Drug WarRant

Beyond 2008 conference is underway in Vancouver and LEAP’s Jack Cole is getting some good press:
U.S.-style war on drugs a dismal failure and Canada shouldn’t try it, says former cop

As long as the U.S-style “war on drugs” continues, criminals will control what drugs are sold, how much they cost, how deadly those drugs are, and how young their customers will be.
That was the message delivered yesterday by Jack Cole, a retired New Jersey police officer who spent 26 years making arrests in connection with “billions of dollars in cocaine and heroin” as well as other drugs

U.S. cities have taken note of Vancouver safe-injection site: conference

“We know that if we legalize drugs we can take the violence out of the equation,” said Cole, who helped found Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Drug legalization proposed at conference on drug use

The 10,000-member organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, among groups attending the conference, is made up of judges and police officers who want drugs legalized.
“I decided this didn’t work three years into my undercover work,” said former police lieutenant Jack Cole, executive director of the organization. “I started working undercover in 1970. That was the beginning of the war on drugs.
“Cops are so concerned about being labelled soft on drugs, soft on crime, and that next promotion, that we don’t even talk to our peers about what we believe.”

News 1130 apparently decided to help Cole out a little with an extra phrase that I’m guessing he wouldn’t have approved…

Jack Cole, a retired police officer from the US, tells Global TV, it’s time to wave the white flag, and decriminalize drugs. He says the more dangerous the drug, the more reason to legalize it. He says we can’t control it as long as it’s illegal.

My understanding is that “Beyond 2008” is part of the United Nation’s 10-year re-evaluation of drug policy (their 10-year plan in 1998, if you recall, involved becoming a drug-free world). This particular conference in Vancouver has been sanctioned by the U.N. and elements of the conference may affect U.N. deliberations this summer. It is unprecedented for the United Nations to consider such input, especially considering that the Vancouver conference is fairly heavily weighted in harm reduction representation over enforcement.

I ended up going with one of the candidates who said they’ll end the drug war.

I just recently conducted a major study — well actually, I talked to 12 people — and I asked them about England. None of them had ever been there and most expressed doubts about the place. After all, it’s very vague. Is it a country or an island? Is it England, or Britain or the U.K. or part of the EU? Considering the undisputed fact that none of the study subjects had any first-hand knowledge of the place, it seems quite certain that it doesn’t exist.
“England’s existence isn’t as certain as some people would lead you to believe,” said lead researcher Pete Guither of the Ministry of Silly Studies.
So what nonsense am I leading to?
This

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Quitting marijuana can cause withdrawal symptoms as severe as those from quitting tobacco, a small study suggests.
The study, of 12 adults who were heavy users of both marijuana and cigarettes, found that stopping either substance triggered similar withdrawal symptoms. […]
“Marijuana is not as innocuous as some people would lead you to believe,” said lead researcher Dr. Ryan Vandrey, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. […]
The men and women in the current study, published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, used marijuana four times a day, on average, and smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day.
None was in treatment or had any plans to quit either drug.

Um, you quit because you want to, and if you don’t want to and some scientist makes you stop, you’re likely to get irritable.
So we’ve got a grand total of 12 people, no inclusion of people who smoke marijuana without cigarettes, no reason for any of them to quit, and a quitting period of only 5 days. And that’s the study.
Why does Reuters print crap like this?

Rosencrantz: I don’t believe in it anyway.
Guildenstern: What?
Rosencrantz: England.
Guildenstern: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?

Grant Smith reports from the ONDCP’s Pee-Testing Summit in Jacksonville, Florida.
Actual quote from Christina Steffner, principal of Hunterdon Central Regional High School:

“Fear in the mind of teenagers is a beautiful thing”

This is how they want to shape our country.

This article in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle was a bit of a surprise, simply because, even when our Congress people end up doing something positive regarding the drug war, it’s usually not with much… intelligence.

WASHINGTON — The tough-on-crime crackdown of the 1980s and 1990s is getting a second look in Congress.
Some lawmakers, including Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, are questioning whether the soaring incarceration rates brought about by changes in federal sentencing laws have actually deterred crimes.
Jackson Lee and other lawmakers argue that the sentencing-law changes enacted during the crack cocaine epidemic of the Reagan years have become a financial burden to taxpayers and a societal cost in lives lost behind bars. […]
“Focusing more money on incarceration cannot possibly reduce the crime rate. What we have to do is invest money where it makes some sense,” Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who heads the Judiciary crime subcommittee, said during a recent hearing.
Scott noted that the U.S. incarceration rate of 750 adults per 100,000 population is the world’s highest. The average rate globally is 166 per 100,000 persons.

Of course, the article was not without some gaffs. The author completely misstates the 100-1 sentencing disparity (it’s not 100 times the length of sentence), and Jackson Lee’s statement about “both drugs” was out of place.
But still — some real information and politicians trying to take action. Hmm..

17 people were arrested early yesterday morning and charged with multiple counts of selling marijuana and crack, with 11 more warrants outstanding and the possibility of even more.
Yes, this was an operation out to get the biggest of the drug kingpins in…
Twiggs County, Georgia?
Now I don’t know too many of the details of this particular story in Twiggs County — I’ve merely read the article in the paper. But how much more do I need to know?
Let’s look at some information about Twiggs County. The major metropolis in Twiggs County is the county seat: Jeffersonville, with a population of … 1,208. Nearby is bustling Danville with 373 people. The population of the entire county is 10,184, down from 10,590 in 2000. They would all fit in my local university’s basketball arena in Normal, Illinois. Yep. 17-28 major drug dealers.
You can drive clear across Twiggs County in about 20 minutes on I-16.
Now, if you want to get some auto repair done in Twiggs County, you’ll want to go to Jeffersonville Collision Center on Church Street. If you want another option, you’ll have to go clear to Macon or Warner Robins, ’cause there’s only one auto repair place in Twiggs County. But apparently, there were 17-28 major drug dealers (and those are just the ones they caught).
Of course, you know how this goes. Someone decides to clean out a “bad” section of a town or two, and they get an informant to make friends with “those” people and the informant asks them to “help him out” by scoring some pot or crack for him. Being friendly people, they do. That becomes trafficking. Maybe the informant is getting paid for the number of people he nails, so he makes some stuff up, too.
One thing that will be interesting to discover. Twiggs County is 58% white. I wonder how many of those arrested are white.

Those arrested and charged with various violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act include: Christavious Bloodsworth, Demerio Brown, Jolly James Jones, Arthur Dewayne Height Jr., Anterio Brown, Tramarcus Brown, Woodrow Dupree, Regie Jenkins, Bobby Andrew Burns, Isaac Jones, Timothy Blackshear, Anthony Dion Height, Rodriguez Williams, Thomas Mase, Winfred King and Gregory King.

Can you say “Tulia” or “Hearne”? I knew you could.

Howard Wooldridge passes on the words of an aide to a major, Republican candidate still running for President:

…my personal belief is that you should just keep killing every drug dealer arrested. Eventually you’re going to run out. I’m not sure we can make a real dent in the problem under our current justice system that allows people to deal drugs with little penalty.

Much has been made around the drug policy blogosphere in the past day regarding a gotcha moment with Barack Obama regarding decriminalizing marijuana.
The Washington Times, in a backhanded hit piece on Obama found a video statement from 2004 where he said he supported decriminalization (but not legalization), and then the article pointed out the fact that Obama raised his hand in last fall’s debate saying he didn’t support decriminalization.

Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign said he in fact has “always” supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall.

This led a number of people naturally to get somewhat excited that Obama was supporting decriminalization, both from our side, and the opposition (the Times was pretty quick to get that in an editorial and tar him as left-liberal for it).
And then, a short time later…

When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama’s campaign offered two explanations to The Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had “always” supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.
“If you’re convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws,” Mr. Vietor said.
The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers.

So it’s a lot of hoopla, but nobody seemed to have a clue what language they were speaking.
It’s true — decriminalization is a pretty messy word. I avoid it like the plague.

Decriminalize: To reduce or abolish the criminal penalties for

Not much clarity there. Reducing the penalty somewhere for marijuana possession from 2 years to 18 months would be decriminalization.
I’ve heard some people say that decriminalization means you wouldn’t be arrested for using marijuana (but you would for selling it). Some say it means a fine instead of jail time. Still others use it as a way of meaning “legal and regulated” and then consider legalization to mean completely unregulated.
I think drugs should be legal (through legalization or re-legalization, if you prefer). So it behooves me to identify exactly what that means.
So here’s the definition I propose:

When a drug has legal status, it means that a responsible adult may, in some way, openly obtain and use the drug for recreational purposes with no legal penalties. There may, however, be regulations regarding the purity/quantity of the drug, and the time/place/manner of its sale or use.

I think that this is a good template for defining the legalization of any drug. It allows for a wide variety of options with different drugs, and clarifies that legalization doesn’t have to mean a free-for-all (although unregulated would be one of many options).
Now of course, such a definition would allow some legislators to over-regulate (“Marijuana smoking can only occur in a single-family home with the blinds closed and only on the 29th day of any month that begins with the letter ‘F'”), but we’ll always have to contend with idiots.
What do you think? Any changes to the definition?

“bullet” Needled to Death Excellent editorial in the Houston Chronicle slams District Attorney Susan Reed for prosecuting health workers.

That’s an abusive use of her prosecutorial office. Reed might not care for needle exchange programs and all the good they can do in a community to reduce the spread of infectious disease. But overzealous prosecution of three people who clearly had no intention of profiting from the sale of drug paraphernalia is a gross misapplication of the law.

More here
“bullet” I’m with Alec on this one:

Okay, I have basically zero interest in this story, but that just shows how poor I am at tapping into the public zeitgeist, because the media has gone crazy with the thrilling tale of a vending machine that sells medical marijuana. As far as I can see, it raises absolutely no important issues, legal, moral, or otherwise. But it’s something new and different.

“bullet” The ONDCP won’t be satisfied until they make every part of the world a mess. America educates Europe on drug policy (via Jennifer Kern).
“bullet” Good luck to Jerry Paradis, representing LEAP at a U.N. sponsored international drug policy conference in Vancouver next week. Update: LEAP’s Hunter McDonald and Jack Cole will be there as well, and they’ll be doing some media events in conjunction with it.
“bullet” The administration does one thing right, and then we can count on Congress to step up to try to undo it: Senators’ plan would restore funding for anti-drug effort.
“bullet” Phillip Smith gives us a good story about justice perverted, and how Eric Sage Fights Back
“bullet” Quotable

The thing that makes the war on drugs so insidious to me as a black man is not the fact that it has increased the number of black felons or that it has turned our neighborhoods into war zones. No, to me the one factor that has caused the most damage to us as a people is how it has removed us from the process of democracy.

“bullet” Sometimes the internet can be the source of incredibly useful information. Then there’s WikiAnswers. Here’s their answer to the question “Why is Marijuana Illegal?”

Marijuana has affected many lives. Take mine for example. My ex spouse used marijuana habitually, and contrary to remarks stating that it makes you relaxed and peaceful, it made my spouse violent. He also could not drive well and put himself, me, and others on the road at great risk. Many people who are high think they drive fine. But it is an illusion to them because they are high. Also, I have yet to meet anyone who has tried hard drugs who did not start off with marijuana. Although I have never met anyone who has smoked marijuana before cigarettes. And many people drink alcohol before they try anything else. Therefore, I have a very hard time believing that it is not a gateway drug. I agree that alcohol is just as bad. However, I don’t think marijuna should be legal just because alcohol is. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Marijuana severally affects your motor functions, awareness of surroundings, and sensory perceptions. How can that not be dangerous to you and those around you? So why dont we prohibit alcohol, cigarettes and driving? Driving is dangerous, it kills many people every single year. Not only that but we should also prohibit cancer, its a leading cause of death.

My head hurts.
“bullet” “drcnet”

I just saw a fun interview on the Colbert Report with Judge Andrew Napolitano (author of A Nation of Sheep)
I haven’t read the book, so I can’t necessarily recommend it, but he sure knows how to say some great common-sense stuff (some paraphrasing here):

Freedom is the default position. Anything the government does takes away freedom, so we must be vigilant to limit its ability.

In his book, he asks:

• Why are Americans not challenging and questioning the government as it continues to limit more and more of our freedoms?
• What part of “Congress shall make no law…” does the government not understand when it criminalizes speech?
• Whatever happened to our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed by the Constitution, yet ignored by the governments elected to protect them?
• Why does every public office holder swear allegiance to the Constitution, yet very few follow it?
• Don’t we have rights that are guaranteed and cannot be taken from us?

Pretty good questions — I don’t know if he has the answers.
It’s one of the things that always annoys me in drug policy conversations with idiots. So often I hear the “Why should we legalize…” or “Why is it so important that we legalize…” or “Do we really need another legal…” and I want to bang my head against the wall and ask why so many people fail to realize that basic fact: Freedom is the default position.