Drug WarRant

link

OTTAWA (Reuters) – Canadians elected their first Conservative government in 12 years, but gave it only a limited minority mandate to change policies and priorities.

Harper is the guy who promised to get tougher on drugs.

Asked why he would saddle a student who is caught with a small amount of the substance with a criminal record, Mr. Harper said “we believe we have to send a message” that these types of activities are unacceptable. In his talks with people who have become addicted to harder drugs, he said, they almost always say they started with marijuana.

But as reader Ben Heumann commented at the time:

The Federal government in Canada is much weaker that the Federal government in the US in comparison to provinces and states respectively. Although Mr. Harper may want to further criminalize pot, the provinces don’t and won’t, leaving Mr. Harper with nothing but talk.

That, along with the limited mandate should serve to give Harper little power.

Minority governments in Canada rarely last longer than 18 months. The outgoing minority Liberal government stayed in power for 17 months before it was defeated in November 2005 over a kickback scandal.
Unlike the Liberals, who governed with the help of the New Democrats, the Conservatives have no natural allies in a four-party Canadian Parliament and will need the support of political rivals on an issue-by-issue basis.

Via Email from International AntiProhibitionist League…
These are excerpts from a European Parliament Resolution adopted on January 18.

The European Parliament,
[…]

D. whereas the pervasive opium and heroin production carries the risk of permanently affecting the nation‰s politics, crippling its society and distorting a fragile economy while consolidating a corrupt narco-elite,
[…]

18. Expresses deep concern about illegal drug production — as highlighted by the recent Afghan Opium Survey 2005 carried out by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, in particular the latest statistics on domestic heroin consumption — which could lead to an HIV/AIDS emergency in the region;

19. Draws attention to the extremely high costs and serious flaws in terms of effectiveness of a counter-narcotics strategy based only on eradication and alternative livelihood and calls on the participants in the London Conference to take into consideration the proposal of licensed production of opium for medical purposes, as already granted to a number of countries;

Another chink in the wall.

New York Times (via Atrios)

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who led the National Security Agency when it began the warrantless wiretaps, vigorously defended the program , though he acknowledged that it depended on a lower standard of evidence than required by courts.
“The trigger is quicker and a bit softer,” said General Hayden, an Air Force officer who is now the principal deputy director of the new national intelligence agency, “but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve Al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.”
The standard laid out by General Hayden – a “reasonable basis to believe” – is lower than “probable cause,” the standard used by the special court created by Congress to handle surveillance involving foreign intelligence.

And gee, I wonder why that “special court created by Congress” chose the “probable cause” standard.
Anyone? Bueller?

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So how could the NSA go with a lower standard than probable cause?

General Hayden defended the program’s constitutionality. He said the lower, “reasonable belief” standard conformed to the wording of the Fourth Amendment, asserting that it does not mention probable cause, but instead forbids “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

Does not mention probable cause? Hello?

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well maybe they just decided that since the fourth amendment mentions probable cause in conjunction with warrants, the best way to get around it is to… not get a warrant.
If it wasn’t clear before, it is now. The administration is actively pursuing a policy that is illegal, un-Constitutional, and un-American, and if allowed to succeed, just think how long it’ll be before authorization to use that power moves outside the war on terror into the war on drugs — if it hasn’t already (since the administration already conflates the two).
It wouldn’t take much. Some drug war violence on the Mexican border. President says that the narco-terrorists are threatening us, and for the safety of the American people, it’s important to use the tools we’re already using in the war on terror and apply it to this situation. And “Don’t worry. Trust us. We’ll only use it on those suspected of being a Mexican or of using drugs…”
And just when you thought you were being paranoid…
“bullet” Via TalkLeft:
Patriot Act Renewal Includes Creation of a Federal Police Force
Section 605:

A permanent police force, to be known as the ‘United States Secret Service Uniformed Division,'” empowered to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence” … or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.

Now most of the language allows this federal police force to protect the President, Presidential candidates and their wives, Ambassadors, Embassies and extends their coverage outside of Washington, DC to anywhere in the United States, but there’s also a nice little vague provision that they can be used for

(11) An event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance.

And what’s a special event in section 3056(e) of title 18?

e)(1) When directed by the President, the United States Secret Service is authorized to participate, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at special events of national significance, as determined by the President.
(2) At the end of each fiscal year, the President through such agency or office as the President may designate, shall report to the Congress–
(A) what events, if any, were designated special events of national significance for security purposes under paragraph (1); and
(B) the criteria and information used in making each designation.

In other words, it’s any event the President says is a special event.
Gee, I wonder if there’s “reason to believe” that some Federal Police will show up at my next party? Should I send them invitations?
“bullet” Update: Here’s the actual exchange from the government transcript (please alert me if the online version changes):

MR. HILL: Final question.
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I’d like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American’s right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use —
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually — the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the —
GEN. HAYDEN: That’s what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable —
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says —
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard —
GEN. HAYDEN: — unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “we reasonably believe”; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, “we have probable cause.” And so what many people believe — and I’d like you to respond to this — is that what you’ve actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear — and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you’ve raised to me — and I’m not a lawyer, and don’t want to become one — what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is “reasonable.” And we believe — I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MR. HILL: I’m sorry.
Thank you very much, General Hayden.
And with that, this proceeding is over. Thank you.
[END.]
[emphasis added]

I can’t believe it! What idiots are running this country?

It’s gotten to the point where it just makes me laugh.
Mark Kleiman has a good post about meth policy based on a New York Times Article.

Policies that make pseudoephedrine harder to buy in order to deprive methamphetamine cooks of a key ingredient can indeed reduce small-scale domestic production, but the result is increased supply of a more expensive and more potent version of the same drug from Mexico.

And then, as usual, he has to do this…

If you think the moral of the story is that drug abuse control policy is always futile, I can’t agree. But if you think the moral of the story is that drug abuse control policy is hard, I’m with you.

Gotta admire his perseverance. Despite all the facts, history, and his own critiques, this “reality-based” guy is determined that someday, somehow, he’s going to find a way to make prohibition work.

Nathan Tabor is a professional moralist who writes for The Conservative Voice, and he brings us The War on Drugs Update:

Each night, network news programs in America turn their focus on the war in Iraq. Yet, routinely, the national news media ignore another war that’s been going on now for more than 30 years–the war on drugs.
By all indications, we continue to lose this hidden war. And frankly, there are a number of people in the news media and in Hollywood who are actually rooting for the other side. They’re the individuals who believe that there is no danger in a 13-year-old smoking pot when he should be in school… a twenty-eight-year-old mother smoking crack… or a 60-year-old ex-hippie who’s addicted to heroin. [emphasis added]

I’m assuming he’s talking about drug policy reformers. But don’t you love the examples he uses? As if those three groups represent the drug using population! — but this is a typical tactic. In actuality, drug policy reformers are actually more interested in preventing the 13-year-old from smoking pot, through a regulated system that actually checks for age (not like our current black-market system). 28-year-old crack mothers are becoming a rarity, and if you find a 60-year-old ex-hippie addicted to heroin who’s still alive… you gotta be impressed!
The thing is, Nathan’s actual suggestions aren’t all that bad — parents talking to kids, schools and churches providing education — although he injects his own moral values into the solution (like requiring a church-attending two-parent family), and he misses one of the most effective ways of reducing kids’ drug use — after-school activities.
We could be on the same side, and yet…
He appears to be adamantly opposed to those who would change the laws, despite the fact that he admits the laws don’t work. The reason? He fears that even medical marijuana will “make drug use more acceptable to the general public.” And after all…

And can’t even casual drug use destroy marriages, decimate families, and ruin lives?

So we see, Nathan isn’t interested in the truth, or in really keeping the 13-year-old off drugs. He’s more interested in promoting his “morality.”

Just a reminder to everyone that there is the opportunity to add your own Drug War Rant at Guest Rants.
The latest addition is The War on Drugs: Problems and Resolutions by Dexter Gilbert. Gilbert discusses his own experience with doctors and pain medication, and gives his thoughts on the problems in both the licit and illicit drug markets (and their relationship).

Showtime has announced several documentaries in the works, including this one:

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

In the continuing controversy surrounding the medicinal value of marijuana, seven chronically ill individuals continue to receive medical marijuana from the U.S. government even though the law was recently changed to stop this practice. Four of these seven will be interviewed for this documentary. Their illnesses range from M.S. and congenital cataracts to neurological dysfunction and hyperparathyroidism, incredibly painful maladies which are substantially relieved with marijuana cigarettes that have been provided by the federal government for years. While only these individuals continue to get relief within the law, millions of others cannot. This provocative film explores federal drug policy through the eyes of reform organizations, prohibitionist groups, politicians, drug war critics, scientists, and celebrities in an effort to make sense out of the divisive argument between drug abuse, recreational drug use, and medicine. Star Price serves as executive producer, writer and director with Mark Wolper and Joshua E. Kessler serving as executive producers.

I’m guessing that the delightful Irv Rosenfeld will be part of the documentary. Should be interesting. (By the way, I have no idea when this will actually be aired.)

Libby at Last One Speaks makes a fascinating observation…

When I started this blog it was pretty much Pete and me. Now there’s a dozen really good blogs doing consistent policy reform news. We’re getting louder folks. That can only be a good thing. […]
When I started LOS, there weren’t that many sources much less outlets for drug related news. Now there’s more than a dozen blogs can even cover, but more importantly it’s crossing over into the general political dialogue. Every day you see more and more mainstream political pundits, making the connections between the war on some drugs and the general assault on civil liberties.
Don’t tell anybody, but I think we’re turning a corner towards reform.

I think she’s right.

Just for fun. According to the Boston Herald, the March edition of High Times will rank the Top Ten Stoner Comics. The winners?

1. Bill Maher
2. Doug Benson, co-writer of The Marijuana-Logues
3. Amy Poehler, SNL
4. Sacha Baron Cohen, Da Ali G Show
5. Jack Black/Kyle Gass, Tenacious D
6. Jon Stewart
7. Jim Breuer, Half Baked
8. Sarah Silverman, stand-up
9. Jay Leno
10. Jackie The Joke Man Martling

(Note: I’m pretty sure that the inclusion of comedians on this list is not so much that they are stoners, but that they enjoy pot humor.)

“bullet” Over at The Agitator read what John Tierney has to say. Go read the whole thing. Here’s some snippets…

As the baby boomers age, more and more Americans will either be enduring chronic pain or taking care of someone in pain. The Republican Party has been reaching out to them with a two-step plan:

• Do not give patients medicine to ease their pain.
• If they are in great pain and near death, do not let them put an end to their misery.

The Republicans have been so determined to become the Pain Party that they’ve brushed aside their traditional belief in states’ rights. The Bush administration wants lawyers in Washington and federal prosecutors with no medical training to tell doctors how to treat patients.
[…]
You know Republicans have lost their bearings when they need a lesson in states’ rights from Janet Reno, who considered the Oregon law when she was attorney general. For the federal government to decide what constituted legitimate medicine, she wrote, would wrongly ”displace the states as the primary regulators of the medical profession.”

“bullet” Via US Marijuana Party, check out this sophisticated marijuana grow operation. Impressive.
“bullet” Also at Us Marijuana Party, Steve Kubby has lost his last appeal ane will be deported from Canada to the U.S.
In addition to being a tragedy for the Kubby family, it seems to me that this is the last thing that the U.S. Feds should want. If they put him in jail, how will they take care of his medical needs? If anything happens to him in jail in the U.S., you can bet that a lot of people will be watching.
“bullet” Regulate Marijuana.org is gearing up for efforts to legalize marijuana in Nevada.
“bullet” Medical Marijuana gets new hope in New Mexico

In an unforeseen move, Gov. Bill Richardson on Wednesday night said he will include a medical-marijuana bill on his agenda this legislative session. […] Richardson said in a news release, “After speaking with many seriously ill New Mexicans, I have decided to include this bill on my call. This issue is too important, and there are too many New Mexicans suffering to delay this issue any further.”

“bullet” The first move is positive in Denver’s uneasy relationship with its new marijuana legalization law.

The city on Wednesday dismissed a pot possession charge against the first person arrested after Denver voters backed a measure legalizing small amounts of marijuana. […]
“Denver voters spoke loudly and clearly on this issue, and it looks like Denver officials are listening,” [Footer’s lawyer, Brian Vicente, who also is executive director for Sensible Colorado] said. “The city has recognized there is better use of resources and taxpayers’ money than prosecuting these cases. We hope this will send a message to police that the city attorney views this as futile.”
But prosecutor Greg Rawlings said the dismissal of charges against Footer means no such thing. […]
“I am prosecuting a number of marijuana cases today and will continue to prosecute them,” he said. “These cases are a large part of the docket every day.”

“bullet” In a strange, but potentially important lawsuit, San Diego county is suing in District Court to overturn California’s medical marijuana law, claiming that since federal law trumps state law and because of federal international treaties, the state law cannot stand.
Pretty crass move on the part of the county supervisors, to ignore the will of the people in the state, simply because they don’t like medical marijuana. It could bring up some tricky constitutional issues.
The ACLU is preparing to respond to the suit.