Drug WarRant

View at your own risk

“bullet” Talk about selective historical memory… A very bizarre article in the Guardian: Gangs have made Dublin ‘like Chicago in the 1920s’ makes the parallel between today’s drug gangs and the alcohol gangsters of 20’s Chicago, yet never mentions prohibition.
“bullet” Christian Science Monitor has a piece about an effort to convince environmentally conscious cocaine users that their recreational drug use is harming the environment. The project is being run by Colombian officials. It’s an irresponsible article, which we thoroughly and excellently critiqued in the comments.
“bullet” Margaret Wente really stinks up the place in her final installment of her series with Legalization In Disguise with random statements like these:

In Mr. Weselowski’s view, harm reduction is a farce. “They’re killing people by the truckload,” he says. […]
The noisy marijuana lobby provides a lot of fuel for this crusade, despite the fact that pot is not the issue. […]
Not surprisingly, the group that runs Insite, Vancouver’s safe-injection site, stridently opposes current drug laws, as does the publicly funded drug users’ lobby, VANDU. These two groups are notorious for the noisy lengths they go to in order to silence their critics. […]
Sadly, all this theatre has deprived Canadians of a genuine debate over drug policy.

She even found a way to blame Soros in there. Really horribly bad journalism.
“bullet” DEA bad girl Director Michele Leonhart gave a speech to the International Drug Enforcement Conference. In her world, drug enforcement efforts are doing just fine.

These are just some of the new challenges we all face as we fight a nimble and global enemy. However, we have proven that we are an even more innovative, skilled, and flexible global force. We‰ve proven that no agency or nation can succeed alone in this fight against transnational criminals. In just the last year, we have succeeded beyond what any of us probably hoped for when we met in Madrid.
We are making history against some of the most powerful narco-terrorists, cartels, and global traffickers.

And check out this completely delusional take on Mexico:

In the U.S., we feel the effects of Mexico‰s success. Combined with other enforcement efforts, in the U.S. we‰re seeing a 15-month long sustained trend where prices for meth soared 56 percent and cocaine 30 percent and purity for both dropped by double digits.

And, of course, to the drug warriors, even failure is an indication of success

Inevitably, with our coordinated, successful attacks on drug networks and supply, drug traffickers become more frustrated and more violent.

which is a horrible disconnect with a statement just sentences later

We make a difference in the lives of the citizens we‰re sworn to protect and keep all our countries safer.

Safety through violent and unending war. Right.

Smith: Confused About War on Drugs
Yes, he is.

Can someone explain this to me?
New weapon launched in drug war
It’s all about the creation of a database of DNA profiles of cannabis plants that will be “ready for police operations in just over a year.”
As science, it’s interesting, but as a “weapon” for police, i really don’t understand it. What actual possible use would this database be in getting convictions?
Say that marijuana seized in a bust matches the DNA of other cannabis seized somewhere. What does that prove (that’s actionable) that the seizure itself wouldn’t already prove?

Lots of stuff here…
“bullet” Scott Morgan covers another segment of Margaret Wente’s horrible series in the Globe and Mail. In this one, she just makes up her “facts” out of thin air. He suggests you write Globe and Mail. I agree.
“bullet” Bob Barr Endorses Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows coalition. Good for him. Not specifically drug war, but it is about beating back the cross-partisan authoritarianism that’s dominating Washington.
“bullet” Kevin Carson has Just Another Drug War Rant at the art of the possible.
“bullet” Norm Stamper: One way out of endless drug war
“bullet” William Reed for Insight News: War on drugs costly for Blacks

When the Draconian drug laws were being enacted African American legislators went along with “law and order” politicians with practices that would incarcerate millions of drug offenders from inner city neighborhoods and help rural politicians make the business of imprisonment a major industry in their districts.
Every passing year the drug problem gets worse and its time African Americans make legislative representatives face up to the impact the War on Drug has on us.

“bullet” Joy Strickland Drug laws fertilize teen violence

Those concerned about the message decriminalization would send to our children would do well to consider the message we are sending by continuing the status quo. […]
We don’t want our children to die as innocent victims of turf wars and gang violence.

“bullet” A very interesting and thorough discussion of marijuana by Matt Johnson at the Vernon Broadcaster. Marijuana’s Tangled Roots Run Through Society
“bullet” Alex at Drug Law Blog reports that Elaine McKellips has filed a lawsuit against San Louis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges alleging that he violated the California Constitution when he invited federal law enforcement officials to raid a medical marijuana dispensary.
“bullet” Looks like the war on marijuana is just about over: Massive Load Of Marijuana Seized In Miami and Tokyo Police Make Biggest Marijuana Bust and in Monterey, California, police eradicated $128 million worth of marijuana. That’s gotta be pretty much all of it, don’t you think? Now it’s just a matter of mopping up what’s left. I mean, it’s not like this stuff grows on trees, you know. Oh… never mind.
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

link

The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers $500 billion since 1973. Nearly 500,000 people are behind bars on drug charges today, yet drugs are as available as ever. Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs, or will you make some significant change in course?
Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We’ve made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we’ve had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.
The point is that if we’re putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives Ö it’s expensive, it’s counterproductive, and it doesn’t make sense.

It is the silly season, but this goes beyond to some kind of twilight zone. John McCain gave a speech at the NAACP convention, and authorized Dr. Ada Fisher (candidate for the House in North Carolina) to speak as official surrogate to journalists. Here is part of what she said:

‹áObama in his book about his father talked about his use of drugs. And I think it‰s disingenuous of people to vote for somebody for President when you won‰t allow a drug user in any secure or nuclear facility. Yet we as a nation, are willing to consider making somebody President of the United States I think that speaks very poorlyáBill Clinton said he smoked but he didn‰t inhaleáBut he didn‰t come out and flagrantly say he used drugsáand if that‰s going to be our standard God helps us in nuclear facilities and secure facilities who have this kind of history..and this nation must be very careful when it lowers the bar on who and what it will accept.” […]
“See, if you admit it, it should disqualify you. Otherwise, we‰ll have to let all those people who áapplied for jobs in these facilitiesáThere is a reason that those rules are there. I was a detox director for 16 counties in North Carolina , so I have a great understanding about what drugs and what they do to people. And I know that in moments of weakness, people tend to revert those things that they‰ve used in the past. I don‰t think it‰s disingenuous, I don‰t think its fair. If I ran for President of the U.S. and I had that history, I would expect people to look at that very carefully. We cannot have a nation high on drugs and have the Presidentá as an example.”

Now I’ve read Ada’s bio, and while she has some odd thoughts, she doesn’t appear to be stupider than a post, so I’ve got to believe that she’s purposely being stupid for political reasons (which is even worse).
First, I wonder if in her experience as detox director for 16 counties, she ever ran across a person having difficulties with alcohol. Ya think? Is it possible that someone could ever revert to using alcohol? Is it possible that we’ve ever had a President who admitted to using alcohol in the past? Oh, wait.
Second, when did it become a better qualification for President to lie about their past than to tell the truth?
And finally, when did President and nuclear facilities employees end up with the same qualifications? Does this mean that nuclear facilities will have to start employing 72-year-olds who don’t know how to get on the internet?
My view on qualifications for President is that whoever is President should have some real world experience. Nobody should be allowed to be President unless:

• They’ve held several non-political jobs.
• They’ve traveled abroad and they actively seek out new experiences.
• They’ve enjoyed a wide range of cultural offerings, including music, theatre, art, literature.
• They’ve had a close friend from a different race (or at least, from a different socio-economic background).
• They’ve surfed the web and read a wide range of blogs.
• They’ve inhaled.

An interesting, and possibly telling, controversy boiled up in the Illinois House yesterday…

The Illinois House erupted in an angry confrontation over regionalism and race Wednesday, after a legislator from Chicago accused downstate lawmakers of wanting to stoke urban crime to make sure rural prisons don‰t close.
‹There are some people in the Illinois General Assembly who have prisons in their district, and their whole objective is to keep them filled,Š Rep. Monique Davis, D-Chicago, alleged in a morning committee hearing. She was referring to several downstate lawmakers from prison districts who were opposing a bill that would make it easier for ex-convicts to get business loans.

While Davis’ allegations continued in ways that were over the top, the reality is that she is probably right — at least to an extent. And it’s particularly relevant right now, due to controversy over the Illinois Governor’s threat to close Pontiac prison to help balance the budget.
We’ve talked before how the huge prison industry in this country has developed a life of its own — with the industry and its communities pushing for tougher laws and longer sentences in order to reap the benefits of budget, jobs, and disproportionate representation.
Will we now see this conflict appear openly on the state Legislatures? Perhaps it’s time for that to happen.

John Carnevale, who worked with four drug czars in the past as budget director, criticizes the ONDCP in the Huffington Post. (This isn’t the first time — he has previously accused Walters of simplifying data.)
Carnevale criticizes the over-reliance on supply-side efforts and the budgetary shell game that reduces the demonstrably more-effective treatment and prevention programs. And he hits hard on the lack of accountability.

Though Congress created ONDCP to formulate research-driven and performance-based policy, assess and modify policy through performance measures, and give a precise accounting of the federal drug control budget, ONDCP fails at all of those tasks. […]
Simply put: the cornerstone of all evidence-based policy driven by reliable performance data. Currently, ONDCP has failed to establish baseline measures link to the ingredients of an effective drug policy. This is inhibiting our nation’s ability to better assess future action. The first step of any administration must be to reassert ONDCP as the flagship substance abuse organization by instituting a performance measurement system to allow Congress, the American people, and ONDCP itself access to crucial data. To stay ahead of emerging drug trends, ONDCP must once again make knowledge development, data systems and research a priority. Leading drug use indicators must steer drug control policy rather than outdated trends.

But the thing is (and something even Carnevale apparently fails to understand), the ONDCP, the Administration, and Congress have no interest in evidence-based or performance-based policy. They want their drug war at any cost and regardless of any evidence of effectiveness. The only reason for having data is to cherry pick and manipulate it into crass public relations defense for the policy they already know they want.
The ONDCP is corrupt at its foundation — in its Congressional authorization language — in such a way as to be unsalvageable as a performance-based or evidence-based policy entity.
A new administration, therefore, cannot simply fix the ONDCP. Without restructuring from the ground up with the acquiescence of Congress, the best that an administration can do is to work to reduce the damage caused by the ONDCP.
In looking into this story, I came across a post by Benjamin Kirby Policy at the Fringes — How America’s Drug Policy Took a Hard Right Turn. Kirby served in a minor position in the ONDCP under Lee Brown and Barry McCaffrey. His post has a lot of good perspectives on drug policy — and he sees the failures of our policies, yet at the same time felt that the people involved at one time were good people:

Whatever your opinion on drug policy in America today — and I’ll share mine in a moment — the office which directs that policy is (or was when I was there in the mid-1990s) staffed with hard working, honest, and good public servants. I had a lot of good experiences there…

I have no reason to doubt that, and I must admit that I didn’t follow the ONDCP as closely in the mid-90’s (although there were surely policy decisions then that should have caused discomfort). But I have often wondered how public servants in the ONDCP today deal with the soul-sucking nature of the beast. Working for a top government agency that has lying to the American people as a critical part of its mission.
When today’s ONDCP staffers see the drug czar lie about potency, about the dangers of marijuana, about the lack of evidence for medical marijuana, about the successes in Colombia, what do they think? That the means are justified for some end? That they are functioning as some kind of elite benign dictatorship that must lie to the people for their own good? That it’s just a job?
Or, in order to justify themselves to themselves, do they delude themselves into believing the lies?
I know that the current occupants of that office read this blog on occasion. Care to enlighten me?

Serving and protecting (via Radley)

A confidential informant and an undercover detective waited inside the restaurant [McDonald’s] to sell Dixon an ounce of cocaine and 100 Ecstasy pills for $950.
More than a dozen officers waited outside, including Lt. Steve Breakstone, who organized the operation. His role was to radio for squad cars to drive up for the arrest once the deal was complete.
The uniformed officers were supposed to swoop in and arrest Dixon in the parking lot. The deal, according to reports, went as planned — with Breakstone calling for the squad cars when Dixon was about to leave.
Then, the milkshake.
With the squad cars zooming into the parking lot, Dixon turned around to get his drink from the counter.
When he got back to the door, he saw the cars waiting for him and, realizing he was about to be arrested, he ran for the bathroom.
He shoved a boy out of the way and hid inside.
The police officers burst through the door and yelled for everyone to get down. A customer, a woman who did not want her name used, ducked under a table and worried that the masked men were robbers, not police.
“I thought it was a gang,” she said. “I mean, they had masks and guns and I never heard anyone say, ‘police.’ I thought these guys were coming to rob us.”

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that this operation didn’t appear to be making us much safer (and was, in fact, perhaps recklessly endangering a large number of civilians).
This simple fact wasn’t lost on a number of commenters to the story at Tampa Bay Online.
What’s sad is how this criticism was characterized by some of the other commenters:

Woe to you cop-haters. […] Don’t be a fool who alienates law enforcement. Be one of the wise citizens who give them due respect… and dare I say deserve gratitude for risking their lives to make our life better — for what, so you can act like a biggot on this blog? I AM SICK OF IT […] The cop-haters are drawing really negative Karma and I would not want to be them. […]
They are risking their lives daily for the honest people and all they get in return are these bleeding hearts that say they should be gentler to the POS. […]
You are just the typical bleeding heart that complains about how the police do their Jobs […]
So what is your solution.. let the POS gang bangers run wild out there like the is the Wild west […]
so don’t hate on the cops who are out there protecting your sorry selves. […]
I wish when someone posts something stating the police did the wrong thing they would also post their credentials which gives them the expertise to make such a post. If they are such experts they should wing it through the police academy, pass the 1000 question state test and join a department.[…]
Good job to the cops. Sorry there are so many losers out there to critize every thing done to protect their sorry azz. […] For you druggies on here, its just a matter of time before its YOUR time.

Sigh.
It is possible to criticize tactics or operations used by law enforcement without being a cop-hater. Or a bleeding heart. Or to be advocating gentler handling of ‘POS’ individuals.
It is possible to analytically critique the broad strokes of law enforcement strategy without having passed the police exam. In fact, it is part of our responsibility to do so, as they are our employees.
It is a disturbing element of our nation’s discourse that in recent years it has become popular to claim that somehow, mere criticism of government itself is out of bounds.

• If you criticize the government, you’re an America-hater
• If you criticize the war, you hate the troops
• If you criticize drug war tactics or policies, you’re a cop-hater.
• And if you defend the Constitution and individual rights, you’re a pro-terrorist and pro-criminal evil creature who wants America to die.

This is the rhetoric of authoritarianism. And those who buy into and use those arguments are their foot soldiers.