Drug WarRant

This is a must-read in the Wall Street Journal: Global View by George Melloan: Musings About the War on Drugs (alternate link)

Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon’s ambitious “global war against drugs” would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition. […]

The drug war has become costly, with some $50 billion in direct outlays by all levels of government, and much higher indirect costs, such as the expanded prison system to house half a million drug-law offenders and the burdens on the court system. Civil rights sometimes are infringed. One sharply rising expense is for efforts to interdict illegal drug shipments into the U.S., which is budgeted at $1.4 billion this fiscal year, up 41% from two years ago.

That reflects government’s tendency to throw more money at a program that isn’t working. Not only have the various efforts not stopped the flow but they have begun to create friction with countries the U.S. would prefer to have as friends.

He goes on to describe the destabilizing effects of the war on drugs in Latin America, and then:

Milton Friedman saw the problem. To the extent that authorities curtail supplies of marijuana, cocaine and heroin coming into the rich U.S. market, the retail price of these substances goes up, making the trade immensely profitable — tax-free, of course. The more the U.S. spends on interdiction, the more incentive it creates for taking the risk of running drugs.

In 1933, the U.S. finally gave up on the 13-year prohibition of alcohol — a drug that is by some measures more intoxicating and dangerous to health than marijuana. That effort to alter human behavior left a legacy of corruption, criminality, and deaths and blindness from the drinking of bad booze. America’s use of alcohol went up after repeal but no serious person today suggests a repeat of the alcohol experiment. Yet prohibition is still being attempted, at great expense, for the small portion of the population — perhaps little more than 5% — who habitually use proscribed drugs.

What a breath of fresh air. Intelligence and logic applied to the drug war!
Powerful piece. And he also sees to the heart of the problem of change…

An army of government employees now makes a living from the drug laws and has a rather conflictive interest in claiming both that the drug laws are working and that more money is needed.

Yep. But how do we dismantle that powerful army? ‘Cause right now, we’re living in occupied territory.

Via TalkLeft (and thanks, Daksya)
In a unanimous decision (without Alito participating), the judges ruled that the government could not prevent the Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) church from utilizing ayahoasca (which contains the hallucinogenic substance DMT).

In their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices moved decisively to keep the government out of a church’s religious practice. In the decision, Roberts wrote that federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church and that the Bush administration had failed to meet its burden under a federal religious freedom law to show that it should be allowed to ban “the sect’s sincere religious practice.” [Link]

The case was ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL ET AL.

Link

From Mexican voters, in a poll for The Dallas Morning News, Al Dia and El Universal:

• 93 percent say drug trafficking is a serious problem in Mexico, spreading from border cities to other parts of the country.
• 81 percent say the United States contributes to the drug-trafficking problems.
• 64 percent say Mexican federal police have done little or nothing to help.

With a Presidential election coming in July…

“All the candidates are going to seize on” narco-trafficking, Lund said. But, he predicted, they all will propose the same solution: “an expanded role for the military” because, he said, it is the one government institution that is not considered deeply corrupt.

Increased use of the military to fight the drug war within the borders of Mexico will just turn Mexico into another Colombia. And still, nothing will have been done to reduce the profitability of the black market.

This is a bit of a surprise:

Morales and his vice president, Alvaro Garcia Linera, held a long meeting over the weekend in Government House with U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia David Greenlee to discuss the anti-drug policy to be implemented by Bolivia’s new government.
President Morales whose political background is closely linked to the union representing coca farmers in Bolivia’s central jungle region, said peasants would have to eradicate excess coca crops “either voluntarily or with the help of anti-drug forces”[…]
President Morales now said the surplus coca crops would be defined as those that exceeded an area 40 meters by 40 meters.[…]
Ambassador Greenlee told reporters that the Bolivian government was committed to “continue with an effective policy” of destroying coca crops, and how the goal would be met would be decided in the next few days.
Last week, Morales said he would not expel U.S. drug-enforcement agents, as demanded by coca farmers who helped propel him to power, but he warned foreign officials operating in Bolivia to respect the nation’s sovereignty and dignity.

What I’d really love to know is what else is in that deal.

“bullet” Radley’s got the story and partial video of a bizarre 70-90 officer SWAT drug raid conducted on the Rack n’ Roll Billiards Club under the guise of an Alcohol Beverage Control inspection (therefore warrantless). Three were arrested for drug charges: one, and undercover cop, was released; the other two were apparently police informants.
“bullet” This one will hurt. Radley’s been investigating the tendency of law enforcement in some areas to shoot the dogs at the slightest provocation. In the course of it, he found this incident of the Smoak family’s dog Patton from 2003. The video is disturbing.

Now and then I find something out there that is just so stupid that it really doesn’t even deserve comment… Yet how can I resist?
I don’t know anything about The New Media Journal.us. For all I know, they only have 10 readers (although they do have their own hate mail editor). And Bruce Hanson apparently is (or was) a marine engine salesman in Montana. But that doesn’t stop him from thinking he has the “drug industry lobby” figured out.
The inanity of his latest: Lobbying For Illicit Drugs and Terrorism, can be seen clearly in his closing paragraph:

Is it possible that much of the political rhetoric about eavesdropping, the President breaking the law, civil rights being violated, and demands made to limit the executive branch powers, are just drug users whining and the illicit drug industry speaking out, via their lobby? Is it possible that most of the irrational noise that we have recently witnessed is a lobbying effort to persuade the public to see things their way — the drug users way?

He loves to talk about the “drug industry lobby.” (Also check out Senate Democrats Filibuster Patriot Act on Behalf of Drug Users and Who Really Wants the Logging to Stop?)
But back to the current piece. He starts out by deciding that the only reason people would oppose President Bush’s oversight-free warrantless surveillance program is that they are drug users and are afraid that the government will overhear them talking about drugs over the phone. Of course, he ignores the fact the the issue is about oversight, not surveillance.
But even then, could it perhaps be that some people object because they believe in the constitution or separation of powers, and not just because they use drugs and for some reason talk about it all the time on the telephone to suspected overseas terrorists?
Not according to Bruce, who believes that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind the administration listening in on your phone calls. So I have a test for Bruce: It’s been known that some drug smugglers hide drugs in… unusual places. Just to be on the safe side then, Bruce shouldn’t mind an anal probe to make sure he isn’t smuggling drugs in his rectum. After all, if he doesn’t have anything to hide…
The real issue, though, with Bruce Hanson (and other like him) is the ignorance of how the black market works in comparison to legitimate markets. Note this statement:

Most Americans share a common failure to understand the magnitude of the illicit drug trade in America. Therefore they are unable to understand the political influence of the industry. This influence, which is driven by the resentment of the drug culture towards the government’s prohibition of recreational drugs, continues to grow and shows up as irrational behavior. Until Americans are able to see a cause and effect relationship of this cultural manifestation, they will remain clueless as to the mechanics of the influence.

Note how he assumes that the political interests of the “drug industry” (meaning, I suppose, traffickers and producers) are the same as the “drug culture” (users and… groupies?). And that’s just not true.
Drug users may very well resent the government’s prohibition of recreational drugs. It means that they face potential arrest, that they can’t depend on quality or safety, and that they must deal with criminals to get their drugs.
The drug industry, on the other hand, absolutely depends on the government’s prohibition of recreational drugs. Without prohibition, who would buy from them? Active prohibition reduces competition, increasing profits. The more ruthless and powerful the trafficker, the more they support increased prohibition penalties. They certainly don’t plan on getting caught (and if their own street soldiers get nabbed, they just replace them — part of the cost of doing business.)
Nobody knows whether the drug industry actually funds politicians or political issues (they probably find their money works better to buy police and soldiers), but if they did, they’d contribute to politicians like Mark Souder, Dennis Hastert, and the other drug warriors who make the illicit drug business so darn profitable.
To complete his stupidity, Bruce Hanson tries this comparison:

When the recreational drug industry is compared to their direct competitor, the brewery industry, some reasonable observations and predictions can be made. For instance, it’s reasonable to believe that one industry would mimic the other in terms of their lobbying efforts.

That’s right — he finds it reasonable that a legal industry and a black-market industry would have the same governmental interests!
Black market traffickers and prohibitionists share the same bed, regardless of what Bruce Hanson desires to be true.

Thanks to all the regulars for keeping this place tidy while I was gone. Had a wonderful time in Horseshoe Bend, Arkansas, and some great quality time with my Dad.
“bullet” I haven’t been mentioning it much here, but I hope you’ve been keeping up with Radley Balko’s The Agitator, which has been making a difference, both in his attention to Cory Maye and paramilitary police raids. Absolutely first rate stuff.

I’m off to Arkansas for a few days with my Dad, and I don’t expect a lot of Wi-Fi access where we’re going.
Make yourself at home and discuss current events here, or at the messageboard. Clean up after yourselves.

Link

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS — The medical marijuana bill, S.B. 2568, passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee today by a 6-5 vote as a new poll showed greater than two-to-one support for the measure. Passage would make Illinois the 12th state to protect patients from arrest for use of medical marijuana with their doctors’ recommendations.
“This is a major step forward,” said Christopher Fichtner, M.D., former director of mental health for the Illinois Department of Human Services. “The evidence that marijuana is a safe, effective medicine for some very ill patients has been repeatedly verified by government commissions in the U.S., Canada, Britain and elsewhere. This is a sensible, well-crafted bill that deserves quick passage.”
Fichtner, a medical consultant to IDEAL Reform, testified at the hearing along with multiple sclerosis patient Julie Falco of Chicago.

Still a close vote, but it’s an important step forward. And it’s great to hear that Julie testified again. I got to meet her last year and she’s one incredible lady.

The new statewide poll of likely general election voters, conducted by Anzalone-Liszt Research, Inc., found 62 percent support for legislation “that would allow people with cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS and other serious illnesses to use and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes, as long as their physician approves.” Only 28 percent were opposed, with 10 percent undecided. The poll, conducted by telephone Feb. 10-13, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percent. Full results of the poll are available at http://www.mpp.org/2006_il_poll.html.

My thoughts are with the Illinois Senate committee hearing on medical marijuana. I attended the hearings last year, when Walters swooped down to put the lowly state Senators in their place, causing them to vote against their own people. I’m hoping for better results this time, but if not… It won’t go away. And eventually we will win. Unfortunately, in the meantime, people will needlessly suffer.

This reminds me that I’ve neglected to discuss the situation in New Mexico. After the Senate overwhelmingly passed the medical marijuana bill with a strong rebuke to the Drug Czar’s office for meddling with state affairs, pressure was put on the New Mexico House, which sent the bill to the Agriculture and Water Resources Committee to die. Which it did.

Drug War cheerleader Steven Steiner (founder of DAMADD) went all the way from New York to New Mexico to campaign against the notion of sick people getting medicine. This is the guy whose son died from crushing and snorting Oxycontin, and I have a tendency to say “Hey, you do what you need to do to deal with that tragedy,” but I also can’t help noticing that his actions are somewhat akin to me losing a child to cancer and then flying to Alaska to campaign for mandatory helmets for adults riding a bike.

Of course Steiner has crafted a justification:

“There’s no doubt in my mind that marijuana is a gateway drug.”

Which is all that’s important to Steiner. What’s in his mind. Not things like, uh, science, or evidence, since all studies have debunked the gateway theory. And it’s kind of hard to explain the gateway theory to the, oh, 96 million people or so who have used marijuana and didn’t go on to use other illegal drugs. And when sick people don’t have access to medicine, then they can just console themselves with the notion that at least Steiner’s mind is comforted.

Of course, there’s also one other little thing that’s important to Steiner. His bankbook.

According to DAMADD’s Web site, Perdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, is a sponsor of the organization.

Several other large pharmaceutical companies, including Jannsen, Bristol-Meyers, Roche, Alpharma, UCB, Endo, Cephalon, Teva and Boehringer Ingelheim, also support DAMADD. “Big (pharmaceuticals), they see what’s happening,” Steiner said. “They gave us funding unrestricted.”

…the industry — which contributed more than $97,000 to New Mexico political campaigns in 2002 and more than $56,000 in 2004 — stands to lose money if marijuana became a free and legal treatment.

Yeah, we get the sordid, sick picture.

Dare Generation Diary and D’Alliance Blog have been covering this, and Steiner showed up to gloat:

I call it how I see it and the DPA is nothing more than a left wing organization trying to legalize drugs in our country and unfortunately using anyone than can including sick and dying people to further their agenda against the drug war and marijuana prohibition.

Ah, now we see the true colors. Notice the use of the words “left-wing”? As I’ve noted many times here, drug policy reform is not a left or right issue. Some of the strongest support for reform is from conservatives, who don’t believe in higher taxes to pay for the enormous costs of prohibition, and who don’t favor big government, and who believe in personal responsibility. Yet Steiner is trying to turn it into a partisan debate, just like Souder’s objection to the CPAC sessions.

Additionally, Steiner uses the most intellectually dishonest argument when he says that reformers “use” sick people to further an agenda. Let’s compare how he and I use sick people.

• Me: In order to further my agenda, I want to make it possible for sick people, with a doctor’s recommendation, and under guidelines set forth by the state, to use marijuana (a substance that has never killed anyone and is very mild in its dependence potential) if they feel it would help them. I would not require anyone to use it.
• Steiner: In order to further my agenda, I want to prohibit sick people from using marijuana, regardless of their condition, regardless of what their doctor says, (and I personally don’t think it’s a medicine regardless of what science says), even if it causes them pain, suffering, or death. And if they do use it, I want them thrown in jail at taxpayer expense, where they will then get more expensive drugs paid for by the taxpayers.

Yes, we’re both using sick people. Why don’t we ask the sick people whether they’d rather be used by me or by Steiner.