Drug WarRant

North Charleston police have scored a major pot bust, seizing 500 pounds of marijuana with a street value of more than $2 million.

Yet another (yawn) major seizure.
This is the part that got me:

Police said there was so much marijuana they couldn’t let reporters see it because the smell would overpower them. They instead showed pictures of the haul.

Now that’s powerful. Must be some really dank green nugs, huh?
But then I looked at the pictures. And noticed that they just left it sitting in a room with cops working (I guess they could handle the smell, unlike reporters.
Now I may be out of touch, but is that what weed looks like these days? The close-up picture looks more like fertilizer (which would explain the strong odor). Of course, that wouldn’t explain why the criminals were smuggling it in bricks with a cache of guns.
Seriously, what kind of weed is that?

Vietnam:

Wearing black helmets and police T-shirts, their handguns levelled, a drug raid team inches along the outside of a compound, throws open the door, spots a man with a gun and opens fire.
With the pop-pop-pop of a Glock 9mm an armed suspect is shot and hits the floor as seven counter-narcotics officers fan out and clear the adjoining rooms, checking for any more armed and hostile drug runners.
The training operation over, the team leader had some stern words for his men.
“We must aim better and make every shot count so no one is injured unnecessarily and we go home safe to our families,” he bellowed as some of the law enforcement officers stared at their boots. […]
This Hanoi paintball op is part of a US-Vietnamese training exercise in which Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents pass on some of the skills of their dangerous trade to their local counterparts.

Yes, this is what we, as Americans, have to share with the world. How to bust down doors and shoot the residents. (No indication as to whether they had workshops on shooting dogs.)
This is part of our global contribution. The drug war has become the preferred foreign policy approach toward controlling much of the world. We export our drug war, our tactics, and, most of all, our DEA.

With that kind of presence, we insure that the rest of the world follows our lead. And if they don’t toe the line in the way we want to fight the drug war, we threaten to cut foreign aid, or in the case of Venezuela, which kicked out the DEA for spying, we accuse them of allowing drug trafficking.
Most countries are hesitant to buck the system, and would rather appear eager to participate

Phnom Penh: The National Authority for Combating Drugs has asked the US Embassy to create an office for the enforcement of the anti-drug law in Cambodia, in order to train the Cambodian anti-drugs authorities in different skills, and in order to help them to combat drugs worldwide.

Why can’t we go back to exporting Big Macs and “Baywatch”? Sure, they may not have been very fulfilling, but at least they generally didn’t kill you in the middle of the night.

Apparently, Obama has picked Biden for his VP. Certainly disappointing, though not hugely significant, since:

1. I really don’t expect drug policy reform to come from any President who actually gets elected. and
2. I don’t expect the V.P. to have much power in setting negative policy.

But let’s review:
Biden was a hard core drug warrior for a very long time. He tried his best to outdo the first President Bush in 1990 in developing a drug control strategy in the Senate that was just as tough, and included expanded use of military in the drug war.
In 2003, after earlier failed attempts, he managed to sneak the Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act (yes, the RAVE Act) into law, moving us toward an increased police state.
Oh, and yeah, he helped create the office of the Drug Czar.
Now, to be fair, he also introduced a bill to reduce sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine.
It’s possible, from looking at his record, that his drug warrior stance has softened somewhat over the years. Still, he’s far from demonstrating any kind of acceptable overall position.
While he has refused to answer vote-smart issue questionnaires, it is possible to see how his voting record has stacked up in Civil LIberties/Civil Rights.
Biden voted the same way as the ACLU…

• 1996: 39%
• 1997: 33%
• 1998: 67%
• 1999: 50%
• 2000: 57%
• 2001: 50%
• 2002: 60%
• 2004: 80%
• 2006: 89%
• 2007: 75%

Appears to have a strong potential trend toward improvement, particularly post-911.
Again, as V.P., he’s not that much of a concern. It seems to me that he would be much less dangerous as V.P. than McCain as P.
But, if something happens to Obama, or if Biden continues on to be President after Obama, I sure hope his learning curve is quickly continuing to improve.

“bullet” Coincidence? Shortly after a group of University presidents announce an initiative to look into whether the 21 year drinking age makes sense (it doesn’t) and suggests we look into other options…
… the Department of Justice announces $19 million in block grants to the states to enforce underage drinking laws. Now local law enforcement, already making good money writing up drinking tickets at college parties, will get grants to do so, so of course you know how they will respond publicly regarding the notion of a dialogue on drinking ages…
“bullet” Ronald Fraser: Drug raids not the cure for law agencies’ tight budgets (annoying free registration required)

On the streets, where illegal drugs are still easy to get at affordable prices, Arizona’s police chiefs are losing the decades-long drug war.
But, ironically, back in their headquarters, many of these officers depend on drug raids to fatten their operating budgets. While the drug trade still enriches the bad guys, police chiefs now get a piece of the action. […]
What to do? It is time for federal and state legislators to shut down the conflict-of-interest loophole that allows police departments to profit from their official duties at the expense of the very citizens they are hired to protect.

“bullet” The Cost of Marijuana Prohibition — videos by MPP.
“bullet” Steve Rolles at Transform does a nice job fisking Ian Oliver’s incoherent call for keeping drugs illegal.
“bullet” We must outlaw this new dangerous drug called pumpkins… you know… for the sake of the squirrels.

“bullet” “drcnet”

“bullet” U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years. […]
Quietly unveiled late last month, the proposal is part of a flurry of domestic intelligence changes issued and planned by the Bush administration in its waning months. […]
Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush’s successor and to enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the Watergate era.

Of course, the supposed reason is to fight terror, but as you know…

Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the proposed changes “catch up with reality” in that those who investigate crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and document fraud are best positioned to detect terrorists.

So, supposedly in the search for terrorists, narcotics police can spy on American citizens, share the information with the feds, and keep the info for 10 years. That’s the way it always works. The increased spy power has absolutely nothing to do with terrorists, and is unlikely to catch a single one. It’s about increased power over us.
“bullet” Scanner Being Tested on Cars Taking Ferry at Cherry Branch

The Transportation Security Administration and the N.C. Department of Transportation are collaborating on a four-week test of a vehicle screening program at the Cherry Branch ferry just outside Havelock. All vehicles planning to board the ferry will have to drive through the American Science and Engineering X-ray detection system called the Z-Portal. The device, tall enough for a tractor-trailer to be screened, scans the sides and tops of vehicles to look specifically for concealed threats, explosives and contraband.
“It’s a more detailed picture than you would get with an X-ray at the dentist’s office,” said Jon Allen of the Transportation Security Administration.
Vehicles will roll slowly through the gateway as backscatter X-ray detectors penetrate the metal and plastic, generating a photo-like image of the driver, passengers and all cargo. It’s sensitive enough to see drugs smuggled in a car tire, cigarette cartons in a door panel or plastic explosives in a wheel well, officials said Monday during a demonstration of the system.

This certainly is being promoted by the Department of Homeland Security because of the danger of terrorist attacks… but that’s not what they’ll be looking for. And if a ferry needs to be protected, why not a bridge? Why can’t we put one of these on every road? After all, if you have nothing to hide… There might be terrorists out there. Or marijuana cigarettes. We can’t afford to have a free country anymore…
“bullet” Green Party blasts military-style police measures, drug-war violation of citizens‰ rights

Green Party candidates and leaders called the 24-hour curfew imposed on the city of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, a gross violation of the rights of local citizens and a symptom of the rapid growth of unrestrained police power over the past two decades.
Politicians and law enforcement officials have justified such measures as part of the war on drugs. Greens have endorsed an immediate end to the drug war, calling it a catastrophic failure.
‹These interrogations and checkpoints are comparable to police practices in authoritarian regimes and especially apartheid-era South Africa — which is even more ominous given the fact the residents of these new ëRed Zones‰ are mostly African American and poor,Š said Rosa Clemente, the Green Party‰s nominee for Vice President of the United States (http://www.rosaclemente.com).

Good for them!

“bullet” Ryan Grim notes that dog-killing Prince George’s County police, already completely lacking in credibility may be in more hot water — this time for killing a human.
“bullet” Stephen Colbert’s Top 7 Drug Moments
“bullet” Los Angeles Times on the Science of Medical Marijuana
“bullet” A quote that stuck with me… In a review by Al Giordano at Narco News of Markos Moulitsas Zþniga’s book “Taking on the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era, Kos is quoted:

There was an assumption by the powers that be that the rest of the citizen body couldn‰t think for ourselves. That we needed self-appointed and so-called experts to tell us what to think, what to do, and what we should š or should not š know. For far too long, these gatekeepers controlled the national conversation.Š

Yeah, no kidding.
Which reminds me: Beth wrote me tonight to say that she saw fact-mangler Joseph Califano on the TeeVee arguing for keeping the drinking age at 21. Talk about “so-called experts.”
“bullet” ABC doesn’t get out much. Tijuana: Where the ‘Drug War’ is Real

In Mexico, the “war on drugs” isn’t just an expression people use.

Yes, it is a real drug war in Tijuana. It’s also a real drug war in every town in this country. Did ABC think we were just doing re-enactments here?
And speaking of war denial, I just can’t resist mentioning this piece by Glenn Greenwald. He notes incredulously that Condoleeza Rice could actually, seriously, say:

Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that’s its military power. That’s not the way to deal in the 21st century.

Is it truly possible to delude yourself to such an incredible degree?
Sure, that isn’t specifically about the drug war, but, My God! — it’s the same kind of disconnect from reality that you hear from drug warriors, and you can’t help but ask if they are really that hopelessly stupid, or if they really think American citizens are, to get away with such brazen alternate reality claims.

It really is heartening to see the incredible degree to which drug policy sanity has spread throughout those who are internet-capable (especially when you think about the fact that that is where the population is heading).
Two recent examples, where opposing views in the press have both generated a lot of comments.
First, we have the two pieces in the Hill regarding the federal marijuana decrim legislation.

• Criminalization of Marijuana Must End by NORML’s Allen St. Pierre received close to 200 comments, almost universally favorable
• Marijuana Decriminalization Bill Ignores the Facts by the ONDCP received over 100 comments in opposition, including numerous powerful, intelligent critiques (and slap-downs) of this standard propaganda.

On the other side of the pond, we have former drug war functionary Julian Critchley coming out for legalization, with excellent comments all over the web, including some good responses in his piece in The Independent: All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs.
So today, drug war idiot former Chief Constable Ian Oliver, looking to sell more copies of his “Drug Affliction” book, steps up to the plate with his response in The Independent: Legalising drugs would only make matters worse. This article is greeted with derision and, again, detailed thoughtful critiques that completely dismantle Oliver’s piece.
In fact, just about all of the few pro-drug-war comments in both Independent pieces are from one commenter – Prestonian – who added to the discussion with gems like these:

I would execute all users without a second thought. … The Singaporean attitude to drugs should be adopted here – execute the dealers and long imprisonment for users. I suspect that many of the commenters here are users themselves and would like it to be made easier for them to continue.

Remember the days (I think I do) when it was assumed that those who were for legalization were almost uniformly incoherent and utterly wasted stoners? Well now, the embarrassments are mostly on the other side. People like Prestonian make others go “Woah — wait a second. If Prestonian is on the side of Ian Oliver, maybe I’d better look at the legalization side — they seem a whole lot smarter.”
It appears that supporting prohibition may be implicated in long-term reduction in intelligence.

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.