Drug WarRant

“Did you know that the State of the Union Address and Dark Side of the Moon synch up perfectly?”

– Jon Stewart

What a buzz kill that would be.

An interesting post from last week over at Marginal Revolution about a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Political Economy on how elasticity affects the market for illegal goods.

In an important new study, world-renowned economists–including a Nobel Prize winner and a MacArthur “genius”–argue that when demand for a good is inelastic, the cost of making consumption illegal exceeds the gain. […] The authors demonstrate how the elasticity of demand is crucial to understanding the effects of punishment on suppliers. […]

“This analysisáhelps us understand why the War on Drugs has been so difficult to wináwhy efforts to reduce the supply of drugs leads to violence and greater power to street gangs and drug cartels,” conclude the authors. “The answer lies in the basic theory of enforcement developed in this paper.”

A good discussion in comments at Marginal Revolution, with most of the best comments coming from daksya.
Update: Apparently, the year recently became 2007, so this January 2006 post is actually a year old, not a week. Still, the points are valid, just more aged and wise…

I’ve been working on the new laptop fund for awhile, and I’d like to thank all the wonderful folks who have chipped in. I’ve raised a significant amount toward the cost from some incredibly generous donations from readers.
I’m getting an educational discount and I’m taking advantage of a promotion that ends January 30 that will save me a few bucks, so I’ll be buying it next week.
And so, I’m putting out one last push for donations. I can cover the remainder from my savings, and I certainly don’t want donations from anyone who can’t afford it, but if you missed out on donating already, and would like to be part of the laptop, here’s your chance.

This shouldn’t be a very remarkable bill, but it is in a way. The Utah House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee voted 7-1 to reduce drug-free zones from 1,000 feet to 500 feet and to remove places such as parking plazas.

Ideally, the revised zones will restore the focus on protecting the children in the places they most frequently congregate, said the sponsor of HB231, Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan.
Since the drug-free zones were created in the 1980s, they have been “diluted” by expanded definitions that have made entire cities drug-free zones, Harper said.

In fact, drug free zones have been nothing more than an extra charge for prosecutors to pile on in the cities and have had nothing to do with protecting children.
Now I think drug zones are a pretty stupid idea, and a 500 foot radius still ends up covering more than four Manhattan-sized city blocks, but at least this is a small step in reversing the lemming-like trend of politicians mindlessly and incoherently increasing every drug-related penalty or prohibition they can find.

Via Grits for Breakfast
Grant money from the Department of Homeland Security is being used for a “Border Security Enhancement Operation” in … wait for it…
Arkansas!

Of course, as Scott notes, it has nothing to do with homeland security:

The real purpose of the grant, though, is to fund overtime for a drug interdiction unit to work the highways trolling for asset forfeiture income, not “border security” or “terrorism.” Reported the Gazette:

Some Texarkana, Texas, police officers may soon be deployed to help track down and arrest possible terrorists as well as drug smugglers along Interstate 30 and U.S. Highway 59. […]
The interlocal cooperation agreement will allow city police to patrol and work traffic enforcement, on an overtime basis, along I-30 and U.S. Highway 59 to target illegal drug smugglers and terrorists, according to city records. [emphasis added]

This is insulting. And criminal. And people should be locked up for mis-using tax-payer money that’s intended for protecting the United States from terrorism. You’re not going to catch any terrorists in highway interdiction efforts, and they know it. What they’ll do is get paid overtime, nab some of the less intelligent drug mules, collect some assets, and have absolutely no impact on the availability of drugs in the United States. And we’re supposed to be reassured that the government is protecting us.
When are we going to protect the ports of Kansas?
Update: Scott helps me out in comments. The money is actually being spent in Texas to protect the Texas-Arkansas border from the… terrorists… trying to get into… Texas… from… Arkansas? Ahhhh.

This LA Times article by Josh Meyer (which has been getting wide circulation) appears to be mostly drug warrior-supplied crying about the need for more military support in interdiction (although that has never been shown to actually, you know, accomplish anything).
If anything, the article is an interesting read to show just how impossible it is to stop the flow of drugs, regardless of your efforts. And when you’ve got unlimited profits involved, plus an unlimited supply of small fish willing to take a chance for a pay-off, the suppliers find the Defense Department’s 22% “detection rate” (likely a much higher-than-actual number) merely a highly acceptable tariff.

Via Blog Reload (although Vick has since been “cleared,” the segment is still hilarious).

[Update: Well, it was short-lived fun. The Saturday Night Live news segment about Michael Vick and marijuana has been removed from YouTube.]

Some great football today. And a big thanks to the weather canceling my out-of-town meeting, so I could watch it.
“bullet” N.M. Governor Bill Richardson threw his hat in the ring for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President. Apparently he’s a big fan of making sure everyone can get the illegal drugs that they want easily, as he recently said “he would seek legislation creating a public registry for drug dealers.” Aw, gee thanks, Bill.

“bullet” Franken-Fungus — the monster Dan Burton and Joe Biden created that just won’t die.
“bullet” Speaking of surviving a stake in the heart, STRAIGHT, Inc. appears to be alive and well and has turned into a Pathway in Indiana.

At 14, Nicky was using drugs as a way to control the mood swings that come with bipolar disorder, said Rose Gagen, her mother. About five years ago, she called police as a way to get Nicky into court-ordered treatment. The family chose the Pathway Family Center in Indianapolis because representatives at an assessment told her it had professionals on staff who could treat both Nicky’s mental illness and her drug problems.
During her nine months at Pathway, Nicky said she spent nine to 11 hours a day, forced to sit in a rigid position on a straight chair with a cushion, legs pressed tightly together, feet straight out, hands on knees, elbows straight.

“bullet” This has already been reported elsewhere, but if you haven’t, you should read this email exchange with an elected official, who apparently believes that petitioning your government, rather than being a First Amendment right, is a reason to tell the local police about you.

Jeff wrote me to ask what I think about slashdot’s question of the day.

Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until they’re changed or help speed the change by breaking them?

Interesting. The question on slashdot was clearly generic, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that we’re talking about drug policy.
The question itself raises several questions:

1. It assumes that changing the rules is a good idea. Of course, we believe that it is.
2. The word “better” could be interpreted to mean “more moral” or “more efficacious.”
3. “abide by the rules until they’re changed” — you could do that and wait forever with no change.
4. “help speed the change by breaking them” — there’s no guarantee that breaking them will have any effect.

I’ve often heard people comment on a particular situation (such as someone dying in a drug raid, or getting an unusually long prison sentence): “Hey, I’m for changing the laws, but as long as pot is illegal, it’s their fault for breaking the law,” or I hear “Sure, marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, but it’s against the law. Case closed.” I definitely do not agree with those viewpoints. People use drugs, prohibition is unjust and dangerous, so regardless of “legality,” I feel for those nonviolent lawbreakers who were unlucky enough to get caught. And the idea of simply promoting “abide by the rules until they’re changed” thus seems unrealistic, callous and cruel.
Yet as far as choosing an efficacious approach to “speeding the change,” I’m not sure breaking the law is completely relevant in this situation. Millions break the drug laws on a regular basis, and it’s not to change the law. Most people who smoke pot are not trying to make a statement, nor do most people consider drug use to be a statement for change. So simply breaking the law to speed the change seems unrealistic, unless you consider the notion that if enough people break the law, the law will collapse under the weight of its unpopularity (and your lawbreaking added to that effect).
Perhaps breaking the rules in some kind of public way would speed change. Civil disobedience is a time-honored method of effecting change of unjust laws or actions. The non-violent public act of sacrifice (often risking freedom through arrest) can generate public awareness and sympathy (the public can get a feeling for the genuine beliefs of the protester since the protester is seen to have nothing to gain and much to lose personally through his/her civil disobedience). Now, I don’t think that smoking a joint on the street corner is going to work. It would have to be big, organized, and publicized. In a way, hempfests have been a form of civil disobedience, and even medical marijuana systems — as they conflict with federal law — are a form of civil disobedience.
What do you think?

Is it better to abide by the rules until they’re changed or help speed the change by breaking them?

• Colombia ‘good model’ for Afghan drug war, US says
• Titanic ‘good model’ for ship-building, US says
• New Orleans ‘good model’ for disaster planning, US says
• Henry VIII ‘good model’ for family values, US says
• Chernobyl ‘good model’ for energy management, US says

Strangely, one of those headlines is real.