Drug WarRant

Tomorrow, the state senate Health and Human Services Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on a medical marijuana bill — S.B. 2568.
If you live in Illinois, call or write your State Senator today. Here’s an easy way to send an email to the committee.

Sometime this past week, Allan pointed out to me this bit of nonsense by Cliff Kincaid: Soros Infiltrates the Conservative Movement. Cliff, who is an ignorant drug war cheerleader and always writes bizarre anti-reformer screeds (example), decided to complain about a drug policy session planned at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which ends today.

The notion of a drug policy session at CPAC isn’t new — there was a very successful one last year. But Cliff jumped on the fact that Ethan Nadelmann and Bruce Birken would be participating, and that — horror of horrors — both worked for organizations “funded by leftist billionaire and anti-Bush activist George Soros.” (I’ve also contributed to both the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, but Cliff didn’t mention me.)

The kicker, for Cliff, was the fact that poor Calvina Fay of Mel Sembler’s Drug Free America Foundation had to pull out of the debate because it “had been stacked against her” by those George Soros meanies that were trying to infiltrate the conservative movement.

MPP responded with the real story.

Kincaid reported that Fay cancelled her scheduled debate because it “had been stacked against her.” However, during a Monday phone conversation with MPP Director of Government Relations Aaron Houston, Fay’s Director of Communications Lana Beck told Houston that Fay had cancelled because she did not want to engage in a back-and-forth debate, and would only accept under the condition that each side give five-minute speeches, without openings, rebuttals or closings for each speaker […]

On Thursday, Houston and a staffer for the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) offered both Fay and Kincaid slots in a Friday panel discussion with MPP’s Kampia and DPA’s Ethan Nadelmann titled “War on Drugs: Misplaced Priority on Marijuana?” Fay had already been offered a slot on the panel, but declined. On Friday morning, the pair finally informed Houston that they refused to participate in the panel.

So much for Kincaid’s outrage. Calvina simply wasn’t willing to face an opponent who might be able to correct her lies.

It was a fun little dust-up, and several reformers got to take over the comments big-time at the Kincaid article published in the Conservative Voice. I thought that was all there would be to it… But no.

Here comes our old friend/nemesis, sado-moralist Mark Souder (Jacob Sullum has also talked about this at Hit and Run). Representative Souder also read the Kincaid piece and decided that the drug policy mini-session at CPAC is a threat to the conservative movement that rivals… the Jack Abramoff scandal!

He placed this in the Congressional Record:

George Soros, the radical liberal financier who dedicated himself to defeating President George W. Bush in the last election, has taken a lesson from Jack Abramoff.

As much of Abramoff’s pernicious lobbying technique has come to light, we’ve seen how he was adept at manipulating certain conservative organizations to pursue a decidedly anti-conservative agenda, namely the promotion of gambling. By working hand in hand with the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), for example, he was able in 2000 to undermine conservatives’ best effort to outlaw on-line gambling. Proxy organizations played a fundamental role in Abramoff’s strategy.

Since 1974, the American Conservative Union has held the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which is billed as a three-day meeting for thousands of conservative activists and leaders to discuss current issues and policies and set the agenda for the future. I myself have addressed the conference in the past.

One can imagine a conservative’s surprise to read on the CPAC 2006 agenda that a representative of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) is slated to moderate–yes, moderate–a panel Friday discussing drug policy. For those who are unacquainted with it, the pro-marijuana MPP has been funded by Soros in the past. Also represented on the panel is the Drug Policy Alliance, which is Soros’ principal pro-drug arm. Incidentally, the moderator himself is a convicted drug dealer.

What on earth were the CPAC organizers thinking? Why would the American Conservative Union allow extremist liberals like George Soros and Peter Lewis (who is responsible for most of MPP’s funding) to access a meeting of conservatives? And, in exactly whose estimation would there be balance in a debate moderated by the MPP?

Thanks to Accuracy in Media Report editor Cliff Kincaid, these are just a few of the questions that the CPAC organizers now face. I’d like to submit into the record his article of February 7, 2006, entitled “Soros Infiltrates Conservative Movement.” In exchange for a donation, is this 32-year old conservative conference turning itself into a Soros proxy organization just like Abramoff’s TVC?

Over the last number of months, we’ve been surprised to learn how one such as Abramoff was able to exploit conservatives for his own purposes. Surely in this environment we can’t miss seeing it when it’s happening once again.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

First, Souder makes it sound like this is the comparison: Jack Abramoff manipulated conservatives into supporting gambling against their will. Now Soros is attempting to manipulate conservatives into supporting drugs against their will. What bull!

The Abramoff scandal isn’t about promoting gambling. It’s about pitting one gambling interest against other gambling interest and paying Legislators hefty bribes to get them to pass legislation that will make certain clients and lobbyists rich, while victimizing certain Native American tribes.

The other situation is about two organizations, which get donations from a lot of individuals, hosting an optional panel discussion/debate on drug policy at a conference. And for that, Souder uses the Congressional Record?

There’s another thing happening here. Souder, and certain other social conservatives, would like nothing better than to frame drug policy reform as a “liberal” issue and remove it from conservative thought. But it won’t work, unless they’re somehow able to cleanse all traditional conservative beliefs in liberty, individual responsibility, and limited government from the Republican party, in which case that party is doomed.

By the way, early reports that I’ve heard indicate that the drug policy sessions were among the most interesting at CPAC, with the majority of attendees supporting the reform arguments.
Update: Here’s a report from the Stamford Advocate.

Julian Sanchez is blogging at CPAC

Professional virgin Ben Shapiro just strolled by talking about his highly nuanced position on the war on drugs: “People who use marijuana piss me off, so I support their prosecution.” Which seems more or less consistent with his general philosophy.

Flex Your Rights blog has the info on 87 women who were illegally searched for drugs at O’Hare airport. They’ll be receiving a $1.9 million settlement.

At airports, only “reasonable suspicion” is necessary to justify brief detentions and searches, but even this minimal evidentiary standard couldn’t explain why it was always Black women getting pulled out of line and humiliated.

Link (thanks to Matt)
OK, here’s the smart, reasonable public official who knows how to set priorities:

Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, who oversees the University of Iowa in Iowa City, told a legislative committee he would treat possession of small amounts of marijuana like a traffic violation, allowing hundreds of students arrested each year to graduate without a criminal record.

“The guy that’s carrying 50 bales of marijuana … that’s a different animal,” Pulkrabek said, adding he favored rounding up intoxicated people in a locked “detox center” in lieu of the crowded jail.

Reasonable, right?
Then comes the politician…

But Republican legislator Clel Baudler, a former state trooper, shot down the notion as sending the wrong message to drug users and abusers.

“We could simplify law enforcement’s job if we didn’t have rock concerts. We could simplify their job a lot quicker if we just didn’t have football games there where we arrest hundreds of drunks over the weekend.” Baudler said.

We could simplify our lives if we rounded up all legislators like Baudler and put them away where they can’t hurt anyone.

Link

More Americans (some 575,000) died of cancer last year than perished in all our last centuries’ wars combined, but why no anger? We should be angry. We went to war against cancer 35 years ago and haven’t won.

President Nixon declared War on Cancer in his 1971 State of the Union speech, perhaps to draw attention from a shooting war gone bad in Vietnam, but nevertheless the cancer war was joined. Part of today’s problem might be his proclaiming a drug war that steals attention, with raids and arrests, featured on TV and movies, leading to a lot bigger budget. We’re losing that war too.

So the Drug Czar went to Denver to announce the new National Drug Control Strategy. Gee, I wonder why he went there? Marijuana Policy Project was all over that move…

White House Drug Strategy: Use Tax Dollars
to Campaign Against Reform

Document Continues Failed Policies as Officials Lobby
Against Common-Sense Reforms, MPP Charges

DENVER, COLORADO — The 2006 National Drug Control Strategy unveiled today by White House Drug Czar John Walters renews concerns about the federal government’s continuing use of tax dollars to campaign against changes to failed drug policies, officials of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) charged. The plan was released at a news conference in Denver, where voters in November passed an initiative that made adult possession and use of marijuana legal under city ordinance.

“This document signals that the administration will continue using tax dollars to campaign against common-sense reforms, while wasting billions on failed policies,” said MPP Director of Government Relations Aaron Houston. “It is not a coincidence that John Walters took his junket to Denver, where voters dealt a stinging rebuke to the government’s war on marijuana.”

In that release, MPP also dramatically demonstrates the lie that Walters loves to promote — that drug warriors have a hard time countering the “well-funded” legalization lobby. This chart (pdf) shows just how little drug policy reform organizations have compared to their opposition.
In a related bit of news, President Bush gave a speech on Wednesday:

I’ve got a group of folks that are constantly analyzing whether or not the federal government is doing what you’re doing — doing what you expect us to do. You realize we spend $2.7 trillion a year, and there are more than 1,000 federal programs. That’s a lot, that’s a lot of programs. And it makes sense to make sure that they’re working. See, good intentions aren’t enough, as far as this administration is concerned. We’re insisting that people show us, program managers show us, whether or not they’re achieving — these programs achieve results.

[…]The point is, is that if they can’t prove they’re achieving good results, then the programs, in my judgment, ought to be eliminated and/or trimmed back. That’s why I told you earlier, we found 141 such programs. And we did the same thing in last year’s budget, as well.

One of the interesting innovations that we have put forth is a new website, called expectmore.gov. It’s a program where — it’s a website where we start to put the measurement results up for everybody to see. Nothing like transparency into the federal bureaucracy to determine whether or not a program is working. And so I think you’ll find it innovative — I do — that the White House has put this website up. And you’ll be able to see whether or not results are being achieved for the money spent.

So, what do we find at expectmore.gov?

…and just to let you know how low the bar is set on these, both the DEA and the Andean Counter Drug Initiative (two of the most outrageous wastes of taxpayer funds) got grades of “Adequate.” I was unable to find any drug war programs listed as “Effective.”
So, Mr. President. If you really want to reduce the deficit and eliminate programs that aren’t achieving good results, shouldn’t we be taking a closer look at the drug war?

Drug WarRant is expanding. Today, I added Drug WarRant.net — intended to be a community site as a companion to Drug WarRant.com.
Right now there is a messageboard, and soon there will be a Wiki for developing a set of pages to serve as a guide to Drug Legalization Regulation Regimes.
Stop by the messageboard and let me know what you think.
[Note: if you’re not able to access the site, it’s because the domain name was just registered on Wednesday and it may not have gotten to all ISP’s yet. Wait a few hours and try again.]

There’s a great new film about the drug war making its debut this month. John Holowach has created a serious documentary that’s lots of fun to watch. And while the title, High: the True Tale of American Marijuana gives you the starting point for this film, the overall content sneaks up on you and before you’re fully aware of it, you’ve come to understand that the entire drug war is inescapably interconnected.

John Holowach is an accomplished film-maker who has passionate feelings about the drug war (he’s been a regular at Drug WarRant). This film came about because of his realization that there was an important void to be filled. And “High” is the only documentary out there that provides a comprehensive contemporary view of drug policy reform.

Visit the website of HIGH

OFFICIAL PUBLIC PREMIERE
February 28, 2006
Ohio State University
Campbell Hall, Room 200
7:30 PM – $5
Q&A with Director afterwards

More public showings listed at the site, including February 28 at Brown University, and March 24 at Truman State University. If you want to set up a showing, there’s contact information on the site.

Jim’s post of the same name at Vice Squad is a fascinating read…

Let me suggest four reasons. The first is simply the tyranny of the status quo.

…and it’s a status quo with a hell of a lot of momentum.

Second, there is a dose of logic which is persuasive (on the surface, at least) and irrefutable, but not dispositive — though the fact that it is not dispositive apparently is subtle. That logic goes along the lines of “if there were no drugs, there would be no drug problems.” Because this logic is absolutely correct, any tragedy that occurs under the current prohibitory regime — instead of discrediting prohibition, which would seem to be the obvious response — can be met, without conspicuous senselessness, by a call for a more committed prohibition. The notion that the drug-free world that the logic calls for is itself either a chimera or not worth the cost seems to be less than immediately accessible. So prohibition becomes a self-justifying policy.

Deliciously worded, Jim! And so true. “Chimera” is the perfect word to describe the goals of the drug war.

Third, parents in the middle and upper classes in developed nations might believe — and they might be right to believe — that prohibition (relative to some undelineated alternative) makes it a bit less likely that their kids will become enmeshed in drugs.

Jim goes on to qualify this, but I do want to point out that, while I fully agree with the fact that “parents might believe,” I’m not so sure I agree that “they might be right to believe” — particularly when used with the word “enmeshed.”

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, people don’t have a good idea about what a legal alternative entails. […]
Perhaps the time has come for the legalization advocates to coalesce around some very specific policies that spell out, on a drug-by-drug basis, the precise regulatory regime that we have in mind.

I’ll start working on it right away (and I welcome submissions from my readers).