Drug WarRant

All this uproar over the supposed legalization of drugs in Mexico! The media has jumped all over it and it has sparked a lot of stupid talk about dangers to our borders.
As those who have read over the bill in more detail have noted, the bill does very little in a practical matter to liberalize drug use from current policy. It merely adds some defined amounts and actually increases penalties for many drug charges, along with expanding the ability of police to arrest people on drug charges.
Yet this little thing — the fact that they won’t throw you in jail for possessing under 5 grams of marijuana (something that’s true anyway in much of the U.S.) — has caused a firestorm. And it startles me. It seems to me that we would get less violent a reaction if a state passed the same law. Is this more of our historic racist reefer madness in play? (Just curious.)
Anyway…

MEXICO CITY — After intense pressure from the United States, President Vicente Fox has asked Congress to reconsider a law it passed last week that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as part of a larger effort to crack down on street-level dealing.
In a statement issued late Wednesday, Mr. Fox said the law should be changed “to make it absolutely clear that in our country the possession of drugs and their consumption are and continue to be crimes.”

You may remember this story in Alaska:

The case arose in January 2002, when a torch relay for the Winter Olympics was passing by the Juneau-Douglas High School campus and students were let out of class to watch it.
Joseph Frederick, an 18-year-old senior, stood on the sidewalk and unfurled his banner as TV camera crews approached. Principal Deborah Morse crossed the street, grabbed and crumpled the banner, and told Frederick he was suspended for promoting illegal drug use.

The boy successfully took his 10-day suspension to the 9th Circuit Court:

“A school cannot censor or punish students’ speech merely because the students advocate a position contrary to government policy,” Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said in the 3-0 ruling.

Well, now the school wants to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court! And they’ve lined up a big gun — Kenneth Starr has agreed to represent the school and principal pro-bono (yes, that Kenneth Starr.

“The 9th Circuit’s decision has left the Board and school administrators with no guidance as to where and when we can enforce our policy against messages promoting illegal drug use,” said Phyllis Carlson, president of the School Board. “Federal law requires us to maintain a consistent message that use of drugs like marijuana is harmful and illegal. Yet, when we try to enforce our policies, our administrators are sued and exposed to damage awards.”

Sorry, but Federal law does not require you to enforce what other people say. I wonder what takes precedence. Your petty desire to stomp on contrary points of view? Or the First Amendment?
My prediction is in agreement with the boy’s attorney: the Supreme Court won’t even take this case.

There’s a fascinating article in Sunday’s Boston Globe that has been talked about extensively:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Here’s one of the examples that directly affects drug war policy:

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush’s signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ”as advisory in nature.”

This sheds a little more light on the recent statement by the State Department that it was ready to “intervene” if asked by Uribe.

Wall Street Bureau Chief Kevin Helliker wins today’s prize for drinking the drug war cool-aid with this ignorant screed on marijuana and addiction.
He buys into the myth that mild psychological dependence with limited withdrawal symptoms is somehow equivalent to serious addiction.
And he leaves out critical information…

The researchers found that the overall rate of addiction among marijuana users is slightly lower than for imbibers of alcohol. But among people who use marijuana daily, the rate of addiction is significantly higher than among daily drinkers. Addiction is diagnosed when a person experiences at least three of seven indicators, such as failure to control usage, preoccupation with the drug and withdrawal symptoms.

Do you think that it might have been relevant to mention that one of those seven indicators has to do with being in conflict with the law? So one of the three necessary indicators pretty much automatically kicks in for marijuana users simply because it’s illegal? Kind of makes the comparison dishonest, doesn’t it?
But the kicker is this wild statement:

Yet if marijuana addiction were benign, thousands of Americans wouldn’t be seeking to kick the habit each year.

Kevin, you moron — yes they would — if it’s a choice between treatment and jail. Oh, but you can’t be bothered to do even a rudimentary bit of research now, can you? Just assume.

Plan Colombia called a failure

From Congress to the editorial page of Bogota’s main newspaper, criticism of the U.S.-backed anti-drug effort known as Plan Colombia Ö which has cost American taxpayers $4 billion since 2000 Ö is growing. […]
In Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe’s two main challengers in this month’s elections have used the report’s findings to reopen a debate over decriminalization of drug use.
In a Sunday editorial, the generally pro-government newspaper, El Tiempo, called the war on drugs “un fracaso,” a failure.[…]
Even supporters of the government’s reliance on aerial spraying acknowledge they were angered by the ONDCP’s admission that it has long been underestimating Colombia’s coca harvest.
“If they tried to get a job as a pollster for Congress being off by that much, they’d never work again,” said Marc Wheat, staff director of U.S. House of Representatives’ subcommittee on drug policy. […]
A spokesman said Walters was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

Been too busy the past few days to do much posting (as well as being on the road to Iowa and Chicago).
Keep the discussions going.
If you haven’t read it already, check out thehim’s Drug War Roundup at Kos. It’s huge.

Via The Agitator, John Walters is not having a good day.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. drug czar has been challenged to explain disputed statistics underlying a string of rosy reports on progress in cutting the flow of cocaine from South America, one of which prompted an expert to liken the official numbers to “lipstick on a pig.”
The request came in a detailed 1,800-word letter to John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), from Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
The Iowa senator expressed concern that the ONDCP has been picking data “to provide a rosier but not necessarily more accurate picture” on the multi-billion dollar effort to eradicate coca plantations in Colombia, the world’s top producer of cocaine, Bolivia and Peru.

Of course, we’ve been saying that the Czar cherry-picks his data for years. But it’s nice to see Congress maybe waking up a little? Or perhaps there’s been a political shift in the drug war and they need a fall guy?

Link

South Carolina General Assembly
H.4865
Sponsors: Rep. Davenport
A bill… relating to the confinement of prisoners, so as to provide that the Department of Corrections may enter into agreements with foreign countries for the confinement of inmates convicted of drug related offenses…

That’s right. We can use extraordinary rendition for pot smokers! Yeah — South Carolina can send its drug offenders to China or Indonesia.
So has this guy got a screw loose, or is he really that un-American?
That’s Representative Guy Ralph Davenport, Jr.

Link

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if the drugs are carried in small amounts for personal use, under legislation passed by Congress.
The measure given final passage by senators in a late night session on Thursday allows police to focus on their battle against major drug dealers, the government says, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law. […]
Under the legislation, police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

Interesting. I wonder what the Bush administration’s take on this will be.
Of course, this isn’t all good news.

People caught with larger quantities of drugs will be treated as narcotics dealers and face increased jail terms under the plan.

That includes someone possessing 6 grams of marijuana.

I can’t believe this!

University of Colorado police have posted pictures of 150 people on a website smoking pot on the “420” day celebration last week and are offering a $50 reward for anyone who can identify them.

What are they going to do? Prosecute? Based on a picture of smoking… something?
The sick part… They got 50 calls in the first hour.

Update: Oh, I get it now. Read this page. They purposely officially closed the field on 4/20 and posted signs so that they could go after anyone for trespassing, and they’re just going after the ones that they have pictures of lighting up what appears to be pot to punish them.
This is petty vindictiveness on the part of the administration and the campus police. The students should protest. At the very least, this kind of provocative action may serve to actually help the cause of marijuana legalization in Colorado.