Drug WarRant

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.

“bullet” Shorter U.N. Drug Chief (Costa):

We’re actually losing ground rapidly in the drug war, but it’s not our fault. Turns out that nasty people discovered that you can make a whole lot of money off of illegal drugs. Who knew?

“bullet” “drcnet”

Denver

Marijuana proponents want to know why federal officials continue to allow people to use alcohol on airplanes, but won’t allow pot smoking in the lounges at Denver International Airport.
“Does it make sense to allow adults to use a drug that causes problems on airplanes and not allow them to use one that does not cause problems on airplanes?” asked Mason Tvert, executive director of Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation.

FOX News certainly enjoyed jumping on the story
Notice the FOX anchor have a problem understanding the English language.

…well, “far less harmful” doesn’t exactly equate to “safer”…

Um, yes, in fact, that is the definition of safer.
And the guest attorney — John Richardson — is a real idiot.
Now, obviously, Mason Tvert’s doing a PR stunt. But still, it’s amazing how it brings out the crazies on the other side.

Brazil

A sharp increase in drugs and cellphones found inside a Brazilian prison mystified officials — until guards spotted some distressed pigeons struggling to stay airborne.
Inmates at the prison in Marilia, Sao Paulo state had been training carrier pigeons to smuggle in goods using cell phone sized pouches on their backs, a low-tech but ingenious way of skipping the high-tech security that visitors faced.

Earlier this week I briefly noted a piece about the death of Vincent Hodgkiss by paramilitary raid. I had found out about it in a well-written article in the Sun-Sentinel by Michael Mayo — Overzealous drug war claims another casualty — and I noted that finally the right questions were being asked in the media.
Well, on Mayo’s blog, he notes the price of a well-written article about the drug war — abuse. Here’s one of the emails he got:

Dear Mrs. Mayo: People complain about drugs being sold in their neighborhood and f— like you aren’t happy with the way the Police handle the problem. If these piece of s— drug dealers weren’t selling drugs they wouldn’t have to worry about COPS kicking in their door. Keep your little gay a– behind your computer where you’re shielded from danger and leave the dirty work for the real men. F—— p—-. You make me sick. – Scooter M.

Thank you, Scooter for your erudite commentary.
You know, in drug policy reform, we work hard to make the world better for everyone, because we truly believe that everyone will benefit from ending prohibition. But there are a few knuckle-draggers who will never be able to comprehend the basic concepts. It’s not worth our time. It would be like Major Carter trying to explain wormhole physics to an Unas. Or Data explaining the operation of his positronic brain to a holodeck bartender. Or Gandalf explaining the mysteries of the Maia to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

This pot potency nonsense just won’t go away. Now it’s the Boston Globe. A lot of it is the same re-hashed stuff that’s been in other sources, but I couldn’t help notice the classic “balanced” academic who is quoted at length right up front.

Academics say both sides are guilty of selectively presenting data to bolster their positions.
In a field with limited research, partisans tend to create paper thin arguments, as easily made as they are countered, said Roger Roffman, professor of sociology at the University of Washington.
“I think [both sides] do a disservice to the general public,” said Roffman, who has written papers and edited books on marijuana use and dependence. On websites of drug policy reform advocates, “you’ll find lots of information about the very adverse consequences of criminalizing marijuana and very little mention of the very real harm associated with marijuana among some people in some circumstances,” he said.
Meanwhile, on government and prohibitionist websites, he said, “you’ll find plenty of information on the harmful consequences of marijuana abuse and very little information, perhaps, on the harmful consequences of criminalizing marijuana.”

I hadn’t heard of Roffman before — he’s a new annoyance to me. But boy, does he talk the academic game of trashing reformers without reason, just to be seen trashing reformers. It’s almost like they have to publicly trash reformers a specified number of times just to continue getting grants. Sure, they also beat up on prohibitionists, but they create the balance in such a way as to imply that reformers should join them in trying to make prohibition work better instead of being so extremist and vulgar as to suggest a range of alternatives to a failed policy.
So let’s take a look at his critique. First of all, he is upset that partisans are… uh… partisan. Guess what — the whole point of an advocacy group is to advocate. It is not my job to give the other side of the argument equal play, or worse yet, to try to find justifications for their unjustifiable policies. Yet still, drug reform activists tend to be far better than their opposites (or even, sometimes, the academics) at encouraging debate and dialog and discussing all sides. We even allow public comments (something the other side does not).
What should be jumping out like a huge red flag in this partisan business is that he has “drug policy reform advocates” as partisans on one side and “government and prohibitionist websites” as partisans on the other side. Hello… Earth to Roffman… There’s your “disservice to the general public.” When the government uses taxpayer money to promote one partisan side and tries to squelch other viewpoints, then that’s the real problem.
So with the government using our money to lie to us, a good portion of the work of drug policy reformers has to be constantly calling out the lies. Could that, perhaps, make us look partisan? And wouldn’t that be justified?
Let’s continue to analyze…

In a field with limited research, partisans tend to create paper thin arguments, as easily made as they are countered

What a meaningless statement! He doesn’t counter any argument made by reformers, nor does he point out one that is “paper thin.” He just gives this intellectually dishonest jab at… nothing… as a way to discredit without having to prove anything. Take a look at the tremendous research and scholarship that has been done here and at DRCnet, and DrugSense, and LEAP, and DPA, and NORML, and Brian Bennett’s work, and tell us to our face that our arguments are “paper thin.” Of course, Roffman doesn’t actually accuse — he just implies. No real difference than the kind of dishonest implications given by the drug czar on a regular basis.
Now what Roffman says about the government and prohibitionists websites puzzles me somewhat:

“you’ll find plenty of information on the harmful consequences of marijuana abuse…”

Actually, you’re more likely to find false or misleading information on the supposed harmful consequences of marijuana use, not abuse. They rarely talk about “abuse” in any meaningful way that actually recognizes the difference between use and abuse. So the good thing about their sites, really isn’t.
Finally, what he has to say about us is that we don’t spend enough time talking about “the very real harm associated with marijuana among some people in some circumstances” [emphasis added]. With all those qualifiers, it’s hard to blame reformers for wondering if it’s really worth their time focusing on those problem people who will be there whether or not prohibition exists, when prohibition adversely affects EVERYONE. And I admit, quite frankly, that I don’t give a f*ck about some psychologically messed up stoner who is dependent on marijuana, especially compared to people getting shot to death in their homes and spending decades in prison because nobody has the balls to face up to the fact that prohibition is wrong.
But you see, Roger Roffman is as much a part of the machinery of prohibition as the rest of the gang. It’s why he criticizes it while carefully preserving it. It keeps him able to collect government grants from NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), such as these where he gets paid by the government to conduct interventions with marijuana users. In fact, he’s been on NIDA’s dole for over 20 years.
Now as much as I get a bit incensed by the academic dishonesty of someone like Roger Roffman, I don’t necessarily believe that he is completely driven by maliciousness or corruption from his funding source. It’s quite possible one of the problems is that he sees the world in a very limited fashion.
To explain, I’m going to tell you a little story about my dad.
My dad grew up in a very conservative midwest church environment that held strong moral opposition to imbibing alcohol in any amount or for any reason. He never drank, and never associated with people who drank, so he never had any exposure to social drinking (except perhaps from watching Dean Martin and Foster Brooks).
My dad became a minister. He was an extraordinarily good minister (he’s retired now) with compassion and an open mind, but he still didn’t drink or know people who did… except those who came to him with problems. In my dad’s world-view, the people who drank were the ones who came to him with their marriages falling apart and their finances in ruins, often full of hopelessness and despair.
He never understood that there were millions of people enjoying a good 10-year-old single malt scotch with some 5-year-old aged gouda in their home (like I am tonight), a special bottle of wine with dinner, or cold beers while cheering on their favorite sports team… who had no problems with their drinking. In fact, the use of alcohol was part of who they were — good people, interesting people.
I don’t know Roger Roffman, and I don’t know if his story has any similarities, but I can’t help believing that many of these people who spend their careers immersed in the study of addiction come to believe that the entirety of the universe is caught up in their little experiment. They forget that there’s a whole world out there that needs to be able to get on with its life without the baggage of that subset — an important subset that will need attention regardless of the eventual policies, but a subset that should not be driving and shaping policy for everyone else.

Recently I mentioned how James Q. (broken windows) Wilson stunk up the place over at Volokh with some ridiculously moronic and unsupported statements in support of our incarceration rates, including this one

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PRISON: Several readers have said that prison would be fine if it did not cost so much. They typically quote the figure of $25,000 per year per inmate. Nobody knows if that is the right number, but let us assume that it is. Anne Morrison Piehl, Bert Useem, and others have estimated the costs of crime. Their calculations, presented in the book Prison State, shows that property and assault crimes committed by the median (50th percentile) offender in Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, and New Mexico range from $26,000 to $46,000. It would seem that prison pays: crimes avoided exceed the annual cost per inmate of locking them up.

Somebody with an I.Q. of 10 can spot the problems in this idiotic post, including the bizarre idea that anyone not locked up, or released early, will commit one crime per year, and… Drug crimes. The costs are based on assault and property crimes, not victimless crimes like consensual drug trafficking.
Enter pseudo-intellectualist George F. Will in the Washington Post: More Prisoners, Less Crime. He links favorably to Wilson’s work and goes on even further to support the racial inequities of incarceration. Will essentially claims that the reason blacks are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites is not because of racism, but simply because blacks are worse.
But he supports it with evidence… Check this out:

Do police excessively arrest blacks? “The race of criminals reported by crime victims matches arrest data.”

Notice the trickery there? Let’s take a closer look. One of the biggest racial disparities both in arrest and in length of sentence (an element ignored in this instance) is in drug crimes. So who are these crime victims that are identifying blacks as the ones committing the crimes, then?

Officer, officer, yes it was a black man who made me smoke that pot!

There are no crime victims in drug arrests. Will is just manipulating the evidence to support his views.
So does he ignore drug laws completely? No, but check out what he does:

As for the charge that the incarceration rate of blacks is substantially explained by more severe federal sentences for crack as opposed to powder-cocaine defendants (only 13 states distinguish between the two substances, and these states have small sentence differentials), Mac Donald says:
“It’s going to take a lot more than 5,000 or so [federal] crack defendants a year to account for the 562,000 black prisoners in state and federal facilities at the end of 2006 — or the 858,000 black prisoners in custody overall, if one includes the population of county and city jails.”

So, despite the horrendously long sentences for crack defendants and the fact that they are given to disproportionately black men — because that doesn’t account for all blacks in all jails, then race is not a concerning factor in incarceration.
What????
Does that make any sense at all? Of course, the crack disparity is only one of many racially skewed aspects of drug laws.
Will finishes up his racist defense with another nod to Wilson

And, Wilson dryly adds, the report does not explore “whether society gets as much from universities as it does from prisons.” A good question, but not one apt to be studied in academia.

No, it is not a good question. It is an inane question. Even if you count for the fact that universities gave us James Q. Wilson and George F. Will (every valuable fruit has a few spoiled spots), the value received from educating people far outpaces the value of paying to build a criminal class.
Now note, that both Wilson and Will had to ignore or completely dance around the vast numbers of people in prison for drug offenses in order to half-justify their bizarre and racist diatribes.
So who links favorably to Will’s piece?
Why, the drug czar, of course.
[Note: I’m betting this particular link on the drug czar’s “blog” was directed by Walters himself — based on reading his own racist book, which he co-wrote with William Bennett and John DiIulio.]
Update: Naturally, Scott Morgan has an excellent take as well.

“bullet” R.I.P. George Carlin

‹Why is there such controversy about drug testing? I know plenty of guys who would be willing to test any drug they could come up with…Š — George Carlin

“bullet” Roadblock deaths underscore tactics in Mexico’s drug war. War in the middle of your own country is not a good idea. Find another solution.
“bullet” Radley Balko has a roundup of raid stories.

“bullet” U.N.’s Antonio Maria Costa is shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that coca cultivation in Colombia has increased. Amazing considering that it’s not much of a surprise to us lunatics on drugs. That’s probably because he normally gets all his “facts” from our drug czar.
“bullet” Paul Armentano gives a final word in the pot potency nonsense.
The thing is, the American people know the score — just check out the comments in the Pantagraph — in the middle of Central Illinois — to the drug czar’s “story.”

you just got to love the human mind. if there is a need to make something better, then by golly lets getter done […]
Back in the old days: We had to smoke a whole joint or a pipe in order to get high. I haven’t touched the stuff in 26 years but in the few times I’ve seen anyone smoke since then, they seem to just take a few hits. In the 70’s the big demand was for pot with the highest potency. Considering that marijuana’s prohibition that started in 1936 continues, it makes perfect sense to increase the potency. Less product is needed to do the job. Less product to smuggle. […]
So, pot is more potent now than it ever was. So, what’s the problem? […]
Essentially, “high-potency” marijuana is also “cleaner” marijuana. Put simply, the absolute healthiest marijuana to smoke is this very “high-potency” marijuana. It is this “high-potency” marijuana, and only this, that is even considered for “medical marijuana”. There is no cannabis worse for you than the weakest and cheapest you can find. Again, most to all credible and independent studies consistently suggest cannabis is “extremely safe”. […]
At least the quality of something in America is improving. […]
I always buy premium fuel so why not buy the best weed? You get what you pay for, it takes less to achieve the goal so it last longer. Now pass the Funions… […]
With better pot, you just smoke less than with weaker stuff. […]
Dude … Like … Where’s the nearest White Castle?

“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

22 years ago today, Len Bias died.
Here is the article I wrote on the 20th anniversary: Len Bias – the death that ushered in two decades of destruction