Drug WarRant

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.

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.