Drug WarRant

Here’s a few things worth checking out:
“bullet” Radley Balko does a really fine job explaining the meth “crisis” to the uninformed in his latest FOX news column: Government’s Drug War Fuels Meth Problem

So Americans’ access to cold medicine has been restricted, we’ve embarked on questionable sting operations that likely ensnare innocent people, and the FDA is allowing a useless medication to be sold to U.S. consumers. And to what end? Meth is more available and more potent than it ever was.
Typical drug war folly. This is probably the place to point out that drug war itself is the bad government policy gave us the crude form of methampehtamine that’s so popular today in the first place.

“bullet” Bruce Mirken has a good piece at AlterNet: Why Smoking Marijuana Doesn’t Make You a Junkie. He discusses the science that has put to rest the particular gateway theory that marijuana causes people to use other drugs.

The lie that marijuana somehow turns people into junkies is dead. Officials who insist on repeating it as a way of squelching discussion about common-sense reforms should be laughed off the stage.

“bullet” Economist David R. Henderson explains the economics of the drug war in South and Central America in ways that a Kindergartner could understand (but would be totally over the heads of most politicians) in How to Undercut Ch½vez Peacefully With Less Military, Not More

The raw cocaine price in Colombia is only about 1 percent of its street price in the United States, because of the risk premium added on to prices at each stage of the distribution. Therefore, tripling the raw price would cause the U.S. street price to rise by 2 percent.
There’s a better way to go. The U.S. government should stop pressuring Colombia’s government to destroy its cocaine industry, and we the people should demand it. Then Colombia’s government can decide whether to do that or not, and I predict that it won’t. If, in the extreme, Colombia’s government legalized the cocaine trade, production would increase and the price would fall. But even if the Colombian price fell to zero, clearly impossible, the U.S. price would fall by only 1 percent. Meanwhile, the leftist insurgent’s funds would dry up š why pay for protection when you don’t need it? […]

“bullet” Transform Foundation Blog has good coverage of the recent discussion in England regarding the drug trade and the murder of prostitutes in Ipswich. The positive thing is that a real discussion is happening, and the notion of legalization as a form of harm reduction is getting serious play. Also nice to see articles like Prohibition: a crippling habit by Nick Davies:

There are really only two kinds of people who support the prohibition of drugs: those who know the truth and, for some political reason, refuse to admit it; and those who genuinely have no idea what they are talking about.

I’ve never really felt the need to explain the position that libertarians should have regarding the drug war. In fact, in my FAQ, all I say is:

Well, duh! If you need to ask, you’re probably not a libertarian.

One particular recent event, however, is muddying the waters… the conversion of Bob Barr to the Libertarian party. And as Mona notes, this is the same Bob Barr who was once a Congressman Drug Warrior:

Suggesting the depth of hostility toward the notion of legal drugs, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs.

That’s right. He suggested that the government use RICO to go after people like… me.
And now he’s a spokesperson for the Libertarian party. What a conversion!
Or is it?
Jacob Sullum at Hit and Run notes that Barr avoids the topic in his recent interview with David Weigel and says:

… But it’s hard for me to see how a libertarian (or Libertarian) can support drug prohibition. Contrary to what he says in the interview, this is no “minor disagreement.” Not only does the war on drugs directly violate the basic right to control one’s body and mind; it leads to exactly the sort of wide-ranging civil liberties violations, especially in connection with Fourth Amendment rights, that so concern Barr when it comes to the war on terrorism…

I believe it’s possible to be a pro-life Democrat. You could even be a gay Republican. But a pro-drug war Libertarian? It’s oxymoronic.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Barr is pinned down on this issue.

Link (Via Hit and Run)

For years, activists in the marijuana legalization movement have claimed that cannabis is America’s biggest cash crop. Now they’re citing government statistics to prove it.
A report released today by a marijuana public policy analyst contends that the market value of pot produced in the U.S. exceeds $35 billion Ö far more than the crop value of such heartland staples as corn, soybeans and hay, which are the top three legal cash crops.

Now, first it should be noted that there are all sorts of problems with valuing illicit crops, including the methods of estimating quantity, the inclusion of non-viable crops, and the computation of street value. However, as an point of discussion, this report by Jon Gettman is probably as accurate as exists out there.
And his point is that with such a huge activity out there, clearly prohibition doesn’t work and can’t contain it, so it would make a whole lot more sense to bring it into the regulated market.
Naturally, the drug czar’s office was asked to weigh in…

Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, cited examples of foreign countries that have struggled with big crops used to produce cocaine and heroin. “Coca is Colombia’s largest cash crop and that hasn’t worked out for them, and opium poppies are Afghanistan’s largest crop, and that has worked out disastrously for them,” Riley said. “I don’t know why we would venture down that road.”

No, Tom, you ignorant slut. The whole point is that if it’s your biggest cash crop, it doesn’t make sense to give that over to criminal control. You should legalize, tax and regulate. You’re making our point for us.

On one thing the drug czar’s office is right — parents should talk to their teens about drugs. However, the drug czar will tell you that you should lie to them, search their rooms and drug test them on a regular basis. That is the most messed-up kind of parenting out there.
However, there is a method that works. It’s based on a radical concept of telling the truth. And it’s about safety first.
Eight years ago, drug policy expert Marsha Rosenbaum wrote a letter to her son, who was entering high school. She talked to him about drugs in a common sense way, and the letter became somewhat famous, but some people wondered just how such a letter would work.
Last month, her son wrote her back.
Read both letters.

I’ve got to admit that I was a bit puzzled earlier this week when Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon decided to send 7,000 soldiers, federal police and Navy forces to Michoacan to fight the drug war, and then expanded that to other states.
Using troops in a so-called “drug war” is kind of like the British redcoats in bright uniforms, marching in formation and upset that the colonists aren’t playing fair. It just doesn’t work. Sure, you might nail a few of the more obvious targets, but the rest of the trafficking system will just blend in like a chameleon, giving soldiers nothing to shoot at but civilians.
And sure enough, the LA Times reports today: Mexico anti-drug effort mostly a bust (“… and not the kind Calderon had in mind.”)

New president’s initiative yields little in the way of seizures and no arrests despite its high profile.

So far, no surprise.
But there was a very interesting passage at the end of the article:

The Calderon administration’s strategy may be limited, at least for now, to warning traffickers that the government will interfere with their business unless the killings end, analysts say.
“They’re not trying to end drug trafficking or drug use,” said Jorge Chabat, a drug trade expert. “They’re just trying to maintain a minimum amount of order.
“This is more like a father with a misbehaving adolescent.”

Woah! That’s very interesting. My reading of that is that Mexico may be wishing to send a negotiating message that non-violent trafficking may be winked at by the state in order to reduce the violence. If so, that’s a pretty major policy decision that won’t sit well with the U.S.

Ratified December 15, 1791.

Whenever you hear over-the-top rhetoric like this, you know that they’re really interested in protecting their drug war budget. Check out The Bahamas’ Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Minister Mitchell noted that resources are essential to winning the drug war.
“Retrenchment is not an option. If we retrench, then the forces of darkness take over,” the minister said.
“We have a daily struggle in this country to convince… especially the young that it pays to be on the side of the good. Fortunately, the resources that we employ help to ensure that, for the majority, they support good over evil.”
Retrenchment refers to the reduction of expenditures in order to become financially stable. Mr. Mitchell was advocating at the least the maintenance of the current level of expenditure on joint US-Bahamas drug interdiction efforts.

Well, they didn’t really go that far, but they did put a good provision in the final ONDCP reauthorization bill (via Drug Policy Alliance)

(e) Prohibitions- None of the amounts made available [for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign] may be obligated or expended for…partisan political purposes, or express advocacy in support of or to defeat any clearly identified candidate, clearly identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified legislative or regulatory proposal.

This is great news — and it signals, perhaps, that Congress was not so amused by the Drug Czar and his minions flitting around the country in October to campaign against the initiatives in Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota.
I don’t know, however, if this is only specific to the Media Campaign fund and whether the Drug Czar can use other money for this purpose. Anyone able to help out on that?
I did find another really annoying bit within the bill (Go to Thomas and search for HR 6344)

1. FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:
   1. 60 percent of adolescent admissions for drug treatment are based on marijuana use.
   2. Potency levels of contemporary marijuana, particularly hydroponically grown

   marijuana, are significantly higher than in the past, rising from under 1 percent of THC in the mid-1970s to as high as 30 percent today.

   3. Contemporary research has demonstrated that youths smoking marijuana early in life may be up to 5 times more likely to use hard drugs.
   4. Contemporary research has demonstrated clear detrimental effects in adolescent educational achievement resulting from marijuana use.
   5. Contemporary research has demonstrated clear detrimental effects in adolescent brain development resulting from marijuana use.
   6. An estimated 9,000,000 Americans a year drive while under the influence of illegal drugs, including marijuana.
   7. Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more of certain cancer causing chemicals than tobacco smoke.
   8. Teens who use marijuana are up to 4 times more likely to have a teen pregnancy than teens who have not.
   9. Federal law enforcement agencies have identified clear links suggesting that trade in hydroponic marijuana facilitates trade by criminal organizations in hard drugs, including heroin.
   10. Federal law enforcement agencies have identified possible links between trade in cannabis products and financing for terrorist organizations.

I love the way Congress avoids having to actually consider facts — they just make them up and call them “findings.” I guess they find them in that big box where they keep the Easter Bunny and their integrity.

Canada’s Tory government seems anxious to attach the strings and start dancing to John Walters’ tune.
Internal documents show U.S. involvement in Canada’s national drug strategy

”The Harper government favours a U.S.-style approach to drug problems, which is to lock more people up and don’t treat it as a health problem, treat it as a criminal law problem of morality,” Boyd said.
”That’s very much at odds with what’s going on in Europe and there’s really no good evidence to suggest that it’s going to be terribly useful.”
New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, whose Vancouver East riding includes the supervised injection facility, said the Harper government appears to be ”taking orders”from the American drug czar and other top officials of the Bush administration.”

Related: The North Shore News editorial Missing the Point

THE RCMP’s decision to weigh in with an internal report criticizing Vancouver’s supervised injection site is an indication that more work is needed – not so much on the injection site itself but on long-held beliefs about drug use.
Produced this summer when the Harper government was considering Insite’s licence, the report voices the opinion that anything that lowers the perceived risk of drug use is bad, because it could encourage both addicts and potential new drug users, who no longer have to worry about overdosing or contracting HIV/AIDS.
That kind of ideological analysis, based on next to no actual evidence, would be laughable if it wasn’t apparently being given consideration in Ottawa.
Leaving aside the question of whether addicts are usually carefully weighing their situations before sticking needles in their arms, the report misses the point of Insite, which isn’t to make drugs either scary or not, but to reduce the harm associated with them. So far all the studies – as opposed to anecdotal observations cited by the RCMP – – have suggested that it’s working.
Addicts are rarely scared into quitting. Prohibitions – on drugs or booze – have also been largely failed experiments.
The injection site is an attempt to try a new approach – one that considers addiction as a medical, rather than criminal, issue. It deserves a chance, and it deserves to succeed or fail on its own merits unencumbered by institutional prejudices.

Thanks to The Liberator for including Drug WarRant on his “If you were stranded on a desert island with a laptop and a wireless connection, and God limited you to 10 blogs, which ones would you read?” list.