Drug WarRant

This comment from kaptinemo is worth repeating:

The goal was never to do the impossible, namely, eliminate illicit drugs from urban populations. The goal very simply was to gradually acclimate citizens to increased inroads into their civil liberties, numbing them to the ‘turn-o’-the-screw’ approach to the inevitable tyranny. The effectiveness of this approach is proven by the very distorted view provided by Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr.’s statement. He just can’t see that we are, for all intent and purposes, operating under martial law when there’s daily trampling upon the 4th Amendment courtesy of the DrugWar. Because it hasn’t bitten him on the arse yet, he thinks it can’t and therefore won’t.
For drug law reformers, who are in essence the ‘canaries in the mineshaft’ regarding civil liberties, we knew the country was in dire straits looooong before the Leftist blogosphere discovered the peril in having such niceties like habeas corpus suspended. We witnessed the long, slow slide into the pit, but no one wanted to hear about it from (dismissive sneer) ‘druggies’. We saw what was coming, warned about it, and were laughed at as being drug-addled alarmists…and we are being ignored, still, despite what we had warned about previously manifesting into reality. Being a modern day Cassandra is no less painful now as it was way back when…

I think this is an extraordinarily powerful comment. We have long been aware that the drug war is much more than drugs — it is a particularly useful tool of authoritarianism.
And the sad thing is that so much of the population eagerly invites it, looking for that fraudulently chimerical trade of liberty for security.
So this little bit of news is just par for the course…

Mexico is expanding its ability to tap telephone calls and e-mail using money from the U.S. government, a move that underlines how the country’s conservative government is increasingly willing to cooperate with the United States on law enforcement.
The expansion comes as President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend the Mexican Constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge’s approval in some cases. Calderon argues that the government needs the authority to combat drug gangs, which have killed hundreds of people this year.

Yes. For the drug war. We can’t afford a Constitution when we have a war to fight. And the authoritarians in Mexico and the U.S. are happy to work together against their citizens to avoid any pesky remaining Constitutional issues.

It’s unclear how broad a net the new surveillance system will cast: Mexicans speak regularly by phone, for example, with millions of relatives living in the U.S. Those conversations appear to be fair game for both governments.
Legal experts say that prosecutors with access to Mexican wiretaps could use the information in U.S. courts. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that 4th Amendment protections against illegal wiretaps do not apply outside the United States, particularly if the surveillance is conducted by another country, Georgetown University law professor David Cole said.

Did you catch that? The U.S. gives money to Mexico to spy on its citizens and U.S. citizens as well. If Calderon gets his way, that will be without any Mexican judicial oversight. The results of that spying could then be given to U.S. prosecutors to use without any U.S. Constitutional protection, because it was another country that conducted the surveillance.
The air in the mineshaft just got a little more foul.

“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly.
“bullet”

I’ll be taking 79 people to Manhattan for a week of theatre and walking tours, May 29 through June 5.
I’m going to be extremely busy that week, but if anyone wants to get together for coffee some time to discuss drug policy, let me know.

I fear for the planet. When the leadership of so much of the world is unable to understand the simplest of concepts…
It is criminally irresponsible to assume that the only options to approaching certain problems are military success or surrender, particularly when the war isn’t even a war at all, but rather a policy opposing inanimate objects and economic forces.
Witness Mexican President and idiot Felipe Calderon

Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed on Thursday not to abandon his military-led war against violent drug gangs, defying a call from a congressional committee for the withdrawal of troop patrols.
Banging his finger on a lectern during a speech in the northern state of Durango, Calderon said his government would not relent in its fight against drug traffickers.
“We cannot leave the children and the young people of Mexico in the claws of organized crime. Our position is clear: not one step backward in the task of defending Mexico,” he said.
“Simply withdrawing, being cowardly and hiding are not the solution,” Calderon said.

Because he is such a cowardly moron, without the cojones to handle a real solution, and because his chilito makes him insecure, he condemns his people to death.
Despicable.
… and he is far from alone.

Philadelphia’s likely next mayor, Michael Nutter, and Baltimore City Council’s Robert W. Curran, seem to be trying to outdo each other in the pro-authoritarian anti-reason tough-on-crime competition.

Under Curran’s plan, the mayor could declare “public-safety-act zones,” which would allow police to close liquor stores and bars, limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.
Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in those zones to search for weapons and drugs. […]
Nutter’s proposal also calls for curfews in crime-plagued neighborhoods.

Wow. So in what third-world country are the cities of Philadephia and Baltimore? Certainly not the United States. We don’t allow our police to just stop and frisk people for no reason, do we… ?

Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr., a mayoral hopeful, said Curran’s idea was an interesting concept but it raised questions about civil liberties. “We have to make sure we’re not declaring martial law,” he said.

What else would you call it? A block party?

Surprise, surprise.

Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan.
Rice farmers along the Euphrates, to the west of the city of Diwaniya, south of Baghdad, have stopped cultivating rice, for which the area is famous, and are instead planting poppies, Iraqi sources familiar with the area have told The Independent.

Well, here’s another surprise. USA Today has published an editorial supporting the Senlis proposal: A Better Way To Deal With Afghanistan’s Poppy Crop

The United States is pushing Afghanistan to spray poppy fields with a crop-killing herbicide, much as is done with coca in Colombia, and develop new sources of income for the poppy farmers.
This approach might sound reasonable, but it threatens to make a deteriorating situation even worse. Here’s why. The American and NATO forces in Afghanistan rely on intelligence and support from Afghans. Yet the Afghans’ resentment is rising as civilians increasingly get killed and hurt in operations against Taliban forces. Just the threat of spraying poppy fields is increasing that anger, because spraying could destroy the livelihoods of as many as 3 million farmers and drive them into the arms of the Taliban.
There might be a better way to bridge the clashing agendas of the wars on terror and drugs.
The Senlis Council, a group based in Europe and Afghanistan, proposes legalizing and managing the poppy crops, turning them into medicines such as morphine. It wants to adapt a program that largely eliminated heroin production in Turkey in the 1970s with the support of President Nixon and Congress.
Like the Bush administration in Afghanistan, Nixon at first insisted on spraying the poppy fields. But Turkish leaders refused because of a revolt from their farmers. The compromise included guaranteed markets for the morphine. Within a few years, Turkey was no longer the premier source for heroin.
The Senlis Council is proposing pilot projects under which the morphine factories would be set up in Afghan villages and monitored by village elders and outside groups. The factories could provide employment and income for the villages — and plow some profits into alternative industries.
It’s true, as critics point out, that legal opium fetches about one-third the price of opium sold on the illegal market, and the Senlis proposal envisions Afghan opium being sold relatively cheaply for medications in developing countries.
But the United States and the international community are already spending billions of dollars on development in Afghanistan. Some of that money could be used to help bridge the gap and wean the poppy farmers away from risky, illegal production.
Defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan will require pragmatism, creativity and the support of the Afghan people. Giving “poppies for peace” a chance might just pay dividends in the U.S. war on terror.

Not bad from USA Today. And note that while legal uses will bring in significantly less income than illegal uses, there are two factors to the farmers.

1. In the illegal market, farmers get a very small portion of the value of the opium when it is shipped, which itself is an insignificant portion of the street value of the finished drug, so the value difference to farmers in selling to the legitimate market may not be that great (and will at least appeal to those who would like to be legal).
2. Buying crops from farmers at even a low price so they can feed their families is better in winning hearts and minds than destroying their crops and leaving them to starve.

Of course, the Senlis proposal will not eliminate the black market — only full legalization and regulation can do that.

Canada: Harper To Unveil US-Style ‘War On Drugs’

The Harper government’s new anti-drug strategy is expected to take a tough approach to illicit drugs: cracking down on grow-ops and pushers, and retreating from “harm reduction” measures such as safe injection sites for addicts.

So just how much stock does Harper have in Canada’s prison industry? Or is he employed by organized crime? Or does he have jello for brains?
The only way you can look at the U.S. drug war and say “I want some of that” is if you’re corrupt or stupid.

This is causing a bit of a stir: High Number of Moms Admit Pot Use

A number of mothers in the Phoenix area admit they use marijuana to wind down after a long day, television station KPHO reported.
Shay Pausa surveyed hundreds of mothers through her Web site, Chikii.com. She targeted women in affluent suburban areas. […]
They’re women like Jan, who’s 30 and has one child.
“I like it just to relax, if I’m very stressed out and I just need some time, just to relax. It’s good for that,” Jan said. […]
Of the hundreds of mothers Pausa surveyed, 52 percent said they smoke pot at least 10 times a year.
Twenty-seven percent said they smoke it one to seven times a week.
Some of the women even said they would someday tell their kids about their secret. That’s what most concerns some anti-drug groups.
“So what kind of message is that sending to a child? If it’s OK to smoke pot in the house, is it OK to steal? Bottom line, it’s illegal,” said Sarah Christiansen of NotMyKid.org.

Yep. Pot smoking and stealing. Where do these drug warriors learn how to make analogies? (Like the one where they say “Well if you think legalizing will reduce the criminal activity, why don’t you legalize murder as well?”)
And I’ve had just about enough of “sending messages to children.” Everybody who wants to control what adults do always talks about messages to children. Guess what? The children are not interested in, or listening to, your “messages.” (And they know you’re just using them, because they know how to read between the lines very well.) Try talking to children, instead. Tell them the truth. Have the guts to raise a human being instead of trying to train a puppy.

“bullet” Alex at Drug Law Blog has a very interesting post (inspired by a discussion in comments here at Drug WarRant): Civil Disobedience, the War on Drugs, and Fiorello LaGuardia.
Where’s our Fiorello LaGuardia?
“bullet” From Jerry Large of the Seattle Times (and picked up elsewhere): Rescuing drug war’s prisoners

The crack we’re addicted to is an over-reliance on police and prisons, which, among other things, perpetuates America’s racial divide.

“bullet” Jerry Large also has this piece:

Politicians are beginning to realize something’s broken, too.
Voters need to support them. Let them know we no longer think looking beyond easy answers is being soft on crime.

“bullet” The ramifications of militarizing the drug war in Mexico are starting to surface. The Chicago Tribune reported:

Officials say most of the complaints statewide involve soldiers entering homes without warrants and illegally detaining residents without probable cause. […]
“We need to take a few steps back and ask ourselves if a society like Mexico wants its military occupying the plazas, the city halls,” Sierra said. “In the long term, I don’t think it is healthy for a democracy.”

“bullet” Looks like things may not be going so well for the feds in the Ed Rosenthal trial
“bullet” When police departments depend on seizure money for their operations…

A presidential candidate saying such things?
Note, the transcript of this interview is pretty rough, but the meaning is clear. Timothy Gatto had an interview with Mike Gravel and this is one part:

Gatto: I have seen what Cocaine, Heroin and Meth do to good people. What would you do to stop the abuse of these drugs if they are legalized?
Senator Gravel: First of all, I do have a program to legalize the regulation of hard drugs. I think we ought to stop the prohibition of Marijuana and let marijuana be sold in liquor stores. You get a much bigger high off of drinking a fifth of scotch, than you would off a couple of packs of marijuana. That‰s why it should be legalized. Now the regulation, the legalization of hard drugs is a whole other matter. What we have to do is stop criminalizing this whole drug problem, the addiction problem. This is a public health problem. It‰s not a criminal problem. What we need to do is to one; to identify these drug users so that they can get their drugs by prescription from a doctor, they are thereby registered to a registry, so that we can begin to monitor these people and try to proselytize them, and help them to get off of drugs. That‰s not what happens today, what happens todayá you‰re criminalized, you‰re thrown in jail, half the people in jail have a drug problem, and we don‰t address that at all. It‰s a health issue and we don‰t look at it for what it is, it‰s a health issue, ,so my hope would be, this whole war on drugs is a hoax we spend 50 to 70 billion dollars a year on it, and it‰s no more effective than prohibition was against alcohol back in the 20‰s. All it does is criminalizing a major segment of our population and cause another major segment to break the law, lose respect for the law, because it is just bad law, and so I would really push on both sides of that and keep in mind, those that try to tell the American people that they have nothing to fear but fear itself. That‰s what I would try to do under this present situation is that you don‰t need all this fear of the terrorists, of people of color, gays this is overblown, totally overblown, in addition to fighting this problem of fear with the American public through leadership, I would call on the courage in us, not the fear in us to address our collective problems. Then, at the same time like Roosevelt, I would do away with the prohibition that we have in respect to marijuana, and bring the legalization of hard drugs, legalization of the regulation of hard drugs.
Gatto: I wrote an article on the war on drugs it‰s the same as the war on terror, it‰s a never-ending thing, it‰s a self-perpetuating thing. When are the American People going to realize that? Maybe when you‰re the president?
Gravel: Yes we engage these issues. You don‰t hear the front tier candidates talking about this on the drug war. You don‰t hear them talking about the military industrial complex. With their interviews, its politics as usual, they say a lot, but don‰t say anything.