discussion never gets to a proper full argument, but rather gets bogged down in silly details. We’re constantly taking on the lies spread by the prohibitionists about the dangers of drugs, and seldom getting to the rest of the story.
For example: Prohibitionists say that marijuana has carcinogens (intentionally deceptive), and we have to counter with the proven fact that marijuana doesn’t cause lung cancer. We seldom can continue to the point that the discussion has little bearing on whether marijuana should be illegal.
Sometimes I wonder if prohibitionists purposely lie, just to derail the argument.
Seriously.
If they told the truth: “Heavy use of marijuana over time can cause bronchitis.” then we could respond: “Yes, that’s true. And it’s no reason to make marijuana illegal, and have to deal with all the other problems of prohibition.”
But instead, they say something outrageous, which we don’t dare let ride, and we have a much more complex answer to get across: “No, marijuana doesn’t cause lung cancer and here’s the proof, but even if it did cause lung cancer, it still wouldn’t be a reason to make marijuana illegal and deal with all the other problems of prohibition… And it just becomes too complex and defensive for a sound-bite, so we never get out of the argument over the specific claim.
Even worse — just try taking apart the absolute nightmare of convoluted nonsensical non-logic that makes up this piece of dreck. Every part of Walter’s putrescence is intended to derail any intelligent argument.
Fortunately, more people every day are starting to see through the deception (just read through all the comments on the linked piece). But we need to take every opportunity to educate people as to what constitutes a valid discussion.
And “drugs are harmful, therefore they should remain illegal” is not a valid discussion.
…
*Note: I realize that there’s also the valid libertarian argument (with which I agree) that says that it doesn’t matter even if criminalization significantly decreases harm without any side effects — criminalization still wouldn’t be a legitimate imposition on the rights of free citizens. It is unnecessary to consider this point in the context of constructing a proper argument regarding the efficacy of criminalization in reducing harm.

Last year, David Krahl worked for Calvina Fay as deputy director of the Drug Free America Foundation, lobbying against medical marijuana.
Seems he’s learned a few things since then.

Now, he’s ready to lobby for allowing medicinal use of marijuana, and do anything he can to support it.
So far, no one has asked him for help, but in a recent letter to medical marijuana bill sponsor Rep. Maurice Hinchey ( D-N.Y. ), he proclaimed that he’d reversed his position on whether cannabis can be a medicine.
“I’m saying, ‘Here I am, an individual who had one point of view, and now I have a different one,’ ” Krahl said in an interview. […]
“Being away from the Drug Free America Foundation allowed me an opportunity to take a fresh look at the issue,” Krahl said. “I don’t have skin in the game anymore.”

When you learn some facts (and if you have some integrity), it’s hard to support the drug warriors.

A couple of days ago, I talked about the judge who kicked off a juror for questioning the law.
Well, Thomas R. Eddlem was the juror that got kicked off and who ended up sparking a 40 page justification by the judge. Eddlem gives his story here and here.

“bullet” Kingsley Guy: Drug policy has failed

Is the push to legalize marijuana in Florida for medical use a legitimate attempt to eliminate pain and suffering, or a thinly-veiled effort by unreconstructed hippies to legally get high?
I don’t know, and frankly, don’t care.
It’s time to shift the debate from side issues like medical marijuana, and instead look at decriminalizing all recreational drugs. The nation must face the fact that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure causing far more damage than it has mitigated, and it just isn’t worth the price.

“bullet” So how’s that drug war going? I haven’t been talking about Mexico much recently. Too depressing
“bullet” Sound familiar? Transform:

My conclusion – the Daily Mail is not responsible for closing down the debate on drugs and drug policy š politicians are. It is their cowardice, opportunism and careerism that they prioritise over telling the truth about the failure of prohibition and the need bring the drugs trade within the law and the ambit of state regulation. And that applies not just to Labour and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems have hidden their far more enlightened drug policy so deep as to render it effectively invisible, for (misplaced) fear of taking flak from political opponents.

“bullet” Dildos and the Ninth Amendment by Ed Brayton, guest blogging at The Agitator. Definitely relevant to drug policy.
“bullet” The Phoenix gives us their 16 greatest stoner movies
“bullet” Daniel McQuade has an amusing take-down of the ‘digital drugs’ scare nonsense.
“bullet” Norm Stamper on the high costs of the drug war

Every time we have a drug war shooting of innocent people (or even of those whose only fault is to break drug laws), we inevitably hear the litany of apologists for these unconscionable drug war tactics blaming the death on the intended recipient of the raid.
In the Calvo case, Prince George’s County police blamed the drug ring who never approached the mayor’s house (and probably never would have) for the bloody scene of dead dogs and terrified family.
In the Tarika Wilson case, we heard time and time again that Anthony Terry (the boyfriend) was responsible for her death, despite the fact that he was in cuffs watching the dogs get shot well before police shot Tarika to death and maimed her son. Or worse, they blamed Tarika for being a “n***er crack whore” who deserved what she and her children got for letting a drug dealer live with her.
Anthony Terry is having a hard time understanding how he is at fault.

The boyfriend of a Lima woman shot and killed by a police officer during a drug raid says he doesn’t understand why police waited until he was at her house to go after him.
Anthony Terry was the target of the raid. He says officers could have him arrested on the street instead of waiting until he was inside the house with his girlfriend and her children.

Good question. Why didn’t they?

Police say doing that would have put officers at risk and jeopardized their investigation.

Can someone explain this to me? Does that make sense to anyone with a brain?
Further exploration in the Toledo Blade…

By executing a no-knock warrant at night, they said, they are able to take the occupants by surprise, detain the suspects, and secure the house with the least risk of injury.

Um… no.
And police even knew that Terry was small fish:

Terry, [Lima Police Chief Greg Garlock] said, was “not a major player, but I think he’s connected to the major players and certainly has an ongoing history in the drug trade in our community. That type of offender in many cases is where we’ve been successful moving up the chain.”

And that, apparently, justifies setting up a situation where mothers and children can be shot. After all, they can always blame the drug dealer.
Can you imagine this in any other aspect of enforcement?
What if police decided to shoot out the tires of cars exceeding the speed limit, for example? And if a car ended up overturning and killing the mother and maiming her child, they could just say it was her fault for riding with someone who drove over 55. She had it coming.

Via Tim Lynch at Cato blog comes the story of a juror in a cocaine case.
Shortly after deliberations began, the jury sent a note to the judge saying that one of the jurors was concerned about the legitimacy of the law in question. When the judge questioned him, the juror explained (this from the 40 page explanation (pdf) by Judge D.J. Young to justify his own actions):

My question was where, if, . . . as every schoolboy knows, the highest law in the land is the United States Constitution, and if [C]ongress had to go to amend the [C]onstitution in, actually it was ratified in 1919, the 18th Amendment, in order to have the power to ban not interstate commerce but mere possession, where is [Congress‰ authority to ban mere possession of drugs] in the [C]onstitution[?]
Congress is empowered by Article I, in a list of about 17 specific empowerments, I‰m unaware, and it was never made clear to me, where [banning mere possession of drugs] is
authorized in the Constitution.

The judge explained that the juror needed to follow the instructions as to the law provided by the court and apply it to the case. When the juror continued to have difficulty, the judge replaced him.
The defendant was then promptly convicted.
Is this a legitimate reason to remove a juror? Because of his view that drug laws are not constitutional? The judge went on for pages and pages as to why it was important not to have someone like him on a jury.
Here’s the part that made me laugh out loud:

If Taken Seriously, Jury Nullification Threatens to Undermine the Democratic Process and the Rule of Law
If it were taken seriously by mainstream Americans, jury nullification would threaten to unravel the fabric of our democracy. The impropriety of nullification emanates from the notion that ours is ‹a government of laws and not of men.Š … This means simply that no
citizen is above the law, and none is free to make his own law.

And the judge then goes off the deep end.

The notion that nullification will change the law is drivel. Those who would characterize it as a noble form of civil disobedience are deeply delusional.

The judge needs some lessons on the sickness in our democratic process already extant that nullification could potentially cure.

Coming to your town soon…

Officers armed with military rifles have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that’s been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.
On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional. […]
“Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.” […]
“As far as I’m concerned, at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law,” Councilman Eugene “Red” Johnson said. “Anyone out at 3 o’clock shouldn’t be out on the street, unless you’re going to the hospital.”

So let’s see how this happens in seven easy steps…

1. Prohibition
2. Black-market profits
3. Black-market violence
4. Law enforcement crackdown
5. Violence escalates to protect profits
6. Residents seek protection
7. Police state

Video here
The sad thing is that there are actually people out there who think this is a solution to drug war violence.

For the last three days, I’ve been completely out of touch — no news, no email, no phone, no computer. It was tough. But it was also refreshing.
But now I’m back, and I thought that maybe you guys would have solved it all and the drug war would be over…
Hmmm….
Not quite yet.
But this is interesting —
Julian Critchley, former director of the U.K. Cabinet Office anti-drugs unit, left a remarkable comment on a blog post, noting that on the job he had come to the conclusion that “enforcement and supply-side interventions were largely pointless.”

I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view : the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm.
I recall a conversation I had with a No 10 policy advisor about a series of Whitehall-wide announcements in which we were to emphasise the shift of resources to treatment and highlighting successes in prevention and education. She asked me whether we couldn’t arrange for ‘a drugs bust in Brighton’ at the same time, or ‘a boat speeding down the Thames to catch smugglers’. For that advisor, what worked mattered considerably less than what would play well in the Daily Mail. The tragedy of our drugs policy is that it is dictated by tabloid irrationality, and not by reference to evidence.

Critchley is now a teacher:

I find that when presented with the facts, the students I teach are quite capable of considering issues such as this, and reaching rational conclusions even if they started with a blind Daily Mail-esque approach. I find it a shame that no mainstream political party accords the electorate the same respect.

Unfortunately, we so seldom hear the truth when they’re in office.

• Confirmation of the post
• Coverage at Transform
• Danny Kushlick

I’m going to visit my mom for a couple of days out at a lake in Iowa. No wireless, no dial-up, no TV, almost no cell coverage. I’ll definitely be going through withdrawal. (Yes, internet use is much more addictive than, say, marijuana.)
Discuss the drug war without me. I’ll stop by if I find a place to get a fix.