Drug WarRant

There’s a bit of a move recently to claim a victory in the drug war, particularly regarding cocaine.
First you have Bolivia’s drug war wins U.S. approval — an article about how the United States has determined that Bolivia has contributed enough to the worldwide drug war disaster, after all, to continue to get big payoffs from American taxpayers. This is merely part of the annual dance of the U.S. tying foreign aid to countries’ agreeing to be accomplices in the drug war.
Then you have Uribe Claims Success in Drug War as He Pushes U.S. on Trade — more of the same dance. This time, you have Uribe pointing to arrests of drug traffickers as proof of Colombia’s worth in getting a massive free-trade deal.
But now it gets a little interesting.
High U.S. cocaine cost shows drug war working: Mexico

MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) – Mexico’s attorney general said on Friday fewer drug-related killings at home and rising narcotics prices in the United States showed his government is winning the war against cartels. […]
Cocaine and methamphetamine prices are rising across 8,000 U.S. towns and cities and purity is falling, showing fewer drugs are getting into the United States, he added.
“Average wholesale prices for cocaine have risen from $17,000 (per kg) the end of 2006 to almost $30,000 last month,” Medina Mora said at a news conference in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey.

And, of course, you have the drug czar getting excited about all this…

A counterdrug intelligence community collaborative analysis recently reported a striking development in the decades-long battle against cocaine: according to law enforcement and intelligence sources, many cocaine markets across the United States have been experiencing reduced availability at the wholesale level, with reverberations affecting retail sales in many U.S. cities.

Expect the drug czar to play this up quite a bit.
The reality is that any shortages or price increases that actually exist are likely to be a blip — a short term realignment of black market leadership and/or trade routes. That’s the way market forces work. Supply always manages to meet demand. If you close off a trade route, then another one is found, or an official’s corruption point is found.
But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that there could be an extended reduction in the availability of cocaine in the United States — that is, after all, a stated part of the mission of the DEA (“reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets”)
What if the DEA was successful? What would happen with a cocaine shortage?
Of course, price goes up — everyone understands that. But what happens next? Everyone who has been using cocaine suddenly decides not to do it any more? Not on your life.
Price elasticity: For those who didn’t sleep through economics class, you know that elasticity refers to the change in quantity demanded relative to the change in price. The DEA would like to believe that cocaine is very elastic– that an increase in price will cause people to no longer demand it.
The truth is that most products have a range of elasticity within different user groups. For the casual, non-problematic user of cocaine (who makes up most of cocaine users, but consumes a smaller portion of the total) the price may be relatively elastic. If the price goes too high, he’ll stop (or, more likely, substitute). However, for the heavy cocaine user (minority of users, but consuming the majority of the total quantity), price is likely to be very inelastic.
A price increase for the heavy cocaine user simply means that their already stretched financial resources will be pushed even further, causing them to go to extraordinary lengths to get the money to purchase their drugs (and you know what that’s likely to mean).
So, once again, you have the drug warriors attempting to accomplish the worst possible scenario — driving away the non-problematic users, and making the problematic users more problematic — the very opposite of what a sane policy would do.
Substitution: Here’s the other challenging, and often unpredictable, aspect of external interference with supply and demand of illicit drugs. In most cases, people don’t stop using drugs if the price of a drug goes to high — they merely switch to another one.
Methamphetamine, for example, is largely a substitution drug. The intense crack-down on prescription amphetamines and the prices of other drugs created a demand for this cheap, dirty drug.
And even if it was theoretically possible to dramatically reduce the long-term availability of all illicit drugs (and it isn’t), people would find something else. Invent a new drug. Sniff glue (or like the two kids who died in my high school huffing kerosene).
And the DEA and the drug czar should maybe wonder what drug might be the substitution of choice in the current situation, if there really is a shortage of cocaine — perhaps some drug that’s being over-produced somewhere in the world.
Careful what you wish for. And learn the basics of economic principles.
The DEA and the Drug Czar (and, in fact, the entire drug war apparatus) are kind of like the underpants gnomes of drug policy.

• Step One: Reduce availability
• Step Two: ???
• Step Three: Drug-free America

There are so many things wrong with this story…

Scores of pub-goers in Bicester were tested for traces of illegal drugs during a police operation aimed at tackling violent street crime.
Police used the force’s new drugs itemiser – which scans people for traces of banned substances – at the Litten Tree pub.
It was the first time the new technology, which detects traces of drugs from heroin to cannabis, had been used in the town.

An operation aimed at tackling violent street crime is attempting to identify people who may have come in contact with marijuana. As they enter a pub. I think my head may explode.

The pub managers barred anyone refusing to co-operate with the test from entering.
Det Sgt Steve Duffy, of Banbury CID, said two people tested positive and were searched but not found to be in possession of drugs.
The pair were then banned from entering the pub, but not arrested.
Mr Duffy said: “It went very well. We gained the full co-operation of the management and the customers.
“Everyone was very supportive and compliant.”

I don’t know where Bicester is, but clearly its residents

1. Have no rights.
2. Are sheep.

Via To the People…
We’ve had discussions here about the various problems and potential solutions in Afghanistan — about how eradication efforts just send the local population into the arms of the Taliban, and how the idea of chemical fumigation is anathema to the local population.
Well, FOX news’ own Colonel David Hunt has another idea:

These fields are miles and miles long and wide. We should bomb them, blow them up, set up an artillery and motor training range and blow the opium off the planet.

Brilliant. That’ll help get them on our side.
And then in the resulting bomb cratered farm lands, the natives will grow flowers to throw at our feet.

So yesterday, I asked if we can make a TV ad. And, of course, talked about YouTube viral marketing. Well, it only took one day and we’ve got our first YouTube ad courtesy of Alex

The media is available to the masses.

Between work and rehearsals every evening, I haven’t had as much time to devote to Drug WarRant this week as I’d like.
But on a personal note, I’m having a blast as musical director and keyboard player for what will be a fantastic production of “The Who’s Tommy” by Pete Townshend. We’re doing it as a cross between a rock concert and a musical, with the band on stage and featured on a raised platform that sometimes moves downstage to the audience and with trusses of rock concert lighting. The band I’m leading is fabulous — two guitars, bass, drums, two keyboards, and french horn — a bunch of incredibly hard-working and talented young people, who really get the music.
If you’re in the area (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois), check it out. October 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 at 7:30 p.m.; October 7 & 14 at 2:00 p.m. Tickets available at TicketMaster.

Dodd steps up, and while stopping short of legalization, calls for allowing states rights for medical marijuana, decriminalizing recreational marijuana, and fixing crack/powder disparities.

Via Huffington Post, where there are quite a few comments.

There’s been some good discussion in comments about the power of television ads and the possibility of running some for drug policy reform. I’ve always liked the idea (even though I have no money to actually run any), so…
Why don’t we come up with some ideas, so we’re ready (in case I win the lottery)?
What kind of TV ad would you create?
The idea, of course, is not without some potential problems. After all, if the United Church of Christ can have this ad rejected by the networks for being too controversial and if networks who regularly sell sex are unwilling to run this ad, then I imagine there would be some serious resistance to ads promoting drug policy reform.
However, there is also another outlet — one that requires a very small budget and over which the networks have no control. Youtube.
The viral marketing of youtube can be extremely powerful and reach a lot of people. I know a few students who have produced some excellent videos for that medium, and I’d be willing to bet that there are ranks of talented SSDP’ers that have the skills needed.
So… what are your ideas?

“bullet” Whenever Maia Szalavitz has a new article about the drug war, I have come to expect brilliance, and today’s is no exception: Increasing Agony, Not Fighting Addiction

Think about it: we have the ability to ease the pain of the dying, even when we can’t treat their illnesses or injuries, for pennies a day. But we don’t do so — in fact, we directly prohibit them from getting these medicines — because we are afraid that either we will addict the dying or that addicts will somehow get access to this medicine somewhere along the supply line.
What kind of insanity is this? If you are dying, what does it matter if you are physically dependent on a drug? What does it matter, even, if you develop a compulsive desire for more of it? And why should people who live with painful conditions that will not kill them suffer, either, for that matter? We are so misguided in our thinking about addiction that we prefer people to live and die in unspeakable agony rather than risk them having a bit of extra euphoria!

“bullet” I’ve been a big fan of LEAP’s Jack Cole, so this feature on him in the Guardian Unlimited was a delightful read: Badge of honour by Alexandra Topping

Cole’s voice drops: “The undercover cop would stand watching the guys file past so they would know you had evidence against them, and wouldn’t bother pleading not guilty.” But when the good Samaritan walked by, he looked Cole in the eye and said: “Man, I was just trying to be your friend.” Cole’s voice falters. “I realised then that we were sending the wrong people to jail, and it had to stop. How many of those young folks would have gone on to have a perfectly productive life had I not intervened?

“bullet” The third piece of reading was in the Politico, and I hadn’t noticed the byline before reading it. I was really impressed with the piece and had to know… Of course, it was Radley Balko: Federalism should extend to marijuana raids

It‰s difficult to understand how the same party that (correctly, in my view) argues that the federal government has no business telling the states how they should regulate their businesses, set their speed limits, keep their air and water free of pollution or regulate the sale of firearms within their borders can at the same time feel that the federal government can and should tell states that they aren‰t allowed to let sick people obtain relief wherever they might find it.

Enjoy.

A very nice story about the working medical marijuana program in Rhode Island: For more than 300 Rhode Islanders, marijuana provides legal relief
The article references our friend Tom Angell:

O‰Donnell, now 44, was a dynamo in a wheelchair, lobbying at the State House for marijuana to be made legal for the chronically ill in Rhode Island. Her son Tom Angell had brainstormed the idea with a friend in his dorm room at the University of Rhode Island. Angell, who was president of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy at the time, had heard a speaker hosted by the group whose wife used marijuana to relieve her pain. He thought about his mother.

Tom — don’t you know that kids in dorm rooms are supposed to be smoking pot — not plotting to overthrow the government and help sick people?
Another interesting moment in the article is this DEA comment:

Anthony Pettigrew, agent for the New England field office of the DEA, said that while marijuana possession is against federal law, ‹the DEA never targets the sick and dying.Š The agency is more interested in organized drug traffickers, Pettigrew said. ‹I‰ve been here for 22 years,Š he said, and ‹realistically, I‰ve never seen anyone go to federal jail for possessing a joint.Š

Scott Morgan notes:

If DEA won’t arrest patients and state police can’t arrest patients, then medical marijuana laws work very well. […]
It doesn’t matter whether DEA’s policy of not arresting patients is motivated by compassion, political sensibilities, funding constraints, or some combination thereof. The fact of the matter is that state laws are effective at protecting medical marijuana users from prosecution, which is their intended purpose.

And that’s true, with one caveat. The trick is, of course, that possessing one joint doesn’t solve the supply problem, and the point at which the amount you’re needing to grow or buy or have grown for you reaches the level of drug trafficking may be (and is) defined differently by patients, state laws, and the DEA — problem that could be easily solved by simply allowing marijuana to be regulated.

Diego Montoya, a reputed major Colombian drug trafficker and mass murderer was captured yesterday.
If what he is accused of is true, then I join the drug czar in celebrating his arrest.
However, unlike the drug czar, I understand that it is United States drug policy that created the conditions for a Diego Montoya to emerge and that the same drug policy will create a vacuum after his capture that will encourage the development of future Diego Montoyas.
And, as Alex says, why are we giving Diego Montoya the power to be the FDA of recreational drugs?