Drug WarRant

From the Council on Hemispheric Affairs comes a detailed discussion of Plan Mexico: Does the Merida Initiative Represent a New Direction for U.S.-Mexico Relations, or Does It Simply Refocus the Issue Elsewhere? by Laura Starr and Maria Delle Donne.
The article does a good job of looking at the entire picture, including the controversy over the secret nature of the negotiations, and some of the real concerns that the Merida Initiative is intended to address.
What’s most important comes near the end of the article. The authors clearly understand simple, incontrovertible facts regarding the nature of economics and drugs that seem to escape our political leaders (or are intentionally ignored by them).

While Merida may witness an increase in border security and thus, logically, the number of seizures occurring, it is unlikely that it will be able, in its present form, to inhibit the overall trafficking of drugs. The continuance of such anti-drug aid simply encourages traffickers to seek other alternatives because as long as there is demand, traffickers will ensure the same for an adequate supply. Therefore, prices will be driven up as drastic measures are taken to ensure delivery, as referred to by Bill Piper, director of The Drug Policy Alliance: “Supply-side strategies have failed for cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and virtually every drug to which they have been appliedÖincluding alcohol during Prohibition.”
Fundamental economic principles demonstrate why: as long as a strong demand for drugs exists, there will be a supply to meet it. There are always newly organized cartels ready to step into someone’s place should he or she be arrested or made to flee. […]
The Merida Initiative may appear on the surface to strengthen United States-Mexican relations. However, it may not go far in averting drug traffickers’ intentions as they seek borders and routes elsewhere. Meanwhile, drug consumption will remain high, and traffickers will readily be able to sell drugs while purchasing any number of weapons necessary to get the job done.

“bullet” You know they’re going to get coal in their stockings… Santa Claus shot at by drug dealers while flying south.
“bullet” Ethan Brown: Big Easy offers only tough choices for America’s drug war in the Guardian
“bullet” Jacob Sullum: The Dose Makes the Poison, Even for Marijuana Smoke. Sullum clears up mis-information about a recent study published by the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. The media is always looks for the smoking gun when it comes to marijuana, but it simply isn’t there.
The obvious problem with the media doing scare stories about marijuana is that there are no bodies. Marijuana has been smoked by hundreds of millions of people over the course of hundreds, if not thousands of years. Where are the bodies — the mass graves of people who died when all the toxic aspects of marijuana caught up with them? Every time a new scare comes out, I look around me, but fail to see large numbers of people suddenly drop dead, so then I have to dredge through the actual details of the study to determine… yep, no big deal. Fortunately, Jacob Sullum and NORML have already done that with this study.
“bullet” Jerry Paradis of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) visited Colombia and and talked to farmers, activists, bureaucrats, cops, and soldiers. He writes about his experiences in this blog series. Part One – Part Two – Part Three – Part Four

I’d recommend buying hemp products for your Christmas presents instead.

Another wrong-address raid, as a result of bad informant information, took place in Minneapolis earlier this week.

With her six kids and husband tucked into bed, Yee Moua was watching TV in her living room just after midnight when she heard voices Ö faint at first, then louder. Then came the sound of a window shattering.
Moua bolted upstairs, where her husband, Vang Khang, grabbed his shotgun from a closet, knelt and fired a warning shot through his doorway as he heard footsteps coming up the stairs. He let loose with two more blasts. Twenty-two bullets were fired back at him, by the family’s count.
Then things suddenly became clear.
“It’s the police! Police!” his sons yelled.
Khang, a Hmong immigrant with shaky command of English, set down his gun, raised his hands and was soon on the ground, an officer’s boot on his neck.
The gunmen, it turned out, were members of a police SWAT team that had raided the wrong address because of bad information from an informant Ö a mistake that some critics say happens all too frequently around the country and gets innocent people killed.

The difference in this wrong-address raid? In the wake of the Kathryn Johnston murder, it’s getting national attention. And the articles are at least starting to ask the tough questions.
That was an AP article with wide national distribution quoted above, and, in addition to talking about the Kathryn Johnston story, included information on Radley Balko’s work

A study last year by the libertarian Cato Institute said: “Because of shoddy police work, over-reliance on informants, and other problems, each year hundreds of raids are conducted on the wrong addresses, bringing unnecessary terror and frightening confrontation to people never suspected of a crime.”

Another version of the AP story hit my local paper. generating dozens of online comments, most unfavorable to the police. And it’s been in USA Today, Washington Post — all over.
RubÚn Rosario in the Twin Cities’ Pioneer Press interviewed Radley Balko for Botched police raids not so rare — worth checking out.
It’s possible — just possible — that people are starting to wake up a little bit regarding this issue of indiscriminate use of paramilitary-style raids on homes.
The question is, how many Khang families will have to have to experience that terror before significant changes are made? How many more Xavier Bennetts and Alberto Sepulvedas and Ashley Villareals will have to die first?

“bullet” Tom Angell has been looking over the big appropriations bill in Congress. Here’s what he’s found so far (of course, this could still change).

• Drug Czar’s “anti-drug” ad budget is being slashed down to $60 million
  next year (down from $99 mil this year and considerably less than the
  President’s 2008 request of $130 mil).
• DC is now allowed to spend its own money on needle exchange (but is
  still barred from spending federal funds on the practice).
• DC is still barred from implementing the medical marijuana initiative
  passed by voters in 1998.
• ONDCP and other federal agencies are banned from producing video news
  releases (“prepackaged news stories”) unless they are clearly labeled as
  being prepared or funded by that agency (ONDCP got into a lot of trouble
  a few years ago for putting out “covert propaganda” (GAO’s term) in this
  form).
• Random student drug testing is funded at $10.8 million.

Thanks, Tom!
“bullet” Dutch Police Insist on Smoking Marijuana Off-Duty via Scott Morgan.
“bullet” Mark Kleiman talks about drugs on bloggingheads.tv
“bullet” Send the Right Message has Presidential Candidates report cards.
“bullet” An enjoyable read and a blast from history: Bill and Hillary’s Hippie Daze

It was, after all, 1971. It was, after all, Berkeley California. If the Clintons, during their first prolonged cohabitation, were at all “normal” for the time their evenings at home would have consisted of

1. rolling a fat doobie, probably three or four;
2. whipping up some chicken curry
3. smoking a fat doobie;
4. getting some dim candles going along with a stick of incense
5. putting on a tried and true series of records; and
6. hopping into bed and, as we said then, “balling” until they passed out.

“bullet” War on Drugs has unlikely foe

As a friend of presidents and hobnobber with governors, David Fleming makes an unlikely insurgent against the War on Drugs.
He’s been dubbed by a local business weekly as “The Valley’s Most Powerful Person,” chairs the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and doles out dollars to charity by the millions.
He works for one of the world’s largest law firms. He can preach for hours about business tax, government reform and transportation.
With his immaculate white shirts, slicked-back hair and easy familiarity with powerful people, Fleming embodies The Man. […]
The Man, a registered Republican and consummate insider, thinks the drug war is “stupid.”

noun:
1. Something that is exchangeable or substitutable.

In an interesting article in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune about the fear-mongering over the retroactivity regarding the slight reduction in crack cocaine sentencing, this caught my attention:

[Federal judge Ruben] Castillo, who helped build large-scale drug prosecutions in the Chicago U.S. attorney’s office in the 1980s, says the commission’s vote is recognition that the current strategy in the war on drugs is flawed. Twenty years ago, Castillo said, “we were going after the right defendants.” Now, he complains that his docket overflows with low-level street dealers.
“These people are very fungible,” he said. “They’re replaced the very next day by someone else with no criminal background. … We’re not making a dent.”

Fungibility – another reason the drug war doesn’t work.

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

– Shakepeare’s Romeo and Juliet

I’ve been doing some thinking about names and words used in connection with drug policy reform. Do they matter? Are there some we should avoid?
Marijuana
There are those in the reform community who would prefer that we didn’t use the word “marijuana.” And with reason.
It’s got some baggage. Look back in history — the earliest efforts to outlaw the plant at a federal level involved racism and the intentional use of the Spanish word for the plant — so that those who used it for medical and industrial reasons under other names did not even realize what was happening.
And even today, many people associate “marijuana” with the so-called Cheech and Chong image of recreational use — a fact that distresses many medical use activists. They hate the term “medical marijuana” and prefer “medical cannabis.” They’re right — cannabis is the scientific name. They also claim that their chances of getting political cover with the name “marijuana” are greatly reduced. Possibly.
But the fact is that marijuana has become an accepted part of the language, and it is a perfectly correct term. And, quite frankly, it’s not possible to fool people today, even if we wanted to. They know we’re talking about marijuana, regardless of the word we use.
So yes, “cannabis” is a good term — a proper term. One that I’ll continue to use often, particularly when discussing the plant in scientific/medical terms. But “marijuana” is a good term — a proper term. One that has meaning to everyone — something that 100 million Americans know on an intimate basis.
If we’re going to make significant progress in eliminating the public reticence in talking about this plant, it won’t be through being afraid to speak any of its names.
Drug War/War on Drugs
In a very real sense, these are meaningless terms.
“War on drugs.” Sounds like an army on one side with a bunch of pills and plants on the other side. In fact, think about the words “War on…” What’s up with that? You can have a “war in” (war in the middle east) or “war against” (war against Islamist extremists), but whenever you hear “war on…” there’s something messed up going on.
And “drug war”? That invokes images of a battle between Paxil and Prozac — or price wars like the old gas wars of the 1970s.
And the problem with the war metaphor is that it encourages people to think in terms of winning and losing from the perspective of those waging the war, so that supporting the war (government) is seen as good, and opposing it (seeking another approach) is seen as undermining the war effort and advocating surrender/loss.
However, this is a true war, waged by the government against its own people. Maybe some day it will become known as the People’s War, but for now, we can’t escape the Drug War.
What we need to do is remind people that the Drug War is a war against the people and help them understand that they may not be on the side that they thought, regardless of whether they use, or condone the use of, currently illicit drugs.
Besides, I can’t avoid using the words “Drug War” at Drug WarRant now, can I?
Legalization
Here’s a controversial term. Some people ask me if I really mean “legalization” and not “decriminalization.” After all, we talk of the evils of criminalization, so why not reverse them with decriminalization? And “legalization” can be used by prohibitionists to invoke the absurd image of having pre-filled heroin needles shrink-wrapped for sale in the 7-11 for eight-year-olds to buy.
But “decriminalization,” like decaffeination, just doesn’t do it for me. It implies fixing everything that this drug war has done with some kind of minor adjustment. And while it can have the correct meaning, it is often used to refer to extremely unsatisfactory “solutions,” such as eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use, making it merely a civil fine (leaving intact all the worst aspects of the drug war, including the black market and all that entails). Decriminalization can allow people to claim a reform view, without really taking a stand. It’s better than nothing, but it’s not good enough.
Legalization is sometimes misrepresented as anarchy by definition. But in fact, there are plenty of examples of legalized activities/products that are regulated — alcohol, tobacco, bungee jumping, etc., etc. There are plenty of different models of legalization — but the key thing is that the product/activity will be available through legal channels, not solely through the black market, and that’s critical.
Another reason to hang on to “legalization” — if we give up the word, it will become the property of the prohibitionists to define as they wish and to hang on us. It’s something they already have tried. They’d like “legalizers” to be some kind of nasty word, but they haven’t really pulled it off, except with a few enablers like Kleiman. The general public isn’t sure about legalization, but we have the ability to claim it and educate people with it.
So, to sum up:
Let’s end the drug war and legalize drugs, including marijuana.
What do you think?

“Words. Words.
They’re all we have to go on.”

– Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Interesting article in tomorrow’s New York Times: Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecom Industry by Eric Lightblau, James Risen and Scott Shane.
We’ve long talked about the increase in government abuse of Constitutional rights and privacy in the name of the drug war. With 911, terrorism was added to the mix, with each feeding the other in terms of giving the government excuses to ask for, or take, more power. Recent revelations are showing just how much the drug war and terrorism war are tools in the search for greater authoritarian reach.

The N.S.A.‰s reliance on telecommunications companies is broader and deeper than ever before, according to government and industry officials, yet that alliance is strained by legal worries and the fear of public exposure.
To detect narcotics trafficking, for example, the government has been collecting the phone records of thousands of Americans and others inside the United States who call people in Latin America, according to several government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.

And this began before 911.

The government‰s dependence on the phone industry, driven by the changes in technology and the Bush administration‰s desire to expand surveillance capabilities inside the United States, has grown significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks. The N.S.A., though, wanted to extend its reach even earlier. In December 2000, agency officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a ‹powerful, permanent presenceŠ on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues. [..]
In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years.

Interestingly, the demands went far enough to set off warning bells within some companies.

At least one major phone carrier Ö whose identity could not be confirmed Ö refused to cooperate, citing concerns in 2004 that the subpoenas were overly broad, government and industry officials said. The executives also worried that if the program were exposed, the company would face a public-relations backlash.
The D.E.A. declined to comment on the call-tracing program, except to say that it ‹exercises its legal authorityŠ to issue administrative subpoenas. The N.S.A. also declined to comment on it.

On Monday, the Senate will discuss a bill to grant immunity to the telecom companies for spying on Americans (thereby essentially shutting down any chance of finding out the truth about government abuses).

Update: More from Glenn Greenwald who has been indispensable on this topic.

Bill of Rights ratified
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

These are not just political exercises, or arcane matters of historical law to be debated by people in robes. These are the living, breathing representation of the self-evident fact that people are endowed with unalienable rights. Government that violates, ignores, devalues, or weakens these rights has lost its legitimacy and can no longer be respected as a bona fide government of the people.

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the Supreme Court may end up blocking some of them.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by bullets from drug task forces.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall generally not be violated unless desired by the police, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause rubber stamp, supported by oath or affirmation the uncorroborated word of a snitch, and particularly describing the place to be searched or a similar house in the neighborhood, and the fact that any or all persons or things are to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice more than five times put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself except by the threat of excessive prison terms, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law a pretty good reason; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation or a receipt.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be given the option of taking their chances of getting lots of extra prison time through a speedy and public trial, by an impartial a jury willing to follow prosecutor orders of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Federal law may prohibit the presentation of facts within a trial.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor and cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, unless the United States wants to use them.

“bullet” “drcnet”