Drug WarRant

All the prepared documents from today’s hearing are available here
“bullet” Senator Webb set the tone with his opening:

The central role of drug policy in filling our nation‰s prisons makes clear that our approach to curbing illegal drug use is broken. […]
It is painful to note that as people gather today to celebrate the end of slavery, Human Rights Watch reports that while ‹ostensibly color-blind, the U.S. drug war has been and continues to be waged overwhelmingly against black Americans.Š […]
Our current combination of enforcement, diversion, interdiction, treatment, and prevention is not working the way we need it to. And, despite overwhelming facts š the ease with which drugs can be obtained, the price of drugs, the number of people in prison, the violence at the border š there has been little effort to take a comprehensive look at the relationship between the many interlocking pieces of drug policy.

“bullet” Anne Swern, an Assistant DA in Brooklyn, presented alternative options to the Rockefeller Drug Laws, including Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) and a re-entry program for former inmates.
“bullet” Norma Fernandes is a former drug abuser from Brooklyn who talked about her personal success with an alternative to prison program. She now works with the re-entry program.
“bullet” Peter Reuter gave a very credible presentation for the most part, focusing on the lack of the right kind of solid information that exists to shape policy, and the fact that policy is being shaped with no interest in the actual facts.
He still has the extremely annoying and intellectually dishonest tendency of so many of his colleagues to refer to many prohibition problems as “drug problems” and also the unhelpful tendency to refer to periods of drug usage in society as “epidemics.” Here are a couple of examples of his “drug problem” mis-usage.

America‰s Drug Problem: Drugs have been part of the landscape of U.S. social problems for at least forty years, from the time of the heroin epidemic of the late 1960s. The principal costs have been the high crime rates and the neighborhood consequences of that, particularly in low income minority, urban communities; the incarceration of large numbers of young males, particularly in those same neighborhoods; and HIV associated with injecting drug use, primarily heroin.

and…

The most conspicuous consequence of drug use in the U.S. has been the crime associated both with its marketing and with the need to obtain money to purchase the substances, which are very expensive.

Why are these drug problems and not the conspicuous consequences of drug prohibition?
It’s pure nonsense on Reuter’s part and discredits the fine research he does elsewhere.
Where Reuter shines is his critique of enforcement and prevention policy strategies employed by the U.S. And he really goes after the ONDCP as incompetent. He also criticizes the U.N. for bowing to U.S. pressure against the use of harm reduction techniques.
He also takes on Congress:

Congress has not pressed any Administration to justify its policy choices in a systematic fashion but has been content to accept the standard rhetoric and argue about details.

An excellent critique.
But again, Reuter avoids talking about the policy change that would really make a difference, merely because he doesn’t feel it has political power (and he doesn’t want to lose his academic cred by bringing up something… radical)

The next ten years of U.S. drug policy is likely to be very similar to the recent past. Even if the extent of drug dependence and related harms continues to moderate, there is little effective pressure for relaxation of the intense enforcement of the last two decades. Drug treatment may receive more support than in the past but that, of itself, will make only a moderate difference. Major legal change is extremely unlikely.

The closest he gets to reality?

I hope that Congress will undertake a more systematic approach to drug policy in the future and examine more than marginal changes.

Come on, Peter. Say it.
“bullet” I’ve been a bit of a fan of John Walsh with WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America). His presentation U.S. Drug Policy: At What Cost? Moving Beyond the Self-Defeating Supply-Control Fixation He is certainly better able to (and more willing to) provide us with the truth of Plan Colombia and our other efforts in Latin America than our drug czar, and he comes out swinging:

The first, and perhaps the most obvious lesson of recent drug control history is that there is essentially no such thing as unalloyed drug policy success on the supply side. This is because the so-called ‹balloon effectŠ is as relevant as ever. Simply put, increased pressure on the drug trade at a given time and location tends to displace activities elsewhere, much as squeezing a balloon in one place forces it to expand in others.[…]
The importance of bearing in mind the balloon effect is that, while [negative drug war] consequences may well be unintended, at this point they can no longer be considered unforeseeable. Why belabor a point that seems as obvious as it is important? The answer is that, unfortunately, high-ranking U.S. drug policy officials have appeared to be in denial about the balloon effect, engaging in wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment of outcomes. For example, in touting the intensified pace of fumigation in Colombia in 2003, ONDCP Director John Walters declared that, for ‹those who have been religious like believers in the balloon effect, the balloon is not growing, the balloon is not moving, the balloon is shrinking, and it‰s shrinking at historic levels. It‰s maybe time to get another God.Š
But the air has not gone out of the balloon effect, as subsequent U.S. estimates on coca
growing and cocaine production have made clear.

And Walsh, like holding a child’s hand (our drug czar), leads his presentation through a series of lessons about economic reality. First the balloon effect, then Lesson 2: Mature Markets, Robust Availability

A second lesson to draw from the emphasis on supply control over the past few decades is that the targeted illicit drugs, including cocaine, have nevertheless remained quite available in the United States.

Lesson 3: Needle in a Haystack

A third lesson arising from the long U.S. experience with aggressive supply-control policies is that stemming illicit drug smuggling for sustained periods of time is unlikely to occur in a country and region that prizes international commerce and facilitates an enormous flow of legal goods across national borders.

And he ends strongly:

Rather than continue the search for the silver bullet, policy makers would do well to recognize that illicit drugs pose a perennial problem that cannot be eliminated, but can be managed significantly better than we have done thus far. This entails adopting a harm reduction approach that, broadly speaking, seeks to minimize the harms associated with illicit drug production, distribution and use, but also to minimize the harms generated by policies meant to control illicit drugs.

On the right track (though still, as with Peter, would have liked to hear him say it).
There’s also a video of the hearing at the website, and some additional charts.
A good hearing — I hope Webb continues to push on this.

NPR has a good four-part series on Asset Seizures

Justice Department figures show that in the past four years alone, the amount of assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies Ö the vast majority of it cash Ö has tripled, from $567 million to $1.6 billion. And that doesn’t include tens of millions more the agencies got from state asset forfeiture programs.

Lots of police departments are making asset forfeiture their big game. They’re actually spending more effort profiling drivers going south than going north, because they’d rather seize money than drugs — the drugs get destroyed, the money they get to keep.

‹If they catch ’em going south with a suitcase full of cash, the police department just paid for its budget for the year.Š — Jack Fishman, attorney

And plenty of cases, they’re just stealing it from innocent people at gunpoint.
There were some telling and bizarre quotes from law enforcement in the series…
Part 1
Investigator Mike Tamez assures us that we have no reason to worry if we just trust them:

“We’re not going to sidestep the law and seize people’s money just for the financial gains of the department,” Tamez says. “It’s not going to happen.”

Apparently law enforcement is immune from the lure of money? Right. Of course, plenty of other stories in the series puts the lie to Tamez’ statement.
Part 2
Captain Ray Escamilla explains one of the tricks in picking the mark.

“You don’t want to take the money from any John Doe,” Escamilla says. “If you can’t prove that it’s been a criminal activity, reasonably suspicious, probable cause, you don’t want to take it, ’cause it’ll look bad in court.”

Yeah, cause you don’t want to look bad in court is the main reason for a cop not to steal from people.
Part 3
Chief Deputy Eddie Ingram:

“If you get money, God bless America,” Ingram says. “It’s a wonderful thing. … But that ain’t what our sole purpose in life is. If all I wanted to do was get money, I know how to get out there and get all the money I want.”

Yep. God bless America — where else can government officials have the power to pull people over without cause, search through their stuff and take what you want? I mean, other countries probably have constitutions and stuff to prevent that kind of wholesome, fun activity.
Part 4 covers some of the questionable spending with proceeds of asset forfeiture, although the mere notion of a government entity controlling the money it seizes is unacceptable because such a system cannot help but spawn corruption.

Read John Stossel

“bullet” I had been meaning to get around to talking about James Q. “Broken Windows” Wilson’s guest blogging stint at Volokh. It was a horrible series of posts (fortunately thoroughly ridiculed by the commenters) basically making the point that are high incarceration rate might not be such a bad thing — with bizarre notions thrown in that we might get more value from prisons than universities, and that the cost of incarcerating someone for a year is cheaper than the cost of the crimes they would commit if they were out (a really nonsensical concept when discussing drug offenses or other consensual “crimes”).
But Alex at Drug Law Blog had already taken him on, so I’ll let you go there to read more.
“bullet” Canadian jury acquits Basil Parasiris of murder of a police officer. Judge and media note that armed drug raids should not be used lightly.

Laval police conducted the raid in the belief that Parasiris was involved in a local drug ring. Unfortunately, as Superior Court Justice Guy Cournoyer ruled, there was little proof to back this belief, certainly not enough for a search warrant to be executed in a surprise, pre-dawn raid. Such a raid should be carried out only in an emergency.

“bullet” Legalization would end drug war in Mexico, world — by Richard Mack.
“bullet” Senator Jim Webb to hold hearing on Thursday examing economic impact of U.S. Drug Policy. Current witness list:

• Peter Reuter, School of Public Policy and Dept. of Criminology, University of Maryland
• Anne Swern, First Assistant District Attorney, Kings County, Brooklyn, New York
• Norma Fernandes, Community Coordinator, Kings County District Attorney’s Office
• John Walsh, Senior Associate for Drug Policy, Washington Office on Latin America

“bullet” I forgot to mention this important one when it came out last week… Canada: Addicts become stable on prescribed heroin. No kidding. I’ve been saying that for years (and we’ve had the proof from Switzerland for years). This should be a no-brainer, folks, yet governments avoid it like the plague.
“bullet” Irish Criminologist Paul O’Mahony has written a book “The Irish War on Drugs, the Seductive Folly of Prohibition.” In it, he says that the war on drugs has “failed catastrophically” and that drugs should be legalized because there is a “human right” to use them.
“bullet” An intern without any facts tries to dispell misconceptions about marijuana. Stupidity ensues.
“bullet” Sometimes we reform activists just get fed up

A drug-law reform activist spent a night in jail after hurling abuse at cops in an attempt to stop them from collaring pot-smokers outside his Greenwich Village home, police said.
As undercover cops nabbed the two dopers Thursday night, Randy Credico allegedly burst from his Gay Street home and screamed, “You guys are really solving murders out here? Why don’t you guys get a life! F- – – you all! You can’t tell me what to do!”

This article helps point out the absurdity of some people’s thinking when it comes to drug prohibition. Trenton is considering reducing the size of drug free school zones from 1,000 to 200 feet. Here’s the predictable idiotic response:

“Reducing the zones would have our children pass through a ( phalanx ) of drug dealers every day,” said school board Vice President Alexander Brown. “This would bring drug trafficking 800 feet closer to our schools. Some legislators believe the zones have placed a hardship on drug dealers. To me, I say ‘tough.'”

Of course, that’s a lot of absurd nonsense. Here is the actual story:

“If 96 percent of the people incarcerated under the drug-free zone law are black or Hispanic — groups that only make up 20 percent of our state’s population — it’s not a fair system,” said Roseanne Scotti, director of the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey.
“Plus, there is no evidence that drug-free zones hinder drug sales,” Scotti said. “Basically, this law amounts to two different penalties being given for the same exact crime — the only differences between the two penalties are geography and race.”

Nobody actually knows where the zones are, so it isn’t a deterrent. It’s just a way of tacking on punishment for a certain class of people. It doesn’t in any way affect the availability of drugs to children. Because inner cities are so dense, the zones practically blanket the entire area — well of course that won’t stop drug sales, but it does mean that when black people are caught selling drugs, the DA can add on the zone charge.
And it certainly doesn’t make a zone “drug free.” You arrest one dealer and you’ve just put out an ad for a high-paying tax-free job for someone else (in a poor neighborhood — gee, you think anyone will bite?)
So the question is, do these officials know what they’re saying?

Officials across Mercer County said they would support changing the penalties for dealers caught in a drug-free zone, but reducing the zones to 200 feet would be disadvantageous to students.
Drug-free zones “should be everywhere,” said Lou Goldstein, spokesman for Princeton schools.
“To narrow it to 200 feet doesn’t make any sense,” Goldstein said.æ “In my personal opinion, the (legislators) are going in the wrong direction.æ They should be expanding the zones out as far as they can.” Sen.æ Shirley Turner, D-Lawrence, said she also favors expanding the zones.
“I think the entire city of Tren ton should be a drug-free zone, that’s my position,” Turner said.æ “Every municipality should be drug-free.”
Trenton City Council President Paul Pintella would also like to see drug-free zones expanded.
“I understand the challenge behind urban districts where schools are directly in the heart of neighborhoods; but we shouldn’t make exceptions for the people who live there,” Pintella said.æ “They shouldn’t be selling drugs in the first place, especially to our kids.”

I’ve written City Council President Pintella to ask him if drug trafficking is legal in Trenton except in drug free zones (which certainly seems to be his implication). I’ll let you know if I get a response.

Should medical marijuana be kept from minors at all costs? Why is it that pharmacists can dispense amphetamines without getting busted, but legal operators who dispense medical marijuana face prison time? Why do armed federal agents persist in raiding California?

Drew Carey with a heartbreaking video

Vincent Hodgkiss, dead, from a paramilitary-style drug raid. Details are still sketchy, but it’s clearly a death that didn’t have to happen.
People are finally starting to ask the right questions, though.

“bullet” Radley Balko has discovered some potentially earth-shattering information in the Ryan Frederick case. If the police were, in fact, directing or encouraging criminals to break into private homes in order to search for evidence, then some major heads need to roll — particularly when that action resulted in a death.
“bullet” Bruce Mirken does a nice job with the Potent Pot nonsense. See also Jacob Sullum.
“bullet” DrugSense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

“bullet” Scott Morgan has the surreal posts: Vietnam Orders Police to Win the Drug War by August and People are Getting Themselves Arrested Just So They Can Sell Drugs in Jail
“bullet” Grant Smith at D’Alliance has a wonderful account of attending the drug testing summit held at the ONDCP HQ. I would have loved to be there.
“bullet” Radley Balko on the drug raid death of Gonzalo Guizan
“bullet” Transform notes Scotland looks to a new future of drug control

’77 per cent of young people surveyed by the Forum were doubtful that Scotland would ever be drug free and only 45 per cent of respondents felt we should even be trying to become drug free.‰
‘There should therefore be a more honest approach to alcohol and drug policy, with the primacy of effort concentrating on prevention, harm reduction measures and treatment, supported by enforcement activities.‰

While the headline and overall tone of this AP article — Study: Marijuana potency increases in 2007 — is typical fear mongering and parroting of Drug Czar press releases, the Associated Press gets a point for at least talking about marijuana use titration and mild withdrawal of pot in the article through interviewing Dr. Mitch Earleywine.

While the drug’s potency may be rising, marijuana users generally adjust to the level of potency and smoke it accordingly, said Dr. Mitch Earleywine, who teaches psychology at the State University of New York in Albany and serves as an adviser for marijuana advocacy groups. “Stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke,” he said. […]
But there’s no data showing that a higher potency in marijuana leads to more addiction, Earleywine said, and marijuana’s withdrawal symptoms are mild at best. “Mild irritability, craving for marijuana and decreased appetite Ö I mean those are laughable when you talk about withdrawal from a drug. Caffeine is worse.”