Drug WarRant

In Williamsburg, Vermont, a random drug testing proposal had almost been passed by the school board and was held up when it was discovered that some people opposed the idea.
So they had a spirited discussion from people on both sides of the issue, and came up with a compromise. School sponsored voluntary drug testing (parents could sign up for it). Now, to me, it’s still a waste of school funds that could be used in much better ways, and I feel sorry for the kids whose parents fall for it, but still, it’s a compromise that should please those who want testing, right?
Wrong. Those supporting random testing for all students were outraged at the compromise.

Proponent Ginger Crapse promised after the meeting to begin a petition drive to make the two School Board representatives from Williamsburg into elected positions, instead of appointed posts.

And this gets to the heart of it. They don’t want to drug test their kids. They want to drug test your kids. And they don’t want you to have any say in the matter.

I mentioned Willis’ idotic comments earlier.
Colombia’s ambassador in Washington has responded and also:

President Alvaro Uribe, whose hot temper is famous in Colombia, last week called the actor arrogant and ignorant and said his comments were “a shock to Colombia’s dignity”.

Ecstasy causes depression in laboratory pigs
As if being a laboratory pig wasn’t depressing.
So I had a chat with Porky, recently released, about his experiments with ecstasy.

“It’s not that the E was so bad,” he said. “It was the bloody awful Kenny G music they played. You couldn’t dance to it at all. Give me a patch of mud, some good dance music and glow sticks, and I’ll be a lot less depressed.”

I thought about it, and decided on roast pork instead.

At the Huffington Post, Maia Szalavitz writes In defense of John Tierney

This week’s New Republic Online trashes John Tierney for being “boring” and “utterly predictable” because of his libertarian politics. It bemoans the fact that he has done seven recent columns “lamenting” the war on drugs.
[…]
But liberals should be ashamed that the only people who consistently cover the pain story are libertarians — and liberal magazines should be covering it themselves, not attacking those who do for being “boring.”

Exactly.

… Even when their lips aren’t moving.
In Nevada, where there is an initiative to legalize marijuana, people are getting push poll automated phone calls with the following message:

There is a proposal to legalize marijuana. This proposal will make marijuana available in grocery stores and convenience stores similar to buying a pack of cigarettes. Do you support the proposal to legalize marijuana? Please press 1 for yes, press 2 for no, and if you’re undecided, please press 3.

So what does the initiative say? Could it perhaps be vague?

Sec. 21. 1. The Department may not issue a license as a retailer or wholesaler to an establishment: […]
(b) That is engaged in business as a gas station, convenience store, grocery store, night club, dance hall or licensed gaming establishment; […]

Nope. An outright, intentional lie. Despicable. Hope they find out who’s behind the calls.

A couple of recent items reminded me of something that should never be forgotten. The drug war is inherently racist. There are a number of reasons that this is so, and not all of them involve actual racist attitudes by law enforcement — the drug war and laws themselves have been constructed in ways to reinforce cultural differences.
Additionally, in some instances, African American communities have called for more drug war — much like the grieving parents of an overdosed child, they grieved over the extraordinary violence in their community, and mistakenly thought that more enforcement was the answer, not realizing that prohibition was fueling the violence.
Recent items:
“bullet” In a Grits for Breakfast piece:

Black drivers are 2.7 times more likely than whites when stopped by police to be asked to consent to a search of their vehicles during traffic stops in Lufkin, and Latinos are 1.9 times more likely to be asked than whites, according to a report by the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, using 2004 data collected and released by Lufkin Police.

“bullet” And in a completely different neighborhood, in Brattleboro, Vermont

Racial or ethnic minorities in this southern Vermont town have had a disproportionate amount of contact with local police, and more than 80 percent of respondents to a survey released Monday said they believe racial profiling is a problem.[…]
Several people who attended Monday’s news conference agreed with the report’s findings, including Alice Diorio, a counselor with the Vermont Harm Reduction Coalition. She said the roots of racial profiling by police are in the United States’ drug policy. “The stops are happening because we are involved in a drug war that is focused on racial profiling,” she said.

“bullet” I was riding with a group of African American co-workers the other day and one of them was talking about how her husband works at night and drives home through town. He now takes the long way, because the shortest route took him through a part of town where the police would invariably pull him over. Once he got the same cop that pulled him over the night before and he said “Don’t you remember me?” They were laughing about this, and I blurted out “But that’s illegal!” They stared at me for a moment like I was from outer space, and she said “True. But what are you going to do about it?”
Although almost five times as many whites use illegal drugs as African Americans, nearly twice the number of black men and women are being put behind bars for drug offenses. And even then, the length of sentences are racially disparate. Compare crack cocaine (those convicted were 85% black, although only 1/3 of crack users are black) with powder cocaine (those convicted were approximately 27% black). Same drug, used different ways. For powder, you have to have 500 grams or more to invoke the five year sentence. But for crack, all you need is 5 grams and it’s a mandatory 5 year sentence, even if it’s a first offense.
So why don’t we have charismatic African American leaders creating a Drug War Peace march? We need them. We need African Americans to demand that their representatives in government address the drug war.
Fortunately, there is an organization — the National African American Drug Policy Coalition (NAADPC) that’s trying to do something, and they’ve got a lot of great organizations and people involved (Kurt Schmoke is co-chair). I worry a little that, because of the size of their coalition, they’ll try to play it “safe” in their calls for reform. But still, it’s an important step.
Unless there’s a new Martin Luther King, Jr. ready to step up.

There’s been a lot in the news on the violence related to the drug war near the border. Grits for Breakfast reports from near the front line:

This is nuts. We train Mexican anti-drug forces, the drug cartels hire them. We ban meth precursors, the drug cartels get richer. […] Gunplay on both sides of the border has become common as dirt. […] Honestly, can anything good be said about our current approach to border security? Even so, the only proposals you ever see are to throw more money at the same failed strategies.

This is going to get out of control. And unfortunately, as Grits notes, the only strategies allowed are those failed ones we’ve been using, partly because nobody is even willing to talk about alternatives to prohibition.
One group of prohibitionists advocates dumping more wood on the fire with the idea that if we put enough wood on it we’ll smother it. The other group says we should blow the fire out and if we just blow hard enough, we’ll defeat it. So they keep adding wood and blowing… with predictable results.

Link

EDINBURGH, Scotland, March 7 (UPI) — Scotland’s top drug war official said controlling the supply of heroin to addicts may be better than the rising use of the methadone alternative.
Tom Wood, chairman of the Edinburgh Drugs and Alcohol Action Team, said the addictive methadone is being used too much and one alternative may be to prescribe heroin to such users.
The Scotsman reports Woods call comes after Switzerland conducted the first ever wide-scale inquiry in to the positives of heroin prescription as a way to wean users off the drug.
The Swiss study showed it could quicken the pace of recovery and lower drug-related crime.
Wood received cautious applause from some political, law enforcement and drug abuse groups.
Some, like Mothers Against Drugs, said it was the wrong way to address the rising use of methadone.

I need to preface this post by noting that I believe Mark Kleiman to be a well-educated man with quite a bit of intelligence. He is considered an expert in drug policy. He is a liberal and writes passionately about liberal issues, yet in a balanced way, and he is always willing to speak up when he feels that another liberal blogger has gotten carried away in a particular point without enough evidence to back it up.
It is because of these things that I find his blind spot when it comes to prohibition so frustrating. Time and time again, he clearly, and with abundant data, points out failures in government policy. And then, almost invariably, somewhere out of the blue, he throws in some statement in favor of prohibition or opposed to legalizers, without a shred of logic or evidence. For someone who professes himself part of the reality-based community, it’s an unfortunate form of self-delusion.
In his latest: Such another victory…, he calmly and effectively dismantles the ONDCP’s claims regarding cocaine prices. And then watch…

At some point, policymakers are going to figure out something that’s been obvious to analysts for more than a decade: While prohibition reduces drug abuse (otherwise why are there several times as many abusers of alcohol alone as of all the illicit drugs combined?), and some level of enforcement is necessary to make prohibition a reality, increasing enforcement efforts against mass-market drugs can’t raise the prices of those drugs, or at least not much.

Did you catch it?

prohibition reduces drug abuse (otherwise why are there several times as many abusers of alcohol alone as of all the illicit drugs combined?)

What possible logic has been invoked here? Does Mark really believe that every single drug (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, peyote, heroin, methamphetamines, glue, caffeine, aspirin, etc.) would have equal levels of abuse simply because they are legal? There are so many things wrong with that notion that it’s beyond absurd.
The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine Report: “Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science Base” makes it clear that there are a host of factors that are correlated with drug dependence, including pharmacalogical effects of the drug, gender, age, genetic factors, individual risk-taking propensities, acceptance of a drug in society, and on, and on.
Mark may respond that he didn’t really mean that they’d be equal, but just that it’s obvious, since alcohol has so much more abuse than illegal drugs, then it must be true that prohibition works, otherwise there would certainly be at least somewhat higher levels of illicit drug abuse than now (if not actually equivalent to alcohol).
But of course, that isn’t obvious either. It’s at least as likely that those who are prone to abuse a particular drug will tend to find it whether it is legal or illegal. After all, Mark himself has noted that illicit drugs are not hard to acquire. In this case, prohibition would have no effect on levels of drug abuse.
It’s also at least as likely that there is a certain percentage of the population that is predisposed to substance abuse in general, and they’ll find a way to abuse some drug (either legal or illegal). In this case as well, prohibition would have no effect (other than potentially shifting someone from one drug to another).
It’s even possible that there are higher levels of abuse of a particular illicit drug than there would be of that same drug if legal. This could follow from a reluctance of those abusing illicit drugs to seek help, due to social stigma and fear of prosecution. In this case, prohibition would actually increase drug abuse.
The one thing that we can know for certain, is that the mere fact that there are many more abusers of alcohol than of illicit drugs does not provide any evidence (or a reality-based argument) that prohibition reduces drug abuse.
And remember, even if it turns out that prohibition actually does reduce drug abuse by some amount (something not demonstrated by Mark Kleiman), that is not sufficient argument in favor of prohibition, since you’d have to factor in the incredible amount of collateral damage caused by prohibition.
Further reality-based reading:
Mark Kleiman on:

• Cocaine and terrorism
• On Black Market and Taxes
• Sativex (where he claims drug reformers don’t give a rat’s ass about sick people)
• Prohibitioning is hard work

Update: Check out this good article Elusive Victory, Disputed Statistics

Despite the ready availability of cocaine, the White House’s ONDCP reported: “Our … overseas counterdrug efforts have slowly constricted the pipeline that brings cocaine to the United States.”
Similar announcements have been issued regularly ever since Richard Nixon issued the official declaration of war on drugs in 1969. Four years later, Nixon said the United States had “turned the corner” on drug addiction and drug supplies.
When Washington’s first drug czar, William Bennett, left his post, the White House said he had put the U.S. “on the road to victory” in the drug war. That was 16 years ago. Today, cocaine, heroin and marijuana are as widely available as they were then – at sharply lower prices.
“The price decline began in 1979 and the downward trend has been steady,” said Mark Kleiman, director of the drug policy analysis program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Kleiman is one of about a dozen academic experts in the United States who have studied the drug trade for decades.
They viewed with skepticism an assertion in the drug czar’s report that the street price of cocaine – the drug that most worries the government – had increased by 19 percent while purity had dropped by 15 percent between February and September 2005. The drug policy office called it a “trend reversal.”

Note Mark’s excellent contribution to this article. But because he cannot allow himself to envision any regime other than prohibition, when he is interviewed as an expert no alternative to prohibition will ever be raised. Here again, the article shows all the weaknesses of government policy, but never raises the possibility that an alternative might work.

The current administration is bad enough, but when you add Congress into the mix, things just get surreal.

A Bush administration decision to divert money for Colombian drug interdiction and eradication programs to the war on terrorism has opened up the southern U.S. border to a new flood of heroin and cocaine, say senior congressional and Colombian officials.
Some members of Congress, angry that appeals by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for help in rebuilding his depleted and aging fleet of surveillance and interdiction aircraft have been ignored, plan to bypass the White House by dipping into a $72.4 billion supplemental appropriation for the war on terrorism to fund $99.4 million in military and police aid to Colombia.
An amendment to the pending emergency supplemental bill likely will be offered by Republican Reps. Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Dan Burton of Indiana, a member of the House Government Reform Committee. It would pay for three DC-3 marine patrol aircraft for the Colombian navy and two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and 10 Huey II helicopters for the Colombian national police.

First of all, the administration is already paying way too much in Colombia. All the drug war financing should be cut.
And here’s the kicker:

“After seven years of work on anti-narcotics efforts in the Andean region, we are now seeing the fruits of our labors in the drug war in Colombia and making great progress with our Colombian security partners in preventing drugs from reaching the United States,” Mr. Hyde said in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Fruits of our labors? Do you mean the fact that billions of dollars have had no effect on supply? Or do you refer to the out-of-control violence and corruption? Or the scorched earth?
And now that every government entity in Colombia has been corrupted with black-market money, you want to give them helicopters?
Note: Hyde is retiring this year, so we’ll get some relief. But there’s still a lot like him who need to go.