Drug WarRant

Say goodbye to Sierra de la Macarena.

Here’s how you lose a forest…

1. Defying immutable economic laws, governments prohibit a popular drug, making the illegal production and distribution obscenely profitable.
2. Government compounds the problem by attempting to go after the drug at the supply source through eradication, creating a narco-state, where all power structures and political finances depend on either the drug or eradication dollars supplied by the U.S.
3. When eradication efforts intensify, traffickers move to less accessible areas, including clearing rainforests, to grow the plant that’s used to produce the drug.
4. Environmentalists complain of the destructiveness of the spraying, so the government tries manual eradication in the national forests, but the traffickers blow up the workers to protect their prohibition-fueled profits.
5. So the Government sprays, destroying the forest to save it. All because prohibition doesn’t work.

U.S.-supplied planes spray coca at Colombian park, amid doubts over strategy

Colombian authorities have for the first time used U.S.-supplied planes to spray a pristine national park used by leftist rebels to grow coca — the raw ingredient for cocaine — despite environmental concerns.
Anti-narcotics police chemically fumigated the Sierra Macarena national park — 170 kilometers (105 miles) south of the capital of Bogota — last week, clearing its entire 4,600 hectares (11,370 acres) of coca. […]
The “world will have to understand that we must fumigate,” he said.
Uribe said he wants to double aerial spraying, and his top military advisers want to expand the practice to the 11 other parks known to have coca.
“It’s the most efficient way to do our job,” Gen. Jorge Baron, head of the anti-narcotic police, told The Associated Press.
In addition to those killed by the bomb, 26 workers, soldiers, and police guards have been killed at the Sierra Macarena park since December, when the government launched a manual eradication drive there involving 3,000 troops — its biggest ever. Some 200 other workers quit, fearing for their lives.
Washington has long urged Uribe to extend spraying to parks and provided the glyphosate herbicide, as well as Black Hawk helicopters used for protection, during the missions. […]
“Those who think fumigating La Macarena, and perhaps other parks, will wipe out coca production are wrong,” the normally pro-government newspaper El Tiempo said last week. “Instead, there will be more coca, and less park, as rebels destroy more forests, deeper inside the park, to continue planting.”
The editorial echoed the belief of a growing number of Colombians and key U.S. Congress members that aerial spraying — a cornerstone of the drug war — is failing.

Failing? It was a doomed approach from the beginning — part of the larger prohibition debacle that is empirically nonviable.

A number of people have wanted to know how the passing out of flyers went at the museum on Friday. So I’ve got a little story to tell. And you’ll learn…
– That the museum personnel know very little about the constitutional right of free speech.
– That if you pay $12 to park, and then pay $11 for a ticket to see the exhibit, and then ask some very cordial and polite questions of museum personnel, a Vice President will come and personally threaten to have you removed from the premises.
– There’s also a map with colorful shading.

In today’s Congressional Quarterly (sorry, no link – subscription only)
Drug Dissenters Make Terror Link by Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff

For the five years since the Sept. 11 attacks, federal drug warriors have publicized the ways that ill-gotten narcotics profits have paid for terrorist activity. Now the critics of the drug war are seeking to turn that argument to their own advantage, suggesting that drugs are attractive funding sources to terror groups for one main reason: because they’re illegal. […]
Just as Capone profiteered using the illegal status of alcohol during Prohibition, Angell argues, terror groups are able to realize enormous profits because of the artificially high prices of illicit drugs today. The exhibit’s DEA sponsors are “hiding the fact that it is their prohibitionist policy that has allowed terrorists to make money off drugs,” he says. He says his group plans to dispatch members to the exhibit throughout its four-month run to distribute leaflets promoting a rival online exhibit created by Pete Guither, who writes the blog DrugWarRant.com.

(And that rival online exhibit is DEAtargetsAmerica.com)
The best thing in the article is how the DEA spokesman obliviously steps right into it.

DEA spokesman David Ausiello says that, while the exhibit does make use of such specific cases [terrorist drug connections], its primary message is much broader: “We are up against a formidable enemy that is well-funded with money that comes from drugs,” he says. “We have to take away their means to make money.”

Yep. And there’s one way to do that. End prohibition, and the criminals lose their source of funding. (Of course, so does the DEA.)
Thanks for helping us make our point, David.

We’ve had a good start with our response to the DEA exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry. I know a lot of you wanted to do something to help, but aren’t available to pass out flyers.
Here’s your chance.
The exhibit has generated some press, and you can capitalize on that by writing letters to the papers and the sponsors.
Here are some talking points.

• Parallels between alcohol prohibition and prohibition today.
• The inappropriateness of using a museum exhibit to act as a commercial for a federal agency.
• The DEA’s failed record.
• It’s a one-sided exhibit, and it’s political propaganda.
• The drug and terror connection being promoted in the exhibit is a blatant attempt by the DEA to step up to the terror funding trough, and it ignores prohibition’s impact on the obscene profitability of the illicit drug trade.

MAPinc is a great source for letter-writing tips.
Here are some papers that have published articles on the exhibit.

• Washington Post (Letters)
• Chicago Tribune (Letters)
• Knox News (Letters)
• Indianapolis Star (Letters)
• Tampa Trib (Letters)
• Washington Times (UPI story) (Letters)
• Chicago Sun Times (Letters) [Note: Chicago Sun Times is also a sponsor of the exhibit.]
• NBC 5/Telemundo (Contact Form) [Note: NBC 5/Telemundo is also a sponsor of the exhibit.]

A few more sponsors…

• McDonald’s – the main sponsor of the exhibit (Social Responsibility Contact Form)
• Chicago Blackhawks (Contact Form)
• Motorola Foundation (Email Contact)
• McCormick Tribune Foundation (Contact Info)
• Field Foundation (Staff email addresses)
• Chicago Community Trust (Contact info)

Note about sponsors: There appears to be some confusion as to the actual list of sponsors for the exhibit. I got the list on the right side of this page directly from the DEA Museum’s site (which had been updated as of July 27). However, their site now has this shorter list as of May 1 and an even shorter list as of January 15. The museum’s exhibit site only lists two sponsors – McDonald’s and NBC 5.
So write some letters. It only takes a few minutes. And it’s your turn.

“bullet” A great column by George Iliff in the TC Palm Arrests for marijuana use ruins lives needlessly

John P. Walters, our current drug czar, has said that 16 million Americans regularly use marijuana. Thus, if the horrible effects claimed for this drug were true, we should be seeing our hospitals filled with desperately ill addicts. We should be seeing thousands of highway accidents due to crazed addicts driving under the influence. We should be seeing untold amounts of violence by the pot-heads.
But this is not happening.

“bullet” Radley Balko’s Agitator continues to be a must-read. He follows up on the Cheryl Noel story (and I’m behind on adding her to the drug war victims page — if anyone has a photo of her, let me know). Also check out Militarizing Mayberry, More Bearcats and How Many Are There.
“bullet” Showtime does some fun promo efforts for their outstanding series “Weeds” and gets admonished by the ONDCP’s Tom Riley.

“There are more teens in treatment for marijuana than for alcohol dependence – Is that funny?”

Hey, Tom — most of those teens are in treatment not for marijuana dependency, but because they were referred there by the criminal justice system, and you know that, so – Is that honest?
“bullet” The video Get Off The Pot, George is currently ranked second in the Huffington Post Contagious Festival. Catchy and informative — although the “Bushie gets off the pot” line seems a bit forced — I think it would have been stronger using John Walters (and then “Johnnie” would have worked perfectly), but guess that the filmmaker probably felt that George Bush would be the more visible target for the general public to blame.
“bullet” This article in the Wall Street Journal gives an indication of just how dishonest the drug testing industry can be. Ruining innocent lives? Who cares? It’s a new alcohol test that is being used by courts to take away jobs, driving licenses or children, but it can’t tell the difference between beer and hand sanitizer.

The urine-testing industry doesn’t need federal approval for tests that aren’t used to monitor federal employees and aren’t sold over the counter. Testing firms say it is up to their clients — the courts and licensing boards — to decide how to use the results.

Windypundit stopped by yesterday while I was passing out flyers.
He’s got some excellent photos of the exhibit, plus a couple of me and the “line of death” that museum officials wouldn’t allow me to cross.

Nice job by Kari Lydersen! Read the whole thing. A couple of quotes from yours truly, but a big thanks goes to Tom Angell, Jeanne Barr, George Pappas and others from SSDP who have been involved.
Welcome, Washington Post readers. Check out the posts below for more on the exhibit and our response.
Update: I’d like to address one quote from the DEA in the article:

DEA spokesman Steve Robertson responded: “We’re a law enforcement agency — we enforce the laws as they are written. Congress makes the laws.

In a pure system, that could very well be true. It is, in fact, Congress that has to step up to the plate to enact meaningful reform. However, the DEA in particular cannot get off the hook that easily. And that’s because they are not just a law enforcement agency (maybe not even primarily a law enforcement agency). They function as drug war cheerleaders and extremely active lobbyists. They constantly attempt to sway public opinion and promote their activities. They use tax dollars to lie to the people, and they even look for opportunities to silence opposition. Remember Karen Tandy’s blatant rejoicing when Marc Emery was arrested… because it would strike a blow at legalization proponents?

“a significant blow … to the marijuana legalization movement… Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.”

So, no. The DEA cannot escape responsibility for the evils of prohibition by simply claiming that they’re enforcing the law.
As far as the second line in Steve Robertson’s quote:

People say if we didn’t have [drug] laws there wouldn’t be a problem, but there was a problem before and that’s why laws were established.”

That’s just wrong.

1. I don’t know of a single drug policy reformer that says we shouldn’t have drug laws. Most reformers are looking for regulation laws rather than prohibition laws.
2. I don’t know of a single drug policy reformer that says there wouldn’t be a drug problem if we didn’t have laws. They simply say that the problems are far worse and more numerous under prohibition.
3. “there was a problem before and that’s why laws were established.” Uh, no.

I just spent most of a day at the Museum of Science and Industry, and I have come to the conclusion that the Museum is utterly embarrassed by the exhibit they are hosting from the DEA.
It shows up in so many little things.

• A friend of mine who works at the museum told me he was holding off making a judgment until he’d had a chance to see it — most of the museum staff had not — but of those who had seen it, about half hated it.
• Another staff member I didn’t know but struck up conversation with was upset with the museum administration. “They just sprung it on us! No advance preparation — just ‘Oh, by the way, there’s a new exhibit opening tomorrow.'” He thought it was pretty stupid.
• The museum itself seems to have avoided any publicity. No press releases specifically about the exhibit — they left that to the DEA. Very little advance info on the website — they finally updated the website today with a bunch of information that I assume was provided by the DEA (although I don’t know that for sure).
• There were no signs in the museum today saying that the exhibit existed, nor was it on the map. I had to ask for directions and finally found it — accessing it the only way you can, by turning a hard right at the top of the second escalator, go through Networld, and the World Live Theatre, and the Whispering Gallery (ah, memories), turn right through Imaging, and then finally a left into the exhibit (which has warning sign at the door saying it might not be appropriate for children).
• It was included in today’s museum newsletter, but as the third item — after ‘one month left for the Da Vinci exhibit’ and ‘three days left in the raffle.’
• The main sponsor – McDonald’s – talks about its support of SUE at the Field Museum, but as yet doesn’t even mention Target America
• Finally, the degree to which upper museum administration staff I interacted with were almost pathetically anxious to find ways to limit our ability to pass out flyers seemed like a desperate attempt to reduce visibility for the exhibit. They weren’t even interested in looking at what our flyer said (they may have already known by downloading it on the website – they were expecting me). It felt more that they didn’t want any attention paid to that particular exhibit.

There’s good reason for them to be embarrassed. The first five minutes I spent in the exhibit, I couldn’t stop laughing. Now, part of that is my knowledge of how the DEA works (something that the museum staff probably don’t have), but even still — the degree to which it was a blatant effort to manipulate people emotionally while acting as a two floor infomercial for the DEA was astonishing. The shamelessness with which they have a display about Peter Bensinger with picture and articles (Oh, that’s right — he helped fund the exhibit). Or the mere fact that they have a display on Anslinger! In fact, one of the video monitors was actually showing a DEA infomercial. Another one had Karen Tandy talking, while yet another was playing the frying pan TV commercial.
If Lisa Miner or Joel M. Asprooth from the Museum is reading this, feel free to correct me. Tell me that you’re proud of the exhibit. You know from our conversation with what high regard I hold the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. As I mentioned this morning, it’s my favorite museum of all time.
It seems to me that if you were actually proud of the exhibit, you’d welcome a dialog. You’d want someone to debate us and show us that we’re wrong, or something. You’d think that showing people another point of view than the DEA’s would be valuable, so people could make up their minds. But despite the fact that you have told me that there is approval process in the museum, and someone from outside can’t just plop down an exhibit — that’s exactly what it looks like. I’ve worked with museum curators, and I know the process. Every single museum curator I know would find this exhibit embarrassing. And you should, too. I guess maybe you do.
More on the exhibit, and today’s experiences at the museum later…

So the DEA held a press conference today for the opening of the offensive DEA exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry. Of course, we weren’t allowed to attend. Press credentials required. They wouldn’t want to have to face any real questions.
However, they might have been a bit surprised. Several of the press that planned to attend had already talked to us prior to the press conference. I’d love to hear a report.
Here’s our press release and, of course, our response website: DEA Targets America.
I’m heading up there in a few hours and plan to be there all day Friday and Saturday — others will be joining me. Feel free to stop by and join in the fun. We’re taking a very non-confrontational approach — simply helping museum patrons learn more about the real costs of prohibition.
After all, as one report has already mentioned:

The goal of the exhibit, [DEA’s Garrison] Courtney added, was to spark conversations that might not have started at home.

We’ll be passing out flyers to spark conversations. As new articles about the exhibit come out in the press, those who can’t be at the exhibit passing out flyers, can engage a conversation through letters to the editor.
Update: Chicago Tribune gives it a mostly promo-piece by Josh Noel, but it does include:

A heavy effort is made to link drugs to terrorism, and near an enormous image of Osama bin Laden it is noted that Al Qaeda has thrived in the drug trade. But the connection isn’t always as clear: In the “Impact on the World” display, images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks sit beside a photo described as “addicts getting high.”
Even Bensinger had a hard time explaining it.
The exhibit also includes browned and distorted pieces of the World Trade Center, which sit in the middle of the hall beside pieces of the Pentagon.
The link between drugs and those pieces of wreckage seems circuitous at best, leading critics to say the exhibit is more like propaganda than an objective treatment of the topic.

2nd Update: Sun Times comes out (and they’re one of the sponsors).

The exhibit has already been shown in several cities, most recently Detroit. It has drawn criticism from some groups that say it’s more DEA publicity than education and that it ignores the argument that criminalizing drugs creates the lucrative, underground trade that ends up financing terrorism.
Tandy discounted the criticism. “I think it’s hard for these groups because the facts aren’t on their side. That’s all they can say.”

What a blatant dodge to avoid answering the criticism! Facts aren’t on our side? Try going to http://www.DEAtargetsAmerica.com and saying that.

From the Gulf Times in Qatar:

KABUL: The war against drugs in Afghanistan is a failure and the strategy needs to be changed, the top UN official in the world’s biggest heroin-producing country said yesterday.
“Nobody can say that we have been successful if the poppy production has increased,” Tom Koenigs, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative in Afghanistan, told a monthly press conference.
“Certainly the strategy and the effort have to be rethought,” said Koenigs, adding: “The problem has increased and the remedy has to adjust.”

Gee, if only someone could come up with a solution. Oh, that’s right. Someone did.
We’ve been talking about it here for some time.. The Senlis Council has been working on a detailed feasibility study, and senior conservative MPs in Britain have urged this approach.
Of course the U.N. drug czar and representatives can’t consider a proposal that’s economically and logically sound, but doesn’t involve destroying, seizing, or arresting.
So all they can do is scratch their heads and say, “Boy, this is a tough one!”
Update: Meanwhile, our own drug czar decides to increase the stupidity involved exponentially.

But Mr Walters today said that eradicating the opium crop was the only way for Afghanistan to achieve lasting peace.