Drug WarRant

Link

An Open Letter to Bill Bennett
by Milton Friedman, April 1990

In Oliver Cromwell’s eloquent words, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken” about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

I append excerpts from a column that I wrote in 1972 on “Prohibition and Drugs.” The major problem then was heroin from Marseilles; today, it is cocaine from Latin America. Today, also, the problem is far more serious than it was 17 years ago: more addicts, more innocent victims; more drug pushers, more law enforcement officials; more money spent to enforce prohibition, more money spent to circumvent prohibition.

Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, “crack” would never have been invented (it was invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to provide a cheaper version) and there would today be far fewer addicts. The lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent victims would have been saved, and not only in the U.S. The ghettos of our major cities would not be drug-and-crime-infested no-man’s lands. Fewer people would be in jails, and fewer jails would have been built.

Columbia, Bolivia and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror, and we would not be distorting our foreign policy because of narco-terror. Hell would not, in the words with which Billy Sunday welcomed Prohibition, “be forever for rent,” but it would be a lot emptier.

Decriminalizing drugs is even more urgent now than in 1972, but we must recognize that the harm done in the interim cannot be wiped out, certainly not immediately. Postponing decriminalization will only make matters worse, and make the problem appear even more intractable.

Alcohol and tobacco cause many more deaths in users than do drugs. Decriminalization would not prevent us from treating drugs as we now treat alcohol and tobacco: prohibiting sales of drugs to minors, outlawing the advertising of drugs and similar measures. Such measures could be enforced, while outright prohibition cannot be. Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic.

This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes “on suspicion” can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.

Milton Friedman passed away today at the age of 94.

I thought last night’s debate went exceptionally well. The crowd really seemed to enjoy it, and both debaters did a good job. Unfortunately as moderator, I had to insure an even playing field and couldn’t get into it myself — even though there were times that I was absolutely itching to do so. The most I could do is force someone to a more direct answer if they were dodging the question (which I did a few times).
Kudos to William Otis, who flew out from Washington to take part in the debate. He is Counselor to the Administrator of the DEA — a political appointment who provides advice to Karen Tandy. He was quite nice and seemed sincere in his efforts — a combination of really believing a lot of what he said (partly due to a lack of detailed knowledge or understanding), along with repeating the DEA line in a number of areas (even though his own personal preferences might not go that far).
I was impressed by the fact that Otis was open to correction of factual errors in his information. During the debate, he said that Marinol did not cause a person to get high. When I told him that was incorrect, he said he’d be happy to look that up and change what he said in the future (Marinol’s site doesn’t specifically say that it gets you high but that the effects included “dizziness, feelings of exaggerated happiness, paranoid reaction, drowsiness, and thinking abnormally.”) Mr. Otis also several times mentioned the dangers of marijuana and driving, citing a Memphis “study” that has been widely rejected for its methodology. When I brought this up after the debate, he agreed to investigate it further.
Some of the more outrageous moments in the debate included the following claims by William Otis

1. Drug dealers would benefit from legalization.
2. There is no difference between “use” and “abuse” for illegal narcotics.

Mostly I felt that Mr. Otis could benefit from a lot more actual information. I think that he lives in a bit of a propaganda bubble and needs to read more about the drug war (although that might make it more difficult for him to do his job). I was surprised to learn, for example, that he was unaware that President Bush had actually campaigned in 2000 on letting the states choose regarding medical marijuana.
Bryan Brickner, representing the other side, had a delightful approach — not so much focusing on lots of details (although he had them), but rather painting a picture — of individual freedom and the promise of America, and the marvelous life of marijuana user Louis Armstrong, and the shattering of America’s promise through the non-sensical arrest and incarceration of people for… using drugs. There were tons of points that I wanted him to cover that he didn’t, and yet he was keeping the message clear and clean, which was more important. Sometimes you can’t give people all your points or you overwhelm them — something that Bryan seemed to understand well.
Bryan Brickner was the clear winner in my mind (not only on style, but on actual substance).
All in all, a great experience. A big thanks to the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Federalist Society and the Coalition of Student-Professionals for Social Change (and Shaleen).

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article at Salon this morning. While the drug war is never mentioned in it, it would certainly be implied in the premise.
It’s a suggestion to the Democrats that they can expand their strength, particularly in the interior Western regions, by appealing to certain libertarian principles.

No political party can be everything to everyone. As Republicans are forced to rely more and more on their base of white Southern evangelicals, they will be increasingly viewed as the party of intrusive governmental control.
In the process, the Democrats have the chance to become the party that stands for the right of adults to make decisions about their own lives free of moralistic governmental interference and regulation. Those who cast their votes based principally on such libertarian sentiments — driven by the belief that the government should, to the greatest extent possible, stay out of their lives — will view the Democratic Party as the far more attractive choice.

I don’t know if the Democratic Party is capable of going there, but it certainly is an interesting thought, and perhaps political self-interest is an argument to use with Democrats.

Sound like a trick question? Read Radley’s post over at Hit and Run.
Courtesy of the drug war comes the concept of using crimes for which you’ve been acquitted as part of the sentencing formula.
From a U.S. District Court in Virginia (and the whole thing is a pretty disturbing read):

From the public’s perspective, most people would be shocked to find out that even United States citizens can be (and routinely are) punished for crimes of which they were acquitted.

No kidding. I knew the 6th Amendment was in trouble, but did not realize that the Supreme Court had authorized sentencing based on acquitted charges.
_______
Both Radley Balko and I will be at the SSDP National Conference this weekend. I’ve known Radley online for some time, but am looking forward to meeting him in person for the first time. I’m also looking forward to meeting a whole bunch of drug policy reformers and Drug WarRant readers this weekend. Hope to see you there. Please introduce yourself to me.
Also, a reminder that I will be moderating a debate at 6 pm tonight in Urbana/Champaign, Illinois. Should be fun.

Mexico:

The death toll in Mexico’s drug war has surpassed 2,000 this year, with a newspaper editor found dead in the resort city of Zihuatanejo and a police commander assassinated in Tijuana apparently among the latest victims, according to news reports.

Colombia:

Drug war in Colombian port leaves 305 dead this year
BUENAVENTURA, Colombia – Six people were shot to death and six others were injured by a roadside bomb this weekend in Buenaventura, where the soaring murder rate this year is making the port city one of Colombia’s top killing fields, officials said on Sunday.

Thailand:

BANGKOK, Nov 14 (TNA) – Justice Ministry officials are now collecting evidence related to the extra-judicial killings of some 2,500 people during the Thaksin government’s war on drugs campaign, said a senior
official of the ministry.

Good thing drugs are illegal. Sure, thousands of people are dying, but at least we’ve stopped people from doing something that might cause them to sit for long periods on Pete’s couch.
Except, of course, that we haven’t.
The reality is that all those people have died so that the politicians and the DEA can have their drug war. Hope they’re enjoying it.

Eric Sterling’s OpEd in the Los Angeles Times yesterday is a must-read.
He talks about the problems of our cocaine sentencing laws with the authority (and the mea culpas) of one who helped write them.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission — the independent agency that gives sentencing guidelines to federal judges and advises Congress — will hold hearings on this issue. If logic prevails, in the next Congress we may finally see an end to one of the most unjust laws passed in recent memory. And that might correct the biggest mistake of my professional life.

The whole thing is worth reading, but I wanted to highlight the major recommendation for the federal law that he gives:

Congress should do what it tried to do in 1986 — make the Justice Department focus exclusively on high-level cases because state and local law enforcement cannot. There are three elements to fix the problem: Raise the quantity triggers for all drugs to realistic levels for high-level traffickers, such as 50 or 100 kilos of cocaine, and end the crack/powder imbalance; Require the attorney general to approve prosecution of any case involving less than 50 kilos of cocaine; Analyze federal drug cases district by district to identify agents and prosecutors who waste their time and our money. If only high-level dealers were being prosecuted by the feds, no one would have cause to complain about the race of the defendants.

Update: TalkLeft has updates on the hearings here and here. It’s good to have Jeralyn back focusing on criminal justice issues.

Well, I took on my biggest challenge to date. The Golden K Kiwanis Club in Quincy, Illinois is a great bunch of retired businessmen, but not what you might consider your easiest target group for promoting drug policy reform. And I went all out — full drug legalization.
I thought it went very well — there was some resistant body language and I believe a few may have been a bit unhappy that I was there (and may give my dad a hard time for inviting me), but there were some good questions, and a number of people came up afterward with positive comments — including a retired physician who said he was 100% with me, someone else who wanted sources to read more, and some who appeared not to be ready to go the whole way, but agreed that the current drug war wasn’t making sense and that they were willing to consider other options.
It was also great to meet a Drug WarRant fan who lives in the Quincy area and managed to get an invite to the event.
All in all, a wonderful experience. I’m looking forward to the rest of this busy week.

I’m heading out to talk to the Golden K Kiwanis in Quincy, Illinois on Monday morning about ending prohibition. On Wednesday evening, I’ll be moderating Tough Trade-Offs: The Drug Legalization Debate in Urbana/Champaign, Illinois, and on Friday, I’ll be off to Washington, DC for the SSDP conference. All this while having a particularly heavy week at work (yes, I also have a real full-time job that I love!) So posting may be a little bit light…
Here’s a couple of things to discuss:
“bullet” Drug Policy Alliance’s Five Point Agenda for the new Democratic Congress.
“bullet” The Drug War Chronicle’s Brief Comment on the Transfer of Power in Congress. Also see Phillip Smith’s rant I’m sick and tired of begging my fellow citizens to not throw me in jail…

Monroe Anderson, in today’s Chicago Sun-Times, has It’s time to legalize marijuana in Illinois.

In the past year, the pot prohibition has produced record devil-weed arrests and a bumper crop of American POWs in our nation’s prisons. In 2005, there 786,545 marijuana arrests — 696,074 just for possession. About 34,000 state and 11,000 federal inmates are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. We’re spending $1 billion a year to put them there and another $8 billion a year to keep them there.
We could regulate, license and tax marijuana. Instead we blow billions on busting and jailing peaceful citizens from whom we could collect millions in tax revenue — much like we do with alcohol.
For our nation’s lawmakers to not grasp such a commonsense approach, you’ve got to wonder what they’ve been smoking.

Nice.

Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer has a good post about the upcoming Congressional hearing on sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine.
Naturally, Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, has a solution: increase the penalties for powder cocaine.
Jamie Spencer properly dismantles Canterbury.