Drug WarRant

Lots of important stuff to catch up with…
“bullet” It’s great having thehim back in action. Check out this fantastic visual guide to the U.S. drug war in Mexico.
“bullet” This is truly sick.
“bullet” Transform has a post up about a Lord’s debate in the UK, where members not only ripped into the government’s status quo drug policy, but debated prohibition itself.
Lord Mancroft:

In other words, government policy has created a free-for-all in drugs, where only criminals benefit and the whole communityÖyoung people in particularÖsuffers as a consequence. Nothing in the current proposals leads one to conclude that this Government either understand this or have the courage to address it.”

Lord Errol:

“I want to start with the old saying that laws seldom prevent what they seek to forbid. The real problem is the politicians’ public posturing to try to get headlines that they are being tough on things, without thinking of the effect. That means that changes can be very tricky, because I can imagine the newspaper headlines screaming out the moment someone wants to take one of the more sensible approaches that have been recommended by several noble Lords

“bullet” Random drug testing does little to deter student athletes from using drugs. This, according to a federally funded $3.6 million study.
“bullet” Hypocritical Governments Ignore Alcohol’s Dangers — Dan Gardner is always an enjoyable read

I once attended a dinner in Ottawa that brought together RCMP officers, DEA agents, politicians and civil servants in honour of a visit by the United Nations’ top anti-drug official. There was an open bar. And so, as speakers denounced the evils of drugs and vowed to continue the fight for “a drug-free world” — an official goal of the UN — most of the people nodding their heads and applauding vigorously were buzzed on a drug that has killed far more people than all the illicit drugs combined.
Bizarre juxtapositions like this abound, but they don’t come any stranger than a government spending large sums of money suppressing drug use while a corporation owned by that same government spends large sums of money encouraging drug use.
That happens every day in Canada. And no one sees anything amiss.

“bullet” Fund drug treatment rather than Mexican anti-drugs operations by Ethan Nadelmann

Leaders in both countries would do well to provoke a discussion about the failures of drug prohibition and the damage it is causing. […]
Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.”
Until policymakers start rethinking failed drug-war policies, the violence and corruption inherent in prohibition will continue.

“bullet” NDSU Files Amicus in Support of Hemp Farming Lawsuit, DEA Makes Feeble Argument that Hemp Can be Turned into Drugs. That’s right, North Dakota State University — a government entity — has filed a brief opposing the DEA. I wish I could hear the oral arguments on November 14 in this case. Should be fun.
“bullet” Why not pump up the idea of legalizing marijuana? by Debra J. Saunders. Saunders takes on the known-for-toking Governor, and elicits some interesting observations:

“Ask any cop if they’d rather arrest somebody who is drunk or somebody who is stoned,” Mirken had asked rhetorically.
For Delagnes, the answer was easy. Tell someone who’s stoned to put his hands against the wall, “he’ll probably say, ‘That’s cool.’ “

“bullet” Keeping us safe by taking cocaine off the streets… one .001 gram at a time. Arresting this lawyer? What an over-reaction!
“bullet” “drcnet”

Jamie over at Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Just a week or so ago, I was having a conversation with a fellow Austin criminal defense attorney about whether ëdecriminalization/legalization‰ would reduce or increase crime.
Like me, he is strongly against our current Drug War policies, especially when it comes to imprisoning and using felony enhancement provisions in the Penal Code for drug possession cases — creating ridiculously long sentences, sometimes 25 years to life.
However, he argued that even heavily regulated but legal use of cocaine and heroin would automatically increase drug use itself, and also other crimes š mostly property crimes.

This is a common logical disconnect that happens in drug war discussions. There are two major problems with the reasoning of Jamie’s friend in answering the question “would there be more or less crime if drugs were legalized:

1. He asserts that legalization would provide an increase in use and therefore an increase in use-related crime, such as property crimes. Certainly, there are crimes that happen that are related to drug use and getting money to buy drugs. And, all other factors remaining the same, it is not a logical stretch to assume that an increase in drug use would result in an increase of that kind of crime.

   However, the point is that all factors will not remain the same.

   • In a regulated environment, it’s possible that drugs will be more affordable, reducing the “need” for property crimes.
   • Drug users will not have to interact with a criminal network in order to procure drugs (breaking the law to buy drugs may make it easier to break the law in other ways)
   • Drug users will be less likely to have spent time in “criminal training school” (jail)
   • Law enforcement, no longer focused on drug arrests, may be more able to focus on property crimes, thereby reducing them.

   So, in fact, it is not nearly as certain as might appear at first glance, that increased use would result in an increase in use-related crime. And it may well be that it would be reduced.

2. The question was whether crime would increase or decrease, but Jamie’s friend has chosen to only discuss whether drug use-related crime would increase or decrease. In fact, drug use-related crime is miniscule (and generally less dangerous) compared to drug prohibition-related crime. Legalization would obviously result in a dramatic reduction in prohibition-related crime, since there would no longer be… prohibition.

   No more

   • Shootouts over drug territory
   • Violent “contract” disputes
   • Drug prohibition-related corruption of law enforcement

   Additionally, ending prohibition would have all sorts of potential other side effects that could reduce overall crime, including keeping families together, putting drug income/profits into the legal market (increasing legitimate jobs and the legal economy), etc.

Of course, even limited experiments have shown the truth of this…

Switzerland is now leading the way out of prohibition. In 1994, it started prescribing free heroin to long-term addicts who had failed to respond to law enforcement or any other treatment. In 1998, a Lausanne criminologist, Martin Kilias, found that the users’ involvement in burglary, mugging and robbery had fallen by 98%; in shoplifting, theft and handling by 88%; in selling soft drugs by 70%; in selling hard drugs by 91%. As a group, their contacts with police had plunged to less than a quarter of the previous level. The Dutch and the Germans have had similar results with the same strategy. All of them report that, apart from these striking benefits in crime prevention, the users are also demonstrably healthier ( because clean heroin properly used is a benign drug ) and that they are more stable with clear improvements in housing, employment and relationships. [The Guardian]

Unfortunately, the United States has done everything in its power to block such experiments with legal, regulated drugs.

It’s very hard to know for certain every aspect of the consequences of legalization. There are too many factors, and there are too few modern experiments that truly qualify. But the first step is to answer the right question. Then it’s not so hard to draw some very strong logical evidence that a proper legalization scheme could result in a dramatic reduction in crime.
Now in the case of Jamie’s friend, I think that answering the wrong question was probably a natural, inadvertent act. Others, however, make a living at answering the wrong question. This behavior is particularly common at the ONDCP.
Check out this one by David Murray:

Some have argued that keeping marijuana illegal itself does damage, since people run the risk of arrest if they break the law. But this purported damage is much overstated.

See what he did? Forget the point about the damage being overstated (which it isn’t). The bigger issue is that he re-defined our question by answering the wrong one. We argue that keeping marijuana illegal itself does damage for a whole bunch of reasons (including feeding the black market, damaging the environment, denying financial aid, turning the law enforcement-citizen relationship into one of enemies, and on and on…). But in his answer, he limits the question so as to only cover the damage of arrest.
So when talking to people about drug policy, watch for this little trick, and make them answer the right question.

Your choice:

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

This is the latest release over at the new Reason.tv. Nicely done piece — about 10 minutes long.

After a suggestion from Alex a couple of days ago, I have been putting together a new page: Who’s Who in Drug Prohibtion.
It’s not intended to provide detailed bios on drug war officials, pundits and organization (detailed bios can be found with a simple google search), but rather serve as a quick reference guide and rogues gallery, along with links to posts by myself and other reformers that have talked about/debunked some of their nonsense.
Please take a moment to look it over and make any suggestions. Who am I missing? Are there any good debunking posts that I should be linking to? What about organizations? I really don’t know them as well.
Send me any suggestions or leave them in comments here.

Can you identify the ghouls?

Link

A US anti-narcotics program in Afghanistan has raised tensions, undermined security and endangered Australian and Dutch soldiers’ lives, a respected international foreign policy think tank has warned.
The Senlis Council claims the US Government brushed aside Australian and Dutch concerns to ram through an ill-conceived poppy eradication program in Oruzgan province, which has undermined military reconstruction efforts and created a pool of new Taliban sympathisers. […]
Speaking by telephone from Kabul yesterday, Ms Macdonald said the Dutch, who have administrative control over the province, had opposed the poppy eradication plan on the grounds it would undermine security.
Despite the objections of the Dutch Development Minister who visited Oruzgan to reassure the local Government of his opposition to the plan, US contractors and members of the Afghan police went ahead with the operation, which ran into immediate trouble, she said. […]
The article strongly suggests that a suicide attack that targeted an Australian army patrol near Tarin Kowt was the result of tensions stirred up by the counter-narcotics program and its impact on impoverished local farmers.
Asked if DynCorp’s operations in Oruzgan had increased the security risk for Australian soldiers, Ms Macdonald replied: “It absolutely has. It’s a failed counter-narcotics policy and it undermines the military presence.”
US plans for aerial spraying in the province would only further aggravate local tensions, she warned.

With our allies’ troops’ lives endangered by our stupid obsessions, it will become harder and harder to enlist them in the failed drug war.

A fascinating Freakonomics at the New York Times this afternoon by Stephen J. Dubner: On the Legalization Ö or Not Ö of Marijuana
He asks a number of people on both sides of the issue: “Should marijuana be legalized in the U.S.? Why or why not?” and gets detailed responses from Dr. Lester Ginspoon, Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Allen St. Pierre, Dr. David Murray, and Richard Lawrence Miller. Some high powered players on both sides.
One disappointment with Dubner’s article is his semi-complaint:

You will find that their replies routinely contradict one another, even on statements of fact. This is a limitation of nearly any debate of this sort, and while these contradictions illustrate what makes the issue a potent one, you may also be frustrated (as I was) by them.

Well, that’s simple. What you do then is check out the facts and say which one is a liar. I have very little patience with reporters who ‘report’ things in ways like… “Flat-earthers say the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, while round-earthers say the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Unfortunately both are dogmatic in their positions and refuse to compromise, leaving us frustrated.” If there are facts at issue, then research them and come up with the truth. Not everything is subjective, and there are, within the marijuana legalization debate, economic and social truths as clear as the one that describes our solar system.
One thing that is absolutely clear when reading these essays is that the prohibitionists are really reaching to come up with a credible argument at all.
Grinspoon and St. Pierre do a fine job in their detailed supported arguments; Miller gives up and goes for the sad truth:

At the risk of being long-winded, I wanted to let you know why I‰m not citing any studies here. Reformers know about studies, and opponents disregard them, so I see no benefit in mentioning any.

Murray spouts the usual ONDCP propaganda, but the award by far for ridiculousness goes to DuPont:

Legalization of marijuana would solve the marijuana problem the way legalizing speeding would solve the speeding problem: it would remove the legal inhibition of a dangerous behavior, and thereby encourage the behavior.

Um. No.
That is one of the most stupid analogies I’ve every heard. And yet he continues with it, going even further…

Just as many people who speed do not have accidents, many people who smoke marijuana do not have problems as a result of their use, especially those who use the drug for brief periods of time and/or infrequently. The same is true for drunk driving Ö it is estimated that the drunk driver‰s risk of an accident is about one in 2,000 episodes of drunk driving. Nevertheless, speeding and drunk driving are punishable by law because of the serious consequences of these behaviors. In all of these cases, legal prohibition serves as a reasonably effective deterrent to the behavior. For those who are undeterred by prohibition, the enforcement of the law produces escalating consequences for repeated violations.

That’s right. Using marijuana is like drunk driving. You might be OK some of the time, but you just might smash a multiple-ton steel object into innocent people while smoking that joint on your couch.
Of course, all the speeding and drunk driving analogies to marijuana are as stupid as the “Well, why don’t you legalize murder and rape while you’re at it?” nonsense.
First of all, marijuana is relatively harmless to both the user and those around the user, particularly when used responsibly. Second, there’s not much of a black market for rape, murder, speeding or drunk driving. If you arrest a drunk driver, there’s not a cartel in Mexico sitting there ready to supply more drunk driving at a price to fill the need. If you put a rapist in jail there isn’t a new rapist that will step up to meed the demand for rape.
DuPont’s analogies with speeding and drunk driving are simply ways to avoid talking about the real issues — the vast costs of prohibition compared to the extraordinarily mild risks of marijuana use.
Then DuPont goes even further over the edge:

Today in the U.S., the criminal penalties for marijuana use are mild, far more so than for speeding and drunk driving, and are usually limited to the payment of a small fine. The few people now in prison solely for marijuana use have almost all been charged with more serious offenses, and then pleaded guilty to this lesser offense.

I beg your pardon? Do you know of anyone who has been denied financial aid or lost their job for going over the speed limit? ‘Cause I certainly know some who have from possession of marijuana.
And this nonsense about how those who use marijuana don’t get tough penalties? That ignores the way the law tends to define almost everything as trafficking. Pass a joint to a friend? Trafficking. When I was in college, people bought marijuana by the ounce (usually for about $20). Today if you were caught with an ounce in most places that would be trafficking. The federal government supplies Irv Rosenfeld with 300 marijuana cigarettes each 25 days — an amount the federal government has determined as appropriate for personal use. If you were arrested with 300 marijuana cigarettes…
DuPont continues his essay with lots more nonsense. Go and read it all. As I wrote before, it’s good to know their arguments. To understand their techniques.
Also check out the comments. With one or two exceptions, the commenters seem to be seeing right through DuPont and the drug warriors.
And that’s a good thing.

The youtube videos of Romney brushing off a medical marijuana patient who asks if Romney believes people like him should be arrested have been circulated pretty widely.
Clayton Holden has been continuing to try to get an answer, and Romney actually responded with this gem:

“I don’t do any arresting,” said Romney, who appeared uncomfortable, but reiterated his stance against legalizing marijuana.

“I don’t do any arresting.” What a staggering dismissal of any responsibility!
You see, perhaps I overdo it a little, but I believe myself to be personally responsible for every action taken by the government. After all, this is a government of/by/for the people and I am part of the people. (It’s part of the reason why I personally cannot support the death penalty, torture, preemptive war…, and it’s an important part of the reason that I am so active in fighting the wrongs we commit, including the drug war.)
And yet, a candidate for the position of President of the United States can go out there and disavow any consequences of policy simply because he’s not the one putting on the handcuffs. What moral depravity!
Now all you have to do is team him up with the various DEA spokesmen who claim to not have anything to do with policy — they only enforce the law — and you have the perfect authoritarian system: oppression without accountability or responsibility.

Not that long ago, anything approaching the Senlis proposal in Afghanistan was completely ignored or dismissed out-of-hand by the U.S. government. Opium eradication was the only possible solution to dealing with Afghanistan.
However, as the situation continues to show no signs of improvement and U.S. looks more and more embarrassing every day, the previously taboo becomes thinkable.
In a new report at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute, Lieutenant Colonel John A. Glaze writes:

The United States should deemphasize opium eradication efforts. U.S.-backed eradication efforts have been ineffective and have resulted in turning Afghans against U.S. and NATO forces. The Council on Foreign Relations in New York has warned, ‹Elimination of narcotics will take well over a decade, and crop eradication is a counterproductive way to start such a program.Š While the process of eradication lends itself well to the use of flashy metrics such as ‹acres eradicated,Š eradication without provision for long term alternative livelihoods is devastating Afghan‰s poor farmers without addressing root causes. […]

The United States should explore the possibility of assisting Afghanistan in joining other countries in the production of legal opiates. […] The Senlis Council recommends a strictly supervised licensing system in Afghanistan for the cultivation of opium for the production of essential opiate-based medicines such as morphine and codeine. Such a licensing scheme is already being administered in Turkey, India, France, and Australia. While cultivation for legal uses is not a ‹silver bulletŠ solution to Afghanistan‰s opium problem, it could eventually become a viable source of income for some farmers.

This is the Army speaking. It’s still too timid, but a remarkable concession nonetheless, even in an academic paper.