Drug WarRant

Driver arrested with $5 million in pot
104 pounds of pot, which police estimated to have a street value of $4.7 million.
According to my rough math, that’s over $45,000 a pound or $2,824.52 per ounce. That makes it about three times as valuable as gold.
Hmm…. When I was in college, the good stuff cost about $50 an ounce.
Assuming, of course, that Naperville police aren’t just making stuff up. They wouldn’t do that, would they?…

Correction: The arrest was in Ohio — it appears that the bizarre math came from Ohio state troopers, not Naperville police.

A must read in the Los Angeles Times today, by David W. Fleming and James P. Gray

Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.
The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year — tax free.
The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.
Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.
Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough — not smart, just tough — about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.
The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.
And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

“bullet” The U.S. Government is so sure that there’s no such thing as medical marijuana, they decided to patent it.
“bullet” Drug Czar’s Office Admits that Drug Enforcement Can’t Be Proven to Work from Scott Morgan.
“bullet” Idiot of the week — William Janes, Florida’s drug czar. He claims that addiction is misunderstood, but then says that the way to fix it is faith based involvement and Drug Free Workplace initiatives. Here’s the really bizarre comment:

‹People don‰t use drugs accidentally. They use them for self medication and for coping with life,Š he said. ‹I don‰t see a lot of recreational marijuana users any longer.Š

Apparently Janes doesn’t get out much.

Regular readers know that I try my best to be civil, to be patient, to be reasoned. Yet there are times when such… patience seems no longer viable.
What I have to share with you now is dangerous. There are those who will consider me to be… treasonous for passing on such words. There may be those in power who feel that I can no longer be allowed to spread this sedition.
These aren’t my words, but they’re important words.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Ö That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Ö That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Happy Independence Day.
Join me in being independent.

“Drugs is a big, big problem in America.” – John McCain

Ah yes, finally, some clear, decisive, rational thoughts about drug policy. I guess I can hang up my blogging cap now — with astute leaders like that, we no longer need my discussions on the issues.
…
You see, I used to think that the qualifications for being President actually involved, uh, knowing some stuff. But then I tuned into cable news and discovered that the qualification for being President is actually getting shot down in a plane. I must have missed that Constitutional amendment (and I’m not sure when George W. got shot down – must have been during those National Guard hours that they forgot to record).
So now we’re looking at a potential President of the United States in 2009 who doesn’t know how to use a computer, and who is able to manage drug policy statements like:

“Drugs is a big, big problem in America.”

But at least he’s been shot down in a plane. That makes me feel so much better about his capacity to understand complex policies.
Including this one, obviously fed to him by staff at the encouragement of John Walters:

McCain praised Plan Colombia, a program the U.S. government launched 10 years ago to reduce cocaine production in the country. Because of Plan Colombia and other efforts, the price of an ounce of cocaine on U.S. streets had risen substantially, McCain said.

Ah, yes, the ubiquitous street ounce of cocaine, which, of course, has actually dropped substantially in price in the last 10 years (both in real dollars and inflation adjusted dollars (source– page 260) despite the recent problems with the U.S. dollar and huge interdiction and eradication efforts).
Obligatory troll note: I respect Senator McCain’s service to his country, and nothing I have said could possibly be interpreted as denigrating his service, except by people with the I.Q. of a toaster with the pop-up feature not working. It’s just that the simple fact of being in a plane when it is shot down does not make you Presidential and more than you’re likely to hear people say “Hey, Bob got hit in the face last week. We should put him in charge of our company.”
On the other hand, saying things like “Drugs is a big, big problem in America” when discussing our global drug policies with the leader of a foreign country — that is a pretty obvious disqualification for being President.
Update: More drug policy expertise from the man with the kindergarten-level understanding:

“There is clearly a continued threat of drugs pouring into the United States of America, which can harm us and our young people very badly.” – John McCain

The New York Times editorial today: Not Winning the War on Drugs

John Walters, the White House drug czar, declared earlier this year that ‹courageous and effectiveŠ counternarcotics efforts in Colombia and Mexico ‹are disrupting the production and flow of cocaine.Š
This enthusiasm rests on a very selective reading of the data. Another look suggests that despite the billions of dollars the United States has spent battling the cartels, it has hardly made a dent in the cocaine trade.

It’s a pretty good editorial for the New York Times — certainly not as outright anti-prohibition as we’d like, but a strong statement against supply side efforts and pushing for emphasis on treatment instead of enforcement.

All this suggests serious problems with a strategy that focuses overwhelmingly on disrupting the supply of drugs while doing far too little to curb domestic demand. […]
Above all, the next administration must put much more effort into curbing demand Ö spending more on treating drug addicts and less on putting them in jail. Drug courts, which sentence users to treatment, still deal only with a small minority of drug cases and should be vastly expanded. Drug-treatment programs for imprisoned drug abusers, especially juvenile offenders, must also be expanded.
Over all, drug abuse must be seen more as a public health concern and not primarily a law enforcement problem. Until demand is curbed at home, there is no chance of winning the war on drugs.

Of course, they had to add that little end tag ‘winning the war on drugs’ like they’re still dreaming that it can be done without ending it.
And there was the one strange concession to drug war victory:

The counternarcotics effort has produced some successes. Marijuana use in the United States has declined since 2002, the earliest year for which the government has comparable data.

Ah, yes. The reduction of non-problematic use of marijuana. Success. That’s worth all the dollars spent and lives lost, right?
In the Huffington Post, Robert Creamer writes that Americans Can’t Allow McCain to Continue Bush’s Failed Policies in the “War on Drugs”

Though the failures of the “War on Drugs” are more silent and insidious than his dramatic failures in the Middle East, the two have much in common. Both have involved an over-reliance on, and often reckless use of, military force to solve problems for which military power is not appropriate. And both result in massive diversions of attention and energy from the real source of a problem into “crusades” that actually made matters worse.

He also talks about the counterproductive efforts in Colombia

The stupidity of the fumigation policy became clear when we met with hundreds of local people who had assembled in a community center in Putumayo. We heard story after story of legitimate crops being killed by indiscriminate aerial fumigation. We talked to dozens of farmers who said they grew coca because it was the only way to make any money. We talked to many local people who told us that if the crops were fumigated, they would simply move further into the jungle and tear down more rainforest.

… and the mess of our reliance on incarceration…

The price of these policies to our broader society has been breathtaking. The entire correctional system had about 550,000 inmates in 1985. Today, it has 2.6 million– mostly because of mandatory minimums and major limitations on the use of parole at both the state and federal level.
The cost of the system has gone from $9 billion a year in 1985 to $60 billion a year today.
The prison system doesn’t focus on rehabilitation or education, either. It basically warehouses inmates and in many cases makes them more inclined to commit real crimes. Today the recidivism rate is 67%. Two-thirds of inmates will return to prison after being released.

These are both good pieces. They both suggest a shifting of prohibition from supply-side focus to demand-side focus, with an emphasis on treatment.
Of course, personally, I believe that the correct approach is an elimination of prohibition (and its problems) and a separate, but important, effort to deal with problem drug use, involving education and treatment.
But I also understand that the notion of shifting, rather than eliminating, can be more palatable to some, and it’s better than nothing.

DEA Marks 35th Anniversary

The Drug Enforcement Administration was created 35 years ago on this date by President Richard Nixon, who through an Executive Order established a single unified command to combat “an all-out global war on the drug menace.” At its outset, the DEA had 1,470 Special Agents, a budget of less than $75 million, and a presence in 31 countries. Today, the DEA has 5,235 Special Agents, a budget of more than $2.4 billion and 87 foreign offices in 63 countries.

I was about to become a Sophomore in college in July 1973.
Since then, we have experienced 35 years of increasing lawlessness, corruption, global criminal drug enterprises, and drug-war-related terror, along with decreased individual rights.
Thanks, DEA, for making this world a more miserable place.

“bullet” Los Angeles Times Editorial compares our efforts on the drug war to taking on “The Incredible Hulk”

In the grand scheme of hit movie plotting, it makes sense that the Hulk isn’t easy to kill — his indestructibility sets up Parts II and III. But Washington is now on Revenge of the Drug War Parts VIII and IX. Why not rethink our strategy and opt out of a sequel?

“bullet” Drug War on Moms. This is horrible.

Awakened by late-night pounding and his doorbell ringing, Palmdale resident Jesus Bejarano found a social worker and two sheriff’s deputies demanding he turn over his 20-month-old daughter, Kelly.
The social worker said Bejarano’s 29-year-old wife, Cheila Herrera, had tested positive for amphetamines and PCP at Antelope Valley Hospital after giving birth to the couple’s son a week earlier. Their son, Jesse, who was born prematurely and was still at the hospital, had already been placed in protective custody.
“It was terrible,” Herrera said of the Feb. 14 ordeal. “It was pretty shocking to us. We didn’t know what to do or say. We called my mom, saying, ‘They are taking our baby away.’
“We started calling friends, but no one we know has gone through something like this. We were crying. We thought, oh my God, they took our baby.”
Last month, the couple sued Los Angeles County government for unspecified damages, saying Herrera had never used drugs and the social worker ignored a battery of expensive tests that proved the initial drug-test results were wrong.
Experts say the case highlights widespread problems with California’s system of drug-testing pregnant mothers, using urine-screening tests that produce false-positives up to 70 percent of the time, and inconsistent compliance by hospitals with a state law designed to regulate the process.

See how bad it is: False Positives Are Common in Drug Tests on New Moms
“bullet” United States Has Highest Level Of Illegal Cocaine And Cannabis Use.

A survey of 17 countries has found that despite its punitive drug policies the United States has the highest levels of illegal cocaine and cannabis use.

I’m not sure what that means, other than the obvious — the whole notion of a drug-free society is ridiculous, and no amount of prohibition is going to eliminate drug use.
The survey itself is based on lifetime use (not current use, not abuse), so it’s useless for drawing any conclusions as to people harmed by drugs, or current status of prohibition efforts.
It does make me wonder, though, why we can’t get such an apparently large portion of the population who have tried drugs to join more actively in the fight against prohibition.

I’ve long talked about how the war on drugs damages the inner cities and low income areas. The lure of black market profits is greater, the transactions tend to be more public, and there’s a stronger direct push for arrest and incarceration.
One of the casualties of this is the family left behind when dad is sent to prison for dealing. Now you’ve got a poor family in a poor neighborhood, without a father figure, dependent on welfare, and the kids grow up looking for an escape from that life (gangs, drugs, etc.)
And again, for any of the mindless “well, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” law and order types, this is not just about individual choices — it’s about the fact that prohibition creates certain destructive economic incentives and realities. By continuing to stand in front of a long line of about-to-be incarcerated drug criminals individually saying “he deserves it… he deserves it… he deserves it…” you ignore your responsibility as a rational player in society to make societal changes for the better.
So one of the realities is the broken family. But Reason’s Kerry Howley takes it a step further in the Los Angeles Times opines that more families suffer the fallout than just those who have a male in prison.

For low-income black women, the world really isn’t cooperating. We put an awful lot of nonviolent black men behind bars, which is not generally conducive to good fathering. With so many young men absent, the marriage markets are heavily skewed against women, and mothers who might otherwise demand that men stay home and change diapers find themselves in a miserable bargaining position. In his book “The Logic of Life,” Tim Harford describes one study indicating that “a one-percentage- point increase in the proportion of young black men in prison reduces the proportion of young black women who have ever been married by three percentage points.”

Ilya Somin of Volokh Conspiracy follows up in Why the War on Drugs is Bad for Family Values

Some conservatives might argue that the kinds of men who get arrested for drug possession or dealing wouldn’t make good husbands even if they stay out of prison. Perhaps that is true in some cases. But these men still probably beat the alternative of single parenthood. Moreover, Kerry’s point about bargaining position is crucial here. If fewer men from these communities were in prison, there would be more competition between them in the dating market and thus stronger incentives for them to behave in ways that appeal to women.

These are important points to remember when discussing the war on drugs with social conservatives in particular.
If they believe that the two-parent family is a value that should be desired, then the drug war is a negative factor in achieving that dream.
And stop worrying about gays destroying marriage. The real danger to marriage is prohibition.

NYPD wants suspects to sign search consent form

The New York City Police Department wants suspects to sign a consent form before searching their homes or cars, a move that eliminates the need for a warrant and is meant to provide police a layer of legal protection, Newsday has learned.
The initiative was put in place because consent searches are often challenged at trial – and jurors too often believe the suspect’s claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said.
At the same time, sources said, there has been concern within the NYPD about a handful of cases in which an officer’s truthfulness was recently called into question.
In one case, a federal judge said he found it “wholly plausible” that a sergeant forced his way into a Bronx apartment to conduct a search despite the sergeant’s contention otherwise.

Good for the juries. Interesting that a PD has taken it upon itself (instead of being forced by legislators as has happened in other places) to require signed consent forms. The good thing about signed forms (in addition to the reasons above) is that their existence at least provide a modicum of implied notification to the target regarding the fact that it is their right not to consent.
In areas where signed consent is required, the number of searches has dropped dramatically.
Now the real question is, why would anyone ever consent to a search?
Sure, the canned law enforcement quip is “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” But regular readers know my response to that:

Sometimes people say I shouldn’t mind being searched if I have nothing to hide. I immediately accuse them of having a swastika tattooed on their genitalia — if they have nothing to hide, then surely they shouldn’t mind dropping their pants to prove me wrong.

And, of course, even without that thinking the “nothing to hide” bit doesn’t make a bit of sense in consenting to a search.
Think about it. If, in fact, an officer has enough evidence to suspect a crime as determined by various legal regulations, they can search whatever they want with or without your permission.
So in a consent situation, they are saying “Hey, I really don’t have enough reason to believe you committed a crime in order to search you without permission, so would you be willing to let me go through your drawers anyway, so that I might be able to find something to charge you with?”
What person in their right mind agrees to such a thing?
There are two possible scenarios here:

1. You have nothing illegal in your house/car, (and you’re sure nothing illegal got left there by a previous tenant/passenger). Why waste your time and the cop’s time searching for something that isn’t there? What possible reason should you, as a law abiding citizen, have for agreeing to be put through such an ordeal?
2. You have something illegal in your house/car. Well, then, I’m guessing you don’t want to get caught. So maybe you shouldn’t invite a law enforcement officer to search it, huh?

Sure, I know, if you don’t consent, then the cop won’t be your friend anymore, and he won’t go to bat for you before the judge. Law enforcement officers are trained to be persuasive (and to lie about what they can do for you) in getting people to consent. And it gets pretty confusing and sometimes terrifying in an encounter with law enforcement.
So just remember two things: if you’re innocent, then don’t consent to a search; if you’re guilty, then don’t consent to a search. It’s easy.