Drug WarRant

Check out this exchange between Senator Specter and Attorney General Gonzales about habeas corpus (unofficial transcription):

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Yep. This is the highest legal officer in the country. No wonder he’s so opposed to the judiciary and their meddlesome “interpretations” of the Constitution that threaten the rights of the executive branch.

And, of course, he’s right. He’s just looking at the literal meaning of the words. It all makes sense now, and I can start reading the Constitution as the Bush administration would like me to. Let’s consider some other provisions…

• The Constitution doesn’t say that people have the right of freedom of speech. It simply says that Congress shall pass no law abridging it.
• The Constitution doesn’t say that people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches. It simply says that it shall not be violated. If people don’t have it, it can’t be violated.
• The Constitution doesn’t say that people have the right to a speedy trial. It simply says that they shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.
• The Constitution doesn’t say that the President is limited to two terms. It simply says that no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.

OK, I’m kidding, but… how is that different from the constant destruction of the Constitution we’ve seen, most specifically in the past 4 years? (And for those of us following the drug war, we’re particularly sensitive to it since we’ve been dealing with the encroachment much longer.)

Even beyond the faults of past administrations, this group in power seems to see individual rights as some kind of minor annoying obstacle to the function of government, as opposed to seeing the protection of individual rights as the primary purpose of government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Ö That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Now I want to make is clear that I am not against the Bush administration because they’re “conservative” or because they’re “Republican.” My strong opposition to the Bush administration stems from the fact that they are enemies of the Constitution. As a drug policy reformer, I have allies who are liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, Libertarians, moderates, and every other form of political creature, with the exception of blatant authoritarians. And it’s way past time for all good conservatives and Republicans to disavow the authoritarians with everything they’ve got.

Unfortunately, this administration has encouraged every authoritarian nutcase to come out of the woodwork.

The same kind of people who react to an outrageous 55 year sentence for marijuana sales with statements like “I’ve got no sympathy for someone who breaks the law,” will defend every form of lawbreaking imaginable from the government or its agents. Not only will they defend wiretapping and illegal search and seizure, these morons demand a Presidential pardon for two U.S. border agents who shot 15 times in broad daylight at an unarmed drug suspect who posed no threat and was running away (Note: the suspect first tried to surrender, but one of the agents tried to hit him with the butt of his shotgun, so the suspect ran.)

Nutcase Alan Burkhart writes:

While [border agents] Ramos and Compean did engage in activities that undermined their credibility – they disposed of spent shell casings after the incident – our justice system is failing to look at the larger picture. Our country is being poisoned by illegal drugs coursing across the southern border. The Mexican drug cartels have hired corrupt members of the Mexican military to protect their drug runners on US soil. There have been multiple armed confrontations between Border Patrol officers and these hired mercenaries. Our Border Patrol officers are outgunned, and on occasion outnumbered, in these incidents.

Why is it difficult to simply do the right thing? Why were Ramos and Compean brought up on charges instead of being congratulated for a job well done?

Why? Because they broke the law and betrayed their trust as employees of the American people and defenders of the Constitution. Because they violated the rights of another human being. And that is worse than any drug law violation you can imagine or invent.
Update: Alan Burkhart responds in comments
Update: Crooks and Liars has the video of Gonzales and his horrific literal reading of the Constitution. Prior to the statement above, he says:

There is no express grant of habeus in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away

Here’s this week’s issue.

Via

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–City of West Hollywood officials reacted swiftly today to news that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had raided and shut down five medicinal marijuana dispensaries located in West Hollywood. “The City of West Hollywood has had a long-standing commitment to the compassionate use of medical marijuana for those persons who are facing catastrophic illnesses,” said City Manager Paul Arevalo. The DEA’s enforcement of federal drug laws against the dispensaries conflicts with Proposition 215, a ballot measure approved by the California voters in 1996 decriminalizing the use of medical marijuana.

and The Agitator:

A fine use of our tax dollars, Mr. President.
We can’t have AIDS-having, pot-smoking hippies in California thumbing their noses at our federal vice laws. Good, God-fearing families in Kansas shouldn’t have to worry about what might happen to their kids if we start allowing cancer-stricken chemo patients in Burbank to light up a doob with impunity.
So rest easy, Kansas. Once again, your federal government showed ’em who’s boss. Like that time they handcuffed a post-polio patient to her bed, and led her taste the business end of an assault weapon. Man, that was sweet.
It would almost be funny if people weren’t, you know, dying because of this shit.

Scott Morgan has the story. This is potentially very exciting.

Those of you who have followed this blog for awhile know that I’ve been very interested in the evidence regarding the dangers of marijuana and driving. This is an important issue — particularly when it comes to the topic of marijuana legalization/criminalization. Prohibitionists point to the supposed dangers of intoxicated driving as reason to oppose legalization (whether relevant or not) and also use the stoned-driver bogeyman to push for zero-tolerance driving laws that are based simply on the presence of cannabinoids — a sneaky back-door means to criminalize marijuana use.

Of course, there’s no doubt that marijuana use affects reaction and space/time perception. That’s pretty much a given, and anyone who has smoked pot will confirm this. So it’s reasonable to assume from that fact that marijuana and driving would be a very bad combination. And yet… and yet, the government has an exceptionally difficult time demonstrating that “fact.” They turn to discredited “studies” or isolated anecdotes about some tragic accident involving a stoned driver (where it usually turns out the driver was also high on a dozen other drugs).

The truth is, and studies have confirmed this (see U.S. National Highway Safety Administration (1993), Dutch study (1994), Australian study (1998), Transport Research Laboratory (2000 and 2001)), most stoned drivers are much, much safer than drunk drivers and are even safer than tired drivers or drivers talking on cell phones. It’s because pot makes people cautious (and sometimes a little paranoid). People who are stoned know that they are affected, and so they compensate by driving slower and focusing their entire energy on driving. Most pot smokers, when behind the wheel of a car, become old people. (Unlike many drinkers, who become reckless and believe themselves to be invincible.)

My own joke on the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver:

A drunk driver will speed through a stop sign without even noticing it, while a stoned driver will stop and patiently wait for it to turn green.

The fact that actual marijuana impairment is so hard to classify may be why there has been so little interest on the part of the government on researching a means of measuring a level of marijuana intoxication that would compare to Blood Alcohol Content levels. (That, and their desire to use cannabinoid presence to criminalize use.) Instead, the government has encouraged research into a variety of questionable drug-testing-in-relation-to-fatal-crash-statistic studies (many of which even fail to separate drivers from passengers).

So my attention was caught by this story from radio-canada that started out fairly dramatically:

U.S. drivers who tested positive for cannabis over a 10-year period had a 29 per cent higher risk of causing a fatal crash than motorists not taking the drug, a new Canadian-led study suggests.

Strong damning proof, or a mix of imprecise words and absolute rubbish?

Here’s what the sentence implies:

1. That drivers who tested positive for cannabis were somehow tracked over a 10 year period of their lives.
2. That certain drivers were identified as causing fatal crashes
3. That cannabis-positive drivers had a 29 percent higher rate than all other drivers.

I wrote to Michel BÚdard, author of the study, and asked for some clarification. Turns out #1 is a actually bad wording; #2 is bad reporting of limited scientific data; #3 is simply false.

Me: Should it read “U.S. drivers who tested positive for cannabis over a 10-year period…” or “Over a 10-year period, U.S. drivers who tested positive for cannabis…” … I’m guessing that it actually meant that the data covered 10 years, but that the instances of drug testing were relatively proximate to the crash.
BÚdard: You are correct, we used data from 1993 to 2003 and the presence of cannabis was in relation to a given crash.

Me: How was it determined that the person who tested positive actually CAUSED the fatal crash?
BÚdard: … we cannot claim that the driver “caused” the crash but rather that there is an association between the presence of cannabis in the blood and making an unsafe driving action.

Me: The 29 per cent — is that really a comparison between those who tested positive for cannabis and those who did not (which would include those who tested positive for alcohol but not cannabis), or is it a comparison between those who tested positive for cannabis and those who did not test positive for cannabis OR alcohol?
BÚdard: All drivers tested negative for alcohol. The comparison was between those who tested positive or negative for cannabis in the absence of alcohol.

He was also nice enough to send me information from the abstract (the full study isn’t yet available online).

We used a cross-sectional, case-control design with drivers aged 20-49 who were involved in a fatal crash in the United States from 1993 to 2003; drivers were included if they had been tested for the presence of cannabis and had a confirmed blood alcohol concentration of zero. Cases were drivers who had at least one potentially unsafe driving action recorded in relation to the crash (e.g., speeding); controls were drivers who had no such driving action recorded. We calculated the crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of any potentially unsafe driving action in drivers who tested positive for cannabis but negative for alcohol consumption. In computing for the adjusted OR, we controlled for age, sex, and prior driving record.

So what do we have? First, all those who tested positive for alcohol were eliminated from the study, so the sample is dangerously skewed. Second, the best that they could do is identify drivers involved in fatal crashes that had been cited for something, with no information as to whether that related to the crash. If an alcohol impaired driver crashed into someone sober who used cannabis days earlier, and both drivers were cited for speeding, the drunk driver would not be included in the study, but the sober driver would be classified as positive for cannabis and having an unsafe driving action associated with a fatal crash. And even then, all we have is an association, not a cause. There could be many explanations that have nothing to do with cannabis impairment. The study tells us nothing useful, but it does feed the media feeding frenzy.

And while I appreciate Mr. BÚdard’s willingness to be candid with me about the study, he has contributed directly to misinformation through promoting the reults of a study with limited value, through his obvious bias, and through his imprecise and downright false communications with the press [from both the radio-canada article and here]:

“Those who tested positive for cannabis had 29æper cent more risk of having committed a driving action that led to the crash than those who did not,” BÚdard told CBC News.

“It tells us that cannabis is not a safe substitute for alcohol, and I especially mean that for young people,” said BÚdard. […]

What he found was that those victims where THC was involved, were at greater risk when involved in an accident.

“Compared to people who have not tested positive for cannabis, or THC in this case, which is the metabolite we’re looking at, people who did test positive have a 29 per cent higher risk.” […]

“The big thing is that cannabis is not a safe alternative to drinking when it comes to driving.”

And once again, the prohibitionists fail to find their smoking gun.

Jessica Peck Corry writes in the Denver Post:

Reporters and politicos – so eager to define individual voters as liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat – find themselves in a predicament: Most Colorado voters in the last election simply defied such categories.
In November’s election, 41 percent of all voters supported legalizing marijuana, a number greater than the 40 percent who voted for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez. In all, 636,938 voters wanted marijuana legalized, 11,000 greater than the number who backed Beauprez.
While once considered a rallying cry of hippies and peaceniks, marijuana legalization is now a position supported by economics professors and family physicians.

… and people are starting to notice (although the media is sometimes behind on this)

Despite such widespread support, the media unanimously held that November’s bid for bud fell flat, with headlines like “Pro-pot proposal takes a big hit” and “Marijuana amendment goes up in smoke.” Beauprez’s bid, on the other hand, was largely recorded as a casualty of a national trend where mid-term elections rarely see gains for the majority party

Her conclusions as to what the election results mean are, I think, most relevant to Colorado, and I don’t think they can yet be extrapolated to the rest of the country as she does, but they’re interesting:

The old categories may just not fit anymore. […] This “Middle Majority” is growing, now representing closer to 40 percent of America. These individuals tend to have a vibrant libertarian streak while still maintaining conservative social values in their own lives. […] Most in this group support legalization because they are tired of the government taking billions away from important priorities like education and health care, and instead frittering it away on a failed militarized drug war.

In the Nashua Telegraph:

A move to decriminalize the use of marijuana tops the agenda as the New Hampshire Legislature begins to hear from the public on its 1,400 bills for the 2007 session. […]
‹Despite the threat of severe penalties, many responsible, productive New Hampshire citizens continue to use marijuana. As long as these individuals do not harm others, we believe it is unwise and unjust to continue persecuting them as enemies of the state,Š the group declares.
Matt Simon of Amherst, the group‰s spokesman, said it had less than a week to prepare testimony in support, but will be ready.
‹Six days isn‰t much time, but the evidence is on our side, and I know we will be able to make a compelling case for the committee,Š explained Simon.
‹If the committee is willing to give this bill the serious consideration it merits, it will conclude that decriminalization is the only sensible solution to the slew of problems marijuana prohibition has created for New Hampshire.Š
The group contends laws against the use of marijuana only increase the incidence of violence and property crime.
Leaders with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (NHLA) are also expected to offer support.
The three authors are a rare bipartisan mix led by liberal Keene Democrat Chuck Weed, conservative Haverhill Republican Paul Ingbretson, and Manchester Republican Steve Vaillancourt, who at other times has been a Democratic and Libertarian lawmaker.

Interesting group of bill authors. But I’m a bit surprised at the short notice — it doesn’t seem likely that it will do well, so the publicity surrounding the effort is the important part.

Via Phillip Smith — Apparently Indonesia, impressed with the U.S. success in becoming drug-free by 1995, has decided to be marijuana-free by 2015.

Finally. An excellent article in a major paper clearly laying out the answer to Afghanistan that we’ve been talking about for ages.
Anne Applebaum — Ending an Opium War: Poppies and Afghan Recovery Can Both Bloom

Yet by far the most depressing aspect of the Afghan poppy crisis is that it exists at all — because it doesn’t have to. To see what I mean, look at the history of Turkey, where once upon a time the drug trade also threatened the country’s political and economic stability. Just like Afghanistan, Turkey had a long tradition of poppy cultivation. Just like Afghanistan, Turkey worried that poppy eradication could “bring down the government.” Just like Afghanistan, Turkey — this was the era of “Midnight Express”– was identified as the main source of the heroin sold in the West. Just like in Afghanistan, a ban was tried, and it failed.
As a result, in 1974 the Turks, with American and U.N. support, tried a different tactic. They began licensing poppy cultivation for the purpose of producing morphine, codeine and other legal opiates. Legal factories were built to replace the illegal ones. Farmers registered to grow poppies, and they paid taxes. You wouldn’t necessarily know this from the latest White House drug strategy report– which devotes several pages to Afghanistan but doesn’t mention Turkey — but the U.S. government still supports the Turkish program, even requiring U.S. drug companies to purchase 80 percent of what the legal documents euphemistically refer to as “narcotic raw materials” from the two traditional producers, Turkey and India.
Why not add Afghanistan to this list? […]
The director of the Senlis Council, a group that studies the drug problem in Afghanistan, told me he reckons that the best way to “ensure more Western soldiers get killed” is to expand poppy eradication.

An excellent article — do you think any policy leaders will actually read it? The article does a good job of laying out the issues, and also shows that regardless of the difficulties and potential limitations in implementing the Senlis Council’s recommendations, the result would still be positive for us — certainly more positive than the direction we’re headed right now.

In the Colorado Springs Gazette: Editorial: It’s Time for New Strategy in the Drug War

[…] After decades of an even worse failure in the drug war, it’s time for the government to rethink that war as well. […]

Besides failing to keep drugs off the street, the drug war is detrimental to our national security.

Many officials note that the illicit drug trade finances terrorism.

That’s a fair point, but it’s 180 degrees off course.

It blames drug users for all the money in the illegal drug trade, when prohibition is responsible for the huge amounts of money to be made selling drugs. […]

The way to get terrorists out of the drug trade is to take away the profit incentive.

The drug trade doesn’t finance terrorism, the drug war does. If the U.S. and other nations stop treating personal choices such as drug use as crimes, many problems would disappear. […]

We often hear about drug-related crime.

It should more accurately be called drug war-related crime. […]

After four decades of a failed drug war, isn’t it time to take a fresh look at what’s not working on that front?