Drug WarRant

Link

MEXICO CITY, June 14 (Reuters) – Mexico’s government, which complains violent drug cartels are battling each other with firearms bought in the United States, slammed slack U.S. gun laws as absurd on Thursday.
Mexico complains most of the often high-powered weapons used by warring Mexican traffickers come from gun shops in the United States and Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said there was not enough control over their sale.
“I think the American (gun) laws are absurd because they … make it very easy for citizens to acquire guns,” he told a meeting of academics and businessmen.

This appears to be a politically odd move on the part of Mexico. Blaming the U.S. and alienating the conservative American anti-gun-control groups doesn’t seem very smart. But then again, Calderon’s government has screwed up in a major way by escalating the drug war. Since the escalation has been a disaster and he has no viable exit strategy, he needs to find someone to blame — even if it’s his allies in the United States.
Colombia’s Uribe government is taking a different tack, threatening an increase of cocaine on U.S. streets unless we pay them BILLions of dollars.

Colombia’s defense minister warned Thursday that cocaine production would rise sharply if Democrats in the U.S. Congress proceed with plans to cut military aid to the South American nation, the world’s largest producer of the drug.

Somebody needs to tell them that we’re already getting all the cocaine we can possibly consume, despite/thanks to all the eradication and interdiction efforts. Kind of an empty threat.
Of course, neither country is interested in actually solving their problems because it would involve cutting off funds for their drug war completely.

With the Bong Hits for Jesus case set to be determined by the Supreme Court any day now, comments today by Justice Alito at a luncheon are interesting…

“I’m a very strong believer in the First Amendment and the right of people to speak and to write,” […] “I would be reluctant to support restrictions on what people could say.” […] “it’s very dangerous for the government to restrict speech.”

Via Transform, check out this OpEd by Michael C. Chettleburgh in Canada’s National Post: Put the Gangs out of Business: Legalize Drugs

The street gang and associated drug trade problem in Canada won’t be solved by a get-tough, criminal-justice-system response, nor should we expect young homies to just say no. Look to the United States for proof of this. […]
Today, things are so bad that the FBI has made street gangs and the underlying drug trade their number one priority, even over domestic terrorism. The failure in this campaign is a testament to the abject failure of the U.S. war on drugs and gangs. […]
Canada has the opportunity, but perhaps not the courage, to employ a different approach on street gangs. To be sure, we must tackle the underlying socioeconomic causes of the street-gang problem, including poverty, income inequality and persistent discrimination. At the same time, we must equip our police agencies with the resources they need to take out the hardcore 20% or so of all street gangsters who are responsible for the majority of Canadian street violence. We must spend much more money on early prevention and diversion, because this is not a problem that we can arrest our way out of.
Finally, we need to embark upon drug legalization, which will starve gangs of their principal oxygen supply and serve to upset the attractive risk-reward proposition that every new gangster now faces. [emphasis added]

That is the message. Powerful stuff, and so incredibly true.
He goes on…

There is no contradiction in being pro-drug-reform yet anti-drug use. In its present form, the war on drugs is both bad public policy and a fight we cannot win. All drug users should have the right to harm themselves if they so choose. Recognizing that we cannot eliminate their demand, I would much prefer that drug users purchase their wares in a controlled setting rather than from young gangsters, who effectively control what gets sold, where it gets sold and to whom it gets sold. […]
Drug reform will not solve the drug problem entirely. But it will go a long way to solving what has been termed the “drug-problem problem,” which is the pull of the gang and its associated crime and violence

This is a really great OpEd, and it should be circulated widely.
It’s so refreshing to hear such voices of sanity making powerful statements.
While we’re talking about sane statements, Transform also reminds us of this one back in 2002, endorsed by 108 Members of the European Parliament, where they proclaim that:

“…the drug prohibition policy stemming from the UN Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 is the actual cause of the increasing damage which the production, trafficking, sale and consumption of illegal substances inflict on entire sections of society, the economy as well as public institutions, thus undermining health, freedom and individuals’ lives”
[and call for] “a system for the legal control and regulation of the production, sale and consumption of substances which are currently illegal.”

NEW YORK Ö Twinkie lovers, get ready to go bananas.
The sweet treat known for its golden spongy cake and its creamy vanilla center is returning to its roots with banana-creme filling _ the flavor that first made the snack a hit with sweet-toothed people more than 70 years ago.

I don’t know why I posted that here.
It just… seemed right, somehow.
Update: Mmmmm…. twinkies.

Interesting news:

Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer, in a reversal of a campaign position, said Tuesday he could support legislation legalizing the use of marijuana for certain medicinal purposes.
The governor‰s position comes as lawmakers stepped up a push in the final two weeks of the 2007 session for New York to join 12 other states and allow marijuana for those suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis and other painful conditions.
In a debate last summer, Spitzer said he opposed medical marijuana. Now he said he is ‹openŠ to the idea after being swayed by advocates in the past couple of months.
‹On many issues, hopefully you learn, you study, you evolve. This is one where I had, as a prosecutor, a presumption against the use of any narcotic which wasn‰t designed purely for medicinal and medical effect. And now there are ways that persuaded me that it can be done properly,Š the governor told reporters.

Wait a second. Did I just read that a politician was willing to learn and change his position based on the facts? Wow.
Maybe there is some hope for this country.

Update: The New York Assembly passed the medical marijuana bill 95-52 late today. Next stop, the Senate.

(Actually, in my mind, it’s the only Paris Hilton coverage that was ever worth watching.) Tommy Chong discusses the appropriate “punishment” for Paris on the Colbert Report tonight. (It’ll probably be available at Comedy Central later.)
Tommy always cracks me up. At one point, Colbert asks him “Are you high right now?” and Tommy replies “… Of course!”
Update: here’s the video!
Further update: Tanya defends Paris Hilton’s honor from Tommy’s lechery. I’d agree if it wasn’t so clear that it was simply Tommy play-riffing on Paris’ intentionally self-promoted reputation.

Tom Angell and SSDP have filed a Freedom of Information Request to get copies of ads the government ran a few years ago connecting drugs with terrorism. Now, just the notion of the government even resisting the dissemination of advertisements that they publicly ran with taxpayer money is bizarre enough. The only possible justification that I can think of is that releasing them would harm national security because it would offer proof to the rest of the world that this country is run by idiots.
(Come to think of it, hiding corruption, lawbreaking, or stupidity seem to be the main reasons for government secrecy these days.)
This kicker is the typo in the letter Tom got from the White House, saying that since the General Counsel is predisposed until June 19, he’ll have to wait 200 years for a response.
Update: stranger and stranger. Talk about defensive… Is the ONDCP starting to lose it completely? Tom reports that an ONDCP staffer apparently read the blog, is upset for having been made fun of (calling the post “childish”), and ominously threatened “if you’re going to play games like this, you can expect the same games to be played on you.”
Best response to that from crimethink at Hit and Run:

What, is the ONDCP going to post the SSDP’s typos? Or do they have something more sinister in mind?

Better be careful with your spelling, Tom.

Over at TownHall, Debra Saunders writes about failed Plan Colombia:

The New York Times reported last year that anti-drug planes have to fumigate three times as much land as they did in 2002 to kill the same amount of coca.
And for what? An endgame that produces more cocaine than the world wants — and at cheaper prices? […]
“Can you tell me any other product that has gone down in price in the last few years?” Curtis asked — and you can’t include technological products that change. Think milk or bread or beef.
Those consumer prices are not falling. It takes a Washington-born government program — designed to drive up the price of cocaine — to drive down the cost of cocaine. The one thing drug warriors never demand of an American anti-drug program is that it actually work.

Marijuana Policy Project is giving every House lawmaker a set of these playing cards with 52 reasons why you should support medical marijuana access.
It’s a gimmick, sure, but it’s a good one, and it might actually get Congress’ attention while they’re busy playing War.
(The joker is sadly hilarious.)

This is a pretty amazing story.

Ascension Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend drove up to a
traffic light. As the light turned green, the car in front of them
lurched forward, then stalled. Alverez-Tejeda managed to
stop in time, but the truck behind him tapped his bumper. As
Alverez-Tejeda got out to inspect the damage, two officers
pulled up in a police cruiser and arrested the truck driver for
drunk driving. The officers got Alverez-Tejeda and his girl-
friend to drive to a nearby parking lot, leave the keys in the
car and get into the cruiser for processing. Just then, out of
nowhere, someone snuck into their car and drove off with it.
As the couple stood by in shock, the police jumped into their
cruiser and chased after the car thief with sirens blaring. The
police then returned to the parking lot, told the couple that the
thief had gotten away and dropped them off at a local hotel.
The whole incident was staged.

Everyone mentioned above except Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend were police (or working for them). It was all an elaborate ruse to search the car without tipping off the drug conspirators.
This was a case that went to the 9th Circuit Court on whether this was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the court ruled that it was not.
It’s certainly an interesting case, and a little disturbing, but it’s not the huge Fourth Amendment debacle that a few are making it out to be.
What some commenters online are failing to notice is that both parties agreed that the government in this case had more than enough probable cause (from wiretaps, etc) to legally search the car. This was not a fishing expedition in the sense that we’re used to examining. The only question was how they went about getting the car to do the search. So the court was examining whether the nature of the seizure (pretending to steal the car instead of just taking it) was unreasonable, and ruled it wasn’t.
And quite frankly, compared to the violence of home invasion as part of the drug war, this ruse involving a tap of the bumper seems less of a constitutional concern to me.
This doesn’t meant that I like it. Just that I don’t think the 9th Circuit was wrong in this case, given the current weakness of the Fourth Amendment.
However, I also think that law enforcement should consider carefully the ramifications of their actions. They probably considered this operation to be a crafty or cute idea (and I can imagine the high-fives afterwards with the car “thief.”) But what does it say to the public that they serve?
One of the serious repercussions of the drug war is the fact that, in the eyes of the public, law enforcement has become a force to be feared, not trusted. An agency of lies and corruption that will take your friends away. That breakdown in the perception of law enforcement’s status with the public makes it easier for violent crime to exist, and is destructive to communities.
Every time that law enforcement uses techniques such as lying and stealing as part of their standard operating procedure, they drive a further wedge into their relationship with their employers and feed the societal sickness we are experiencing.
___
Note that this thought was articulated by Kozinski within the 9th circuit opinion:

If people can’t trust the representations of government officials, the phrase “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” will become even more terrifying.

Full 9th Circuit opinion here (pdf). Articles at Wired Blog, Volokh, Daily Kos.