Drug WarRant

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.

“bullet” Nice OpEd counterpoint in the Hartford Courant between LEAP’s Jack Cole and Capt. Thomas Snyder of the Connecticut Statewide Narcotics Task Force. Of course, Jack wins hands down in my book, but let’s take a look at a couple of Snyder’s points:

In the past 30 years the following are the drugs that SNTF has removed from the streets of Connecticut:
Cocaine: 3,060.73 kilograms; heroin: 65.86 kilograms; marijuana: 35,373.51 kilograms; crack: 62.39 kilograms; pills: 323,100; other: 2.95 kilograms.

Yes, and shoplifting has taken more than $13 billion worth of product out of the stores each year, and yet I still don’t seem to have any problems finding something to buy at WalMart. You know why? The companies who supply the product simply make more!
Then there’s this point by Snyder:

Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful;

How long has he been in this country? Doesn’t he know how laws are made here?

“bullet” Vin Suprynowicz has a delightful style to his writing…

We try to eradicate the most lucrative crops in Latin America — coca and marijuana — and pretty much the only cash crops in Afghanistan — poppies and hashish. We fail utterly. And then we wonder why these people a) hate us, b) go communist, and c) think we’re clowns.
The opiates have legitimate medical uses. The plant is one of God’s great gifts to man, and is in high demand everywhere. The only reason the trade is dominated by criminals is that we enforce a system in which no one but criminals are allowed to take part in the trade.
Don’t eradicate the opium. Outbid the Taliban for it. Put them out of business. Buy it, stockpile it, corner the market, sell it on streetcorners in Baghdad to calm those people down, earn the U.S. taxpayer some return on all this loot you’ve been frittering away over there.
Idiots.

“bullet” Pat Rogers has a significant post on the failure of our international foreign policy as it relates to the drug war: U.S. national security ‘creating chaos and instability’
“bullet” Grits for Breakfast finds something unusual — a prosecutor who demands that the police come up with enough legitimate evidence to prosecute before taking the case.

Taking Its Lead From Baseball, Rock And The Roll Hall of Fame Plans To Expunge The Careers Of Any Inductee Who Used Illegal Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Pat Boone And Anita Bryant Will Most Likely Be Only Members Of Hall Left

I found a very interesting proposal regarding a comprehensive scheme for legalizing and regulating drugs. While I’m not sure I agree with every particular, it’s really not bad at all.
What do you think? Does North have what it takes to be Drug Czar?
Of course, it wouldn’t do any good. The problem, as I noted over at StoptheDrugWar.org, is that the ONDCP’s authorization from Congress prevents, by law, having a drug czar that is reform-minded (unless they want to break the law and just try to destroy the agency).
For example, this part of the job requirement of the Drug Czar:

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 812 of this title and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) thatÖ
(A) is listed in schedule I of section 812 of this title; and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

The ONDCP needs to be eliminated or changed. Otherwise merely appointing a new drug czar (even the blogger referenced above) won’t help.

In The Nation, Daniel Lazare has an amazing piece about the drug war and incarceration in the United States: Stars and Bars

How can you tell when a democracy is dead? When concentration camps spring up and everyone shivers in fear? Or is it when concentration camps spring up and no one shivers in fear because everyone knows they’re not for “people like us”…

This is a powerful indictment of the incarceration by-product of the drug war (and its racial emphasis), and Lazare doesn’t let anybody off lightly:

Several of the leading Democratic candidates, for example, have recently come out against the infamous 100-to-1 ratio that subjects someone carrying ten grams of crack to the same penalty as someone caught with a kilo of powdered cocaine. Senator Joe Biden has actually introduced legislation to eliminate the disparity–without, however, acknowledging his role as a leading drug warrior back in the 1980s, when he sponsored the bill that set it in stone in the first place. At a recent forum at Howard University, Hillary Clinton promised to “deal” with the disparity as well, although it would have been nice if she had done so back in the ’90s, when, during the first Clinton Administration, the prison population was soaring by some 50 percent. Although he is not running this time around, Jesse Jackson recently castigated Dems for their hesitancy in addressing “failed, wasteful, and unfair drug policies” that have sent “so many young African-Americans” to jail. Yet Jackson forgot to mention his own drug-war past when, as a leading hardliner, he specifically called for “stiffer prison sentences” for black drug users and “wartime consequences” for smugglers. “Since the flow of drugs into the US is an act of terrorism, antiterrorist policies must be applied,” he declared in a 1989 interview, a textbook example of how the antidrug rhetoric of the late twentieth century helped pave the way for the “global war on terror” of the early twenty-first.
In other words, cowardice and hypocrisy abound.

The article draws a lot of powerful material from Sasha Abramsky’s book: American Furies: Crime, Punishment, and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment — a book that details how the prison system came to be more about punishment and vengeance (without any real legitimacy) than about rehabilitation.
Lazare’s conclusion is depressingly vivid:

American mass incarceration is not what social scientists call “evidence based.” It is not a policy designed to achieve certain practical, utilitarian ends that can then be weighed and evaluated from time to time to determine if it is performing as intended. Rather, it is a moral policy whose purpose is to satisfy certain passions that have grown more and more brutal over the years. The important thing about moralism of this sort is that it is its own justification. For true believers, it is something that everyone should endorse regardless of the consequences. As right-wing political scientist James Q. Wilson once remarked, “Drug use is wrong because it is immoral,” a comment that not only sums up the tautological nature of US drug policies but also shows how they are structured to render irrelevant questions about wasted dollars and blighted lives. Moralism of this sort is neither rational nor democratic, and the fact that it has triumphed so completely is an indication of how deeply the United States has sunk into authoritarianism since the 1980s. With the prison population continuing to rise at a 2.7 percent annual clip, there is no reason to think there will be a turnaround soon.

“bullet” Heh. It looks like it won’t be too hard to get the “Plan Mexico” label out there.
“bullet” Why is TIME such a clueless rag? Tim Padgett’s The War Next Door is really reaching for a way to avoid the real truth:

Why is Mexico’s drug war worsening? Democracy may be one culprit.

That’s right… Ignore the natural economic consequences of a black market, the escalation of violence through the idiocy of the U.S. and Mexican governments, and the fact that some of these violent drug lords that were directly created and trained by those governments… and blame it on Democracy?
“bullet” Anthony Papa at Huffing Post: The Upside Down Flag — Art, the war on drugs, and a country in distress.
“bullet” Last week I pointed out the moronic giggle writing of Gareth McGrath in the July 27 Wilmington Morning Star. This week, the Charlotte Observer ran the same article, but without the opening and closing Cheech and Chong lines. Either somebody in Charlotte practices better journalism, or the ridicule of this blog made a difference.
“bullet” If I left right now, I could make it in time to hear Willie Nelson at Austin Freedom Fest. Boy, I’m tempted.
“bullet” Transform’s Tools for the Debate is now available for download. An excellent resource.
“bullet” Nice feature on Showtime’s excellent series ‘Weeds’ at USA Today

Kohan, a veteran producer and writer who wanted to do a show about an outlaw, says Weeds’ pot-selling-mom premise was a novel but relatable concept. With government estimates that 96 million Americans have tried pot, Weeds “crosses all social, ethnic, political and economic lines.” […]
The show’s pot-centric theme hasn’t drawn much ire outside of anti-drug advocacy groups, says Showtime entertainment chief Robert Greenblatt…

“bullet” Scott Morgan has an excellent piece at StoptheDrugWar.org: Cocaine Shortages Don’t Prevent Violence, They Cause It
“bullet” “drcnet”

Even as Plan Colombia is being scrutinized by Congress for possible cuts after years of throwing money down the drain, secret talks have been underway to put together a drug war package for Mexico.

The price tag on the more ambitious aspiration is $1.2 billion, but a more modest proposal is emerging in recent weeks in the area of $700 million, said one person familiar with the talks.

Yep. Just like Plan Colombia. Except that everyone knows it can’t be at all like Plan Colombia (even though it’ll be exactly like Plan Colombia). Neither Mexico nor the U.S. want the scrutiny, visibility, or publicity of a Plan Colombia. They just want the money, the corruption, the influence, the power… of Plan Colombia.

Mexican officials bristle at any comparisons with the Colombian operation, which they view as too ambitious and an infringement on Colombian sovereignty, given the heavy scrutiny by U.S. Congress and direct involvement of U.S. personnel and equipment.
”Any type of a package called Plan Mexico,” said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, a Mexico specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “would be dead on arrival.”

How about “Scheme Mexico” or “Calamity Mexico” or “Debacle Mexico”?

What’s in a name? that which we call a drug war

By any other name would smell as rank;

……………..
Meanwhile, in the other Mexicolombia,

Authorities in the Colombian city of Cali increased security measures Wednesday, ahead of a possible war for control of the drug trade in the wake of the arrest of boss Juan Carlos Ramirez Abadia in Brazil.

Ah, yes. Finally. Realization of what “success” in the drug war really means… More violence.

Nice to see an OpEd like this in the Financial Times. Written by Willem Buiter, professor of European political economy at the London School of Economics’ European Institute.
It’s not the best writing. But the content is well reasoned and takes the bold steps regarding overall legalization and regulation of illicit drugs.
He addresses dealing with drug problems through regulation, education, and rehabilitation rather than criminalization and takes on the so-called health care arguments for prohibition:

The argument that countries with publicly funded or subsidised healthcare have the right to proscribe the use of drugs likely to cause harm to the user is a ludicrous misuse of the concept of an externality. Should we ban rugby because it is more dangerous than tiddlywinks?

But the biggest part of this OpEd (while it does require some slogging through dense passages), is his view that full legalization will cut out profits to the Taliban.

Following legalisation, the allies in Afghanistan could further undermine the financial strength of the Taliban and al-Qaeda by buying up the entire poppy harvest. If a sufficient premium over the prevailing market price were offered, the Taliban/al-Qaeda middle-man could be cut out altogether, and thus would lose his tax base. Winning the hearts and minds of poppy growers and coca growers is a lot easier when you are not seen as intent on destroying their livelihood.
This proposal for legalising poppy growing regardless of what the poppy is used for is much more radical than the proposal from the Senlis Council to license the growing of poppy in Afghanistan only for the production of essential medicines. The Senlis Council proposal would not end the problem of illicit poppy cultivation co-existing with licensed cultivation. With the illicit price likely to exceed the licit price, the Taliban would retain a significant tax base.

He then goes on to explain why full legalization is the only way to eliminate the availability of black market profits to terrorists, and finishes with the part that will be the most difficult for people who are not prepared to wrap their minds around legalization — the actual legal distribution of drugs like heroin.

If opium and heroin were legalised, the allies’ stash could be sold to regulated producers/distributors of opium, heroin and other formerly illegal poppy derivatives. Our chemical and pharmaceutical industries, and indeed our cigarette manufacturers, would be well-positioned to enter this trade. The profits made by the allies on the sale of the stash could be turned over to the Afghan government. It surely makes more sense for the government to tax the poppy harvest than for the Taliban to do so.
So legalise, regulate, tax, educate and rehabilitate. Stop a losing war, get the government off our backs, beat the Taliban and deal a blow to al-Qaeda in the process. Not a bad deal! [emphasis added]