Drug WarRant

In the Washington Times: Painful drug war victory

“Opiophobia” is a term that describes doctors’ increasing unwillingness to prescribe opioid painkillers Ö a class of drugs that includes Vicodin and OxyContin Ö and especially high-dose opioids, to those in pain. This fear is rooted in the DEA’s practice of jailing those doctors it deems are prescribing outside “legitimate medical standards.” […]
Call it “opiophobia,” call it a “chilling effect,” or simply, doctors behaving rationally, the result is the same: massive underprescription of opioids and radical undertreatment of pain. A Stanford study puts the number of undermedicated chronic pain patients at about 50 percent. According to the American Pain Society, fewer than 50 percent of cancer patients receive sufficient pain relief.

When New Mexico passed their medical marijuana law that required the state to supply patients with marijuana, that turned some heads — surely this was an interesting end run around the approach of busting medical marijuana dispensaries that the DEA uses in California. How would the DEA bust a state?
The problem, unfortunately, is that folks figured out that the DEA might just go after the individual state employees who are complying with state law and, in the process, violating federal law.
So the state of New Mexico has decided not to comply with state law [thanks, Wayne] so as not to force state employees to be put at risk. And to an extent, I can understand the stated sentiment (although it certainly would be an interesting court case).
What I can’t help wondering, however, is how hard the state is trying. Have they merely come up with an excuse to give up? Don’t they have a responsibility to continue to attempt to find a way to make state law work?
And this got me thinking about a fascinating post by Alex at Drug Law Blog: Daily News on LAPD Involvement in Dispensary Raids. The question there is whether members of the LAPD are actually helping the DEA bust dispensaries that are legal under state law, and what that says about the LAPD. They claim to just be there to maintain order, but what about their responsibility to the law?
I’m not saying that the LAPD should defy the DEA. No gunfights in the street between state and federal cops just yet. Federal law supersedes state law. But that doesn’t mean that the LAPD needs to… assist.
As a Superior Court Judge recently noted:

It is up to the federal government to enforce its laws. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from impressing ‘into its service — and at no cost to itself — the police officers of the 50 States.'”

So what should the LAPD do? If they really believed in their responsibility to the people, the law, and the state, then they would protect those all the way up to the point where federal law specifically took over, and then merely step out of the way. I would position police officers to protect marijuana dispensaries in the state, with instructions to step aside for the DEA only if and when the police and California attorney general were completely satisfied with the legal paperwork spelling out the DEA’s jurisdiction in that particular raid and the specific provisions of federal law that trumped state law (and the DEA might have to wait for an hour or two while the proper state officials were brought in to inspect such documents).
Now that would be something to see. And the people of California should demand that of their police departments.

Via TalkLeft come a Boston Globe column by Derrick Z. Jackson about Barack Obama.
Remember that Barack Obama got to where he is today because he never got caught.

That vacillation became evident as he kept talking about crack-vs.-powder sentencing, which has come to symbolize racial injustice in criminal justice. He said that if he were to become president, he would support a commission to issue a report “that allows me to say that based on the expert evidence, this is not working and it’s unfair and unjust. Then I would move legislation forward.”
That was a puzzling statement because the US Sentencing Commission, created by Congress in 1984, has long said the system is not working and reaffirmed in April that the 100-to-1 ratio “significantly undermines” sentencing reform.
Obama asked if he could make a “broader” point. “Even if we fix this, if it was a 1-to-1 ratio, it’s still a problem that folks are selling crack. It’s still a problem that our young men are in a situation where they believe the only recourse for them is the drug trade. So there is a balancing act that has to be done in terms of, do we want to spend all our political capital on a very difficult issue that doesn’t get at some of the underlying issues… [emphasis added]

So I guess we’ll just have to put up with the massive drug war destruction if Obama is President, so we don’t waste too much political capital.
None of Obama’s pet summer school and early childhood programs will mean very much if Mommy and Daddy are in jail.

Congratulations to Transform Drug Policy Foundation for their recognition as special consultative NGO status to the United Nations.
Transform has been doing excellent work in opening up the dialogue for alternative approaches to drug policy in the UK and Europe in particular. They’ll only be one voice among many at the U.N., but it’s a voice that must be heard.
And their downloadable publication: After the War on Drugs: Tools for the debate is outstanding.

If you haven’t read Glen C. Loury’s article Why Are So Many Americans in Prison?, you may want to check it out. It’s a pretty powerful picture of incarceration and race — not all about the drug war, but obviously the drug war is a significant element in the equation.

$1.2 billion

A U.S. plan to help Mexico fight drug traffickers and their widening violence could cost as much as $1.2 billion over a three-year period, U.S. and Mexican officials close to the talks said Tuesday.
“That’s what’s on the table,” said one official speaking on condition of anonymity, though the official cautioned that talks are ongoing and anything can change.

$1.2 billion. You could send 60,000 kids through four years of college and pay for all their tuition and fees with that kind of money.
It’ll be used to pay for advanced weapons, plus aircraft and eavesdropping technology.
That’s right. Advanced weapons to use in your own country. That’s a recipe for disaster. You think the drug cartels can’t get hold of their own “advanced” weapons once they feel threatened? Then what do the civilians do? Hide? Escape? Cross the border?

The plan, formally called a “regional security initiative,” would represent a departure for the Mexican government, which has accepted only limited U.S. aid in the past out of a sense of nationalism and fears that more significant aid would come with strings attached.
It would also represent an acknowledgment by Mexico that its military-led offensive against drug traffickers is falling short of its goal of controlling violence.

Hmm, yeah. That didn’t work, did it? Could have told you that (I think I did). So since the military-led offensive didn’t work, let’s just pour more money and violence at the problem?
As usual, the DEA has its head stuck… somewhere.

Like other Latin American countries, Mexico faces tough challenges from drug traffickers who are battling over a $325 billion global drug market, said Anthony Placido, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief of intelligence and assistant administrator.
The counternarcotics financial plan is “not about money,” he said. “This is about what you can do with those dollars.”

???
I guess that means that we shouldn’t be thinking about the fact that it’s costing $1.2 billion, but rather about what that money will buy (weapons, corruption, violence?)

With Karl Rove planning his exit, it’s got me thinking again about other White House staff …
It’s almost certain, for example, that John Walters will no longer be the Drug Czar as of January, 2009 (unless President Giuliani asks him to stay on). With a new President, the Drug Czar will resign, Scott Burns will probably be Acting Drug Czar until a new one is appointed, and Walters will have to find something to do.
Gee, I wonder if there will be anyone willing to hire him?

Drug War Crimes Kill, Incarcerate Innocent

Alex at Drug Law Blog commenting on a post at Wired blog…

Wired News noted something important this weekend: that all the Democratic presidential candidates have said they will end federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries if elected, presumably by appointing someone to head the Department of Justice whose priorities are different than those of the current administration. […]
Which means that January 2009, if a Democratic president actually were to take power, would be an important time for the medical marijuana movement: it would be the moment when the vast majority of the federal pressure on dispensaries would stop.

I like the optimism, but lest we forget…
Candidate George W. Bush on medical marijuana (quoted in the Dallas Morning News, October 20, 1999):

“I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose.”

Don’t get me wrong, I like hearing candidates talk about ending medical marijuana raids, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Since the details are being negotiated in secret, we’ll have to wait a bit to find out what our leaders have cooked up with our tax money to escalate the drug war and corruption in Mexico.
One thing seems sure — they’re going to have a very difficult time with their efforts to avoid the “Plan Mexico” label (and it’s a bit telling that they’re trying to — why would you avoid the label if it was indicative of success?)
Anyway, people seem to like the term — both on the web and in the news.
Of course, it is the Mexican government in particular that’s anxious to avoid the label because they see Plan Colombia as a de facto usurpation of Colombia’s autonomy. (Gee, I wonder why?)

[Mexico’s Attorney General] further emphasized that the expected pact is not really comparable to the U.S.-Colombia accord, since ‹under no circumstance will [there be] outside meddling in responsibilities that the Mexican state cannot delegate [to non-Mexicans].Š

Right.