Drug WarRant

It’s hilarious — both Ethan and Stephen are hyped up and having fun going after each other.

Colbert: You think we have lost the war on drugs and we should just give up on it.
Nadelmann: Oh, we have lost the war on drugs.
Colbert: Sir, we have lost the war on drugs when we withdraw from the war on drugs. While we’re still in it, we haven’t lost it. I say we send 20,000 more troops in. That’ll do it.

Good. Ethan used the figures on U.S. having 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. “We lead the world in locking up our fellow citizens.”

Colbert: I’m thinking about cutting off your mic. …
Nadelmann: “You gotta get drunk to watch O’Reilly, but half your audience probably lit up a joint before they turned on your show tonight.”

Colbert: Look. I can’t control what they do. All I can do is pass judgement.

Ethan calls Colbert a communist.
Colbert calls for making Smith Brothers throat lozenges illegal.
The whole thing was over so fast it was hard to keep up.
Here’s the link to watch it online (Thanks, Celeste).

Via TalkLeft — Drug agents mishandled seized cash, audit finds

WASHINGTON – Drug Enforcement Administration agents routinely disregarded agency rules on the handling of seized cash, jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars taken in drug raids, a Justice Department review found.
In an audit published Friday, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine examined thousands of seizures between October 2003 and November 2005.
Fine’s report states that drug agents rarely counted the cash they took, often didn’t provide receipts for seized money, rarely recorded the seizures in agency ledgers and often didn’t ask their colleagues to witness their counting and handling of the money.

Unintentionally humorous line in the piece:

The lack of internal controls over the seized cash leads to accusations of theft by the agents, the report states.

Leads to accusations of theft? Yes, the most important thing is that the public not suspect that you’re stealing the money.

Do they just keep posting fecal material to keep me diverted from dealing with real issues? How else can you explain the ONDCP staff posting this nonsense on a Sunday at their “blog”? Is somebody there actually doing this on their own time?
Here’s the stupidity:

United Press International reports on a new study from the United Kingdom linking marijuana use and criminal behavior:
“A British survey finds that half of all crime suspects and 57 percent of young offenders admit recent smoking of marijuana. The Home Office, for the first time, questioned people who had just been arrested, the Daily Mail reported. The rate of marijuana use was significantly higher than expected.”
Marijuana: Harmless?

I am at a loss to explain how somebody as clearly retarded (in the Lewis Black definition of the word) as the person who posted this for the ONDCP can actually press the keys of the computer in such a way as to make words appear.
I wonder if any study asked criminals if they’d recently worn blue jeans or drunk whole milk, and whether that would be evidence of the harms of jeans or milk.
Honorable mention in stupidity goes to the Washington Times for their unquestioned regurgitation of British Conservative Party David Davis’ propaganda.

Remember the story of Janet Lee? She had some condoms filled with flour as a fun stress reliever/phallic gag and took them on the plane with her.

In the space of a few hours on Dec. 21, 2003, Janet Lee landed in a Philadelphia jail cell, where she would remain for three weeks, held on $500,000 bail and facing 20 years in prison on drug charges.

She filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the police (after all, holding her for three weeks for possession of flour?)
She just settled for $180,000. As part of the settlement, she’ll be allowed to meet with the police and ask them how they managed to be so incredibly stupid.

That’s the headline now at the Drug Czar’s “blog”.
Yes, I know. I can’t stay away, but I have an excuse — they taunted me.

Turns out, the widely-used argument used by drug legalization groups that Europeans are much “more open and accepting of marijuana legalization” just isn’t true.

Whoa. The drug czar is bringin’ it! Accusing me and my ilk of playin’ fast with the facts. Of course, their characterization of the view of legalizers is a little bit off — generally, we’ve said more that European countries have led the way (in terms of their laws) in being more accepting of marijuana, and such acceptance has not shown ill effects — rather the opposite, as a matter of fact. I don’t recall that much has been said about the public’s view of marijuana legalization being more open and accepting in Europe. Our view is that the public view of marijuana legalization is more open and accepting here in the U.S. than is reflected in the laws.
But let’s take a closer look at this new EU poll (pdf, page 44, data is on page 79 of the pdf document). Once again, we find that the Drug Czar takes data that ranges somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant and touts it as total vindication.
The poll, including dozens of questions on a whole long list of attitudes about a variety of topics regarding participation in the European Union, includes one question about cannabis:

Personal consumption of cannabis should be legalised throughout
Europe.
Totally Agree/Tend to Agree/Tend to Disagree/Totally Disagree/Don’t Know

The conclusion reached by the report’s authors is:

The high level of opposition to the idea that personal consumption of cannabis
should be legalised throughout Europe provides further evidence that Europeans feel
that there is too much tolerance nowadays.

Wait a second. Read the question again. How could any answer to that question provide evidence for that conclusion? First problem: without noting the fact, the authors are referring back to an earlier question about whether criminals are treated too tolerantly (and the authors should have clarified that they weren’t talking about tolerance toward marijuana). Second problem: The question gives nothing that could support such a conclusion anyway. People could very well think that marijuana should be further decriminalized and yet be opposed to legalization.
The fact that the authors chose to make the assumption they did in their conclusion casts serious doubt on their credibility and makes you wonder if they had an agenda.
Other problems with using the results of the poll in the way the Drug Czar does:
1. Context. The question is part of a large number of questions regarding peoples’ attitudes about the European Union. There’s a lot of concern over how much autonomy the countries of the European Union will be required to surrender. Answers to the question “Personal consumption of cannabis should be legalised throughout Europe.” could easily be swayed by people’s views as to whether it should be an EU issue or a local issue. They could very well be in favor of legalization and yet answer in the negative because they don’t feel it should be discussed in terms of overall EU consideration (perhaps because there are more important things, or because it should be up to the individual countries).
2. The word “legalised” has baggage. As we often see here in the United States, legalization is equated in some people’s minds with a complete absence of regulation. I’ve had people tell me “I’m opposed to legalization, but I think they should stop arresting people for marijuana.” When I ask them if they think there should be fines, they say “No. But I don’t want to see it freely available to children.” In fact, they are in favor of legalization and don’t know it. I don’t know how much this misconception is prevalent in the EU, but obviously that would color the poll.
3. The question is too limited to really tell you anything. Just one question, with questionable context and meaning. If you really wanted to have that poll provide some meaningful results, you’d want to include more questions. Possibly something like “People should be jailed for personal possession of cannabis throughout Europe.” and “Laws regarding personal possession of cannabis should be made the same throughout Europe.” The fact that you’re mixing “personal consumption of cannabis” and “throughout Europe” makes the equation so complex that you need a number of questions to really triangulate people’s views in any kind of meaningful way that the drug czar would like to have you believe.

Here’s this week’s issue.

Several people have pointed me to a disturbing article in the Washington Post — The Private Arm of the Law — about the proliferation of private security forces and their use by police departments.

With the sleeve patch on his black shirt, the 9mm gun on his hip and the blue light on his patrol car, he looked like an ordinary police officer as he stopped the car on a Friday night last month. Watt works, though, for a business called Capitol Special Police. It is one of dozens of private security companies given police powers by the state of North Carolina — and part of a pattern across the United States in which public safety is shifting into private hands.

Private firms with outright police powers have been proliferating in some places — and trying to expand their terrain. The “company police agencies,” as businesses such as Capitol Special Police are called here, are lobbying the state legislature to broaden their jurisdiction, currently limited to the private property of those who hire them, to adjacent streets. […]

Private security guards have outnumbered police officers since the 1980s, predating the heightened concern about security brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. What is new is that police forces, including the Durham Police Department here in North Carolina’s Research Triangle, are increasingly turning to private companies for help. […]

“You can see the public police becoming like the public health system,” said Thomas M. Seamon, a former deputy police commissioner for Philadelphia who is president of Hallcrest Systems Inc., a leading security consultant. “It’s basically, the government provides a certain base level. If you want more than that, you pay for it yourself.” […]

The trend is triggering debate over whether the privatization of public safety is wise. Some police and many security officials say communities benefit from the extra eyes and ears. Yet civil libertarians, academics, tenants rights organizations and even a trade group that represents the nation’s large security firms say some private security officers are not adequately trained or regulated. Ten states in the South and West do not regulate them at all.

Some warn, too, that the constitutional safeguards that cover police questioning and searches do not apply in the private sector. [emphasis added]

This is disturbing on a whole bunch of levels. Will we see the lobbying efforts of private police like we do with the private prison industry? We have a tough enough time with corruption in the regular police force — how will we control that with private cops?

But here’s the part that disturbs me the most. Imagine that the private cops get their wish and can patrol the adjoining streets. And assume the article is right in that private cops don’t have the same constitutional limitations as regular police…

I can envision a future scenario where the kind of abuses inherent in the structure of the multi-jursidictional drug task forces get brought to a whole new level….

Let’s say a merchant’s association (under heavy encouragement from the police) hires some private security guards. Since a whole lot of merchants (at least one on each main street) are involved, the security guards can patrol anywhere. Although ostensibly working for the merchant’s association, the security guard works with a police task force going through town rousting people on the streets. The security guard, unfettered by constitutional restrictions, searches anybody they encounter who is young, black, hispanic, or poor, including those driving through. If he finds drugs he turns the person over to the accompanying cops for the arrest.

So what rights do citizens have when it comes to private cops?

Over at his blog, Matthew Yglesias really comes up with a bizarre post:

I guess this is something liberals and libertarians are supposed to agree about, but I consistently find it bizarre that there are some people who seem to think it would be a good idea if you could just walk into your local convenience store and pick up some heroin or crack along with your Fritos and Diet Coke. At times, people taking this line seem to argue that drug prohibition couldn’t possibly be having any beneficial effects because, after all, you can still find heroin. Naturally enough, you don’t see anyone proposing that the “war on mugging” be ended simply because mugging-prohibition has failed to actually eliminate the proscribed activity. …

OK, this is the standard ignorance that gets spouted by prohibitionists every day, but Matthew has a readership, and boy do they let him have it. Check out the comments. I only got through a portion, but they were overwhelmingly critical of his post.
Here’s a smattering…

I can’t believe Matt posted this garbage. […]

So we’re all agreed that Matt was smoking the crack before he wrote this? […]

Wow, this is the worst post here since the broo-sketta post of a few years back. The straw man, the deliberate misstating of the de-reg argument…perfect! […]

wow. what a terrible post. Did someone slip you a mickey? […]

I will just ask why Matt thinks his local sheriff is better qualified to prescribe his medications than his doctor? Does Matt want to make alcohol and cigarettes just as illegal as marijuana? Does he think alcohol prohibition was a success and Repeal was a big mistake? Or has he ever, in fact, learned anything at all about psychoactive substances and why people use them?

It’s hard to believe he has, judging from this post.

The whole comment thread is quite fascinating, and, while a few prohibition cheerleaders who show up, I am impressed with the knowledge of those refuting Yglesias. This is very encouraging — it shows that there is a large base of informed people out there that will no longer be taken in by the propaganda.
I’ve got to believe that this is a direct result of the increase of sources of real information (including, as a small part of it, this blog) over the past few years.
Go over there and join in the fun.

Quote of the day from new Houston County Sheriff Andy Hughes:

Drug enforcement is another area Hughes plans to invest a lot of resources in. He says, “The drug war is a war we’ll never win and it’s time to attack it on a daily basis and concentrate on drugs.”

Whaa?

The Drug Czar’s “blog” (yes, I went there again and I’m giving them yet another link to increase their stats…) excitedly lists some names:

Congratulations to the newest members of the President’s Drug Free Communities Support Program Advisory Commission!

Ooh, i can’t wait!
So I looked at the list — don’t really know any of them, but it looked like the usual cast of characters: politicos, treatment pimps, etc. Then I saw one that was listed as “Freelance Writer.” Interesting. I wondered what kind of freelance writer would want to get involved in the PDFCSPAC. So I did a little looking. Shouldn’t have been surprised at what I found.
Camille Q. Solberg is a politically active Republican whose father was a political appointee under George H.W. Bush. She’s President of the Coalition for the Preservation of Traditional Marriage and Outreach Chairman for the Wisconsin Federation of Republican Women. She’s married to John Solberg, Executive Director of the Rawhide Boys Ranch – a juvenile boot camp and treatment center. (source, source)
And the freelance writing part? Apparently that refers to articles like this love letter to President Bush published in the Christian News, where she actually “reported” the event as if John Solberg wasn’t her husband:

About 1,500 people attended the Fond du Lac event, including the publisher of Wisconsin Christian News, Rob Pue and his wife. This event differed in that local residents had a chance to ask the President questions. John Solberg, Executive Director of Rawhide Boys ranch asked the President about his Faith Based initiative.

Gee, I wonder if that was spontaneous…
I don’t know how common the name Solberg is, but it seems I’ve heard it before. Ah yes, Mary Ann Solberg is the ONDCP Deputy Director. Mary Ann’s from Michigan. Camille and John are from Wisconsin. Coincidence?
The point is that these are opportunistic ideologues — and that is generally their entire qualification for the position.
On the other hand, I’m confused so far by the choice of the academic in the group — Keith M. Humphreys is an Associate Professor at Stanford School of Medicine, and while not exactly on our side, oddly seems somewhat qualified (although I really don’t know much about him).