Drug WarRant

All the Maine news outlets are covering the fact that, while final facts are not yet available, 2005 will be the year to see drug deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths. Politicians were quick to explode with wrath:
Link

Gov. John Baldacci took aim at the Bush White House, saying it continued to turn its back on the suffering of Maine families. He noted that federal funding to the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency has been cut by 40 percent. […]
Public Safety Commissioner Michael Cantara also blamed the federal government for “walking away” from its responsibility, citing that the drugs killing Mainers were federally regulated narcotics and were being trafficked across state lines, a federal offense. […]
Maine Attorney General Steve Rowe called Washington’s response to the drug problem “shameful.”

So what do we actually know? There are projected to be 178 drug-related deaths. 140 of them were accidental overdoses. The majority of those were methadone, and the majority of those were from the pill form, prescribed by physicians for pain.
And if we look further…

Physicians have become cautious when prescribing OxyContin because of its potential for abuse, and have switched to drugs such as methadone and morphine for pain, Kim Johnson, director of the Office of Substance Abuse, said.
“The drug of choice is still OxyContin, but it’s not available,” Johnson said.
Hence, methadone and morphine deaths are on the rise.

Oops.
It looks like what they don’t need is more federal government assistance.

… for Actress in a Leading Role – Musical or Comedy Series, for her role as a suburban housewive making ends meet by dealing pot, in Showtime’s ‘Weeds‘, which has been picked up for a second season.
Not a huge surprise to me. She really is outstanding (and so is the show).

I was strolling through the blogosphere looking at drug war-related posts and I stumbled across a blog by Ron Gainey (WRONGAINEY) and yesterday’s post about Risk, Reward, and Paternalism. In it, he quotes an unlinked statement from his friend Daniel Charles regarding the drug war and the paternalistic justification for prohibition that I found interesting.

For any given thing that has no demonstrably irreplaceable good value and which does have demonstrable negative effects to a significant portion of a population of people, there can be no moral justification for permitting it.

Now Gailey describes himself as a quasi-libertarian and does a fairly good job in the rest of the post in refuting this statement through analysis of relative risks, etc., (which is a good trick, since the words “demonstrably,” “irreplaceable,” “good,” “value,” “demonstrable,” “negative,” “effects,” and “significant” are undefined, and who gets to define them is unassigned) but I kept going back to Charles’ statement with a growing sense of outgraged astonishment.

For any given thing that has no demonstrably irreplaceable good value and which does have demonstrable negative effects to a significant portion of a population of people, there can be no moral justification for permitting it.

And quite frankly, I find the notion of even looking at comparative risk analysis to be… odd. My gut reactions were as follows:

1. Such a political philosophy is one of the few justifications I can imagine for actually invading and overthrowing a radical theocracy (assuming that philosophy was held by their government).
2. As a patriotic American, I would fight to the death to prevent the overthrow of our constitution and our system of freedom to such a political philosophy.

Problem is, I can’t just dismiss this, because it appears to me that this kind of thinking is influencing those who have hijacked much of the conservative “movement” in the U.S., including public figures like William Bennett, Mark Souder, John Walters, and others.
Focus on that last section: “there can be no moral justification for permitting it.” This is, in context, saying that there is a moral imperative to use government power to outlaw the action, and even leads to the notion that punishing others is a moral value. Sound familiar?
This is an extremely perverse definition of morality that is nevertheless seductive to many. It’s nice to think that if we pass a law, we’re being moral, but in fact that is not a moral act.
Take the obvious: Murder. If you choose not to commit murder, that is a moral act. If you teach someone else that murder is wrong so that they choose not to commit murder, then both you and they have committed a moral act. If you murder someone, you have committed an immoral act. The act of making murder illegal, on the other hand, may well be an appropriate element of a legal system and may be based on moral principles, but is not itself moral or immoral.
Many people are confused about this and somehow think that making something illegal can, itself, be a moral act, under the assumption that the illegality will reduce the incidence of a supposed immoral action (far from certain), or are confused by the fact that law may sometimes get its inspiration from moral values.
Attempting to legislate morality is not only incorrect, it is potentially dangerous. Those who believe that drug prohibition laws are moral acts will strongly resist alternatives, despite clear facts showing the lack of efficacy of those laws, or the increased harm caused by those laws.
If someone wants to argue with me that drug use is immoral, fine. I may disagree with you, but I accept your right to your own moral views. But don’t ever try to tell me that passing drug laws is a moral necessity.

Link
A Wyoming man was arrested for selling “drug paraphernalia” in his store, but a jury acquitted him in just 30 minutes of deliberation, something that didn’t set well with the Police Chief.

But Police Chief Rich Adriaens worries that jury members looked more at technicalities than the reasonableness of the charges. Adriaens said there’s enough leeway in the law that Gillette residents serving on the jury could have made an important stand against drugs, but they chose to act differently.

“enough leeway in the law” to convict
What a bizarre legal concept.

Look, I took Economics in college at 8 am from a professor who droned in a monotone for 55 minutes. Needless to say, I mostly slept through it. And yet, I still was able to come out of it with a basic knowledge of supply, demand, and elasticity — something that nobody involved in drug policy seems to have gotten.
Via Marginal Revolution, I see that a new paper in the Journal of Political Economy by Gary Becker, Kevin Murphy, and Michael Grossman called “The Economic Theory of Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs” will attempt to explain it to our political leaders.

In an important new study, world-renowned economists–including a Nobel Prize winner and a MacArthur “genius”–argue that when demand for a good is inelastic, the cost of making consumption illegal exceeds the gain. Their forthcoming paper in the Journal of Political Economy is a definitive explanation of the economics of illegal goods and a thoughtful explication of the costs of enforcement.
The authors demonstrate how the elasticity of demand is crucial to understanding the effects of punishment on suppliers. Enforcement raises costs for suppliers, who must respond to the risk of imprisonment and other punishments. This cost is passed on to the consumer, which induces lower consumption when demand is relatively elastic. However, in the case of illegal goods like drugs–where demand seems inelastic–higher prices lead not to less use, but to an increase in total spending.
In the case of drugs, then, the authors argue that excise taxes and persuasive techniques –such as advertising–are far more effective uses of enforcement expenditures.
“This analysis…helps us understand why the War on Drugs has been so difficult to win… why efforts to reduce the supply of drugs leads to violence and greater power to street gangs and drug cartels,” conclude the authors. “The answer lies in the basic theory of enforcement developed in this paper.”

It’s a nod to the sad state of the education of our politicians that I even quote this press release so extensively, instead of saying, “Well, Duh!”

… Al Roker.
That’s right — the Drug Czar’s office has stepped up to the plate and shown off their command of new technology by interviewing a weatherman.
Maybe they decided that they wanted to start off with an authority, to show off their seriousness with facts and science and stuff, and someone in their office said: “Isn’t weather a kind of science?” Or… Maybe they wanted to hit the kids with a popular celebrity, so they asked who’s hot, and the 70-year-old cleaning woman said “I’ve always liked that Al Roker.” Or…
Anyway, it was clearly an interview designed for an audience that never heard the word “podcast.”
We did get some insight into Al Roker’s past drug use…

I tried pot, twice basically in college – and I didn’t like the way I got very subdued and tired – and polished off, I don’t know, a 55-gallon drum of cheetos – and “this isn’t good” – and that was it, it didn’t do anything for me.

And then he addressed the issue of talking to your kids and hypocrisy. At this point in the interview, the discussion had been about marijuana. Notice how at the end of this segment, he realizes that his argument isn’t that strong, so he changes the stakes.

If you characterize it as that – that it was not something that you continue to do – it’s not something that you condone – that you knew it was wrong, but, you know, you tried it, and that was that. I don’t see that as hypocritical.
Now if you’re still doing it and you tell your kids not to – If they see you doing that – you have no moral leg to stand on. To say “Well don’t do that” – it’s like “Do as I say, not as I do.” So that’s a real issue.
And there are those who say “Well, you tell your kids not to drink and yet you maybe have a cocktail” Well, it’s not illegal – and it’s a different – I don’t think you can equate a glass of white wine with meth.

How did comparing pot with hard liquor (cocktail), change to comparing a glass of white (why white?) wine with meth?
I love how drug warriors (and their apologists) treat all illegal drugs as interchangable when it helps their argument. I can’t count the times I’ve heard statements that are essentially like… “Those who say marijuana is relatively harmless are dead wrong. Drugs have consequences. If you don’t believe me, just talk to a mother who lost her son to a heroin overdose.”
So, for switching drugs mid-argument, I call ‘Shenanigans’ on Al Roker.
For interviewing Al Roker on a podcast, I call “Clueless” on the Drug Czar’s office.

As I’ve indicated before, I am strongly opposed to putting Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, primarily because of his track record for being pro-government on criminal justice issues, and deferring to the executive branch when it comes to government versus individual power/rights. We do not need another voice on the Supreme Court willing (and eager) to weaken the Bill of Rights further.
At this point, I despair of anything preventing his successful installation on the Court. The Republicans appear to be anxious to continue their approach of sacrificing principle in favor of lock-step power. And the Democrats have apparently convinced themselves that they’re too weak to do anything about it.
One piece of Alito’s background stirred up the blogosphere a bit today — the situation of Alito’s ruling in the appeal of drug case that involved strip searching a young girl and warrant deficiencies. As I noted earlier, the case is actually a little more nuanced and complex than most bloggers have admitted, but the discussion today went beyond Alito and into the basic concept of the reason for 4th Amendment checks on governmental power, and the false notion of “criminal rights.”
The first part of this discussion came from Jonah Goldberg at National Review

I understand the need for following the procedural niceties, but as a plain moral common sense issue, if you are a drug dealer and keep drugs on the premises with your child, you get zero-point-zero sympathy from me if your kids are searched, warrant or no. It may be wrong for the cops to do it. But you are not a victim for choosing a life where you can rationally expect to expose your kids to far greater risks than a search by a polite cop. The kid’s a victim — of bad parents. [emphasis added]

Glenn Greenwald (a relative newcomer who I’ve really come to enjoy and admire recently) responded with venom:

If you can stomach it, let’s review this, because it really illustrates what is going on in our country. Constitutional safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are nothing more than what Jonah calls “procedural niceties.” While it would be nice and all if the Constitution were adhered to, “plain moral common sense” means that it’s actually unnecessary, even undesirable, to be restricted by such things.
After all, we’re dealing here with people whom the State says it suspects, but has not yet proven, are “drug dealers.” With those people (and, of course, with “suspected terrorists”), anything goes, even before a trial and without any due process of any kind. All of this can be done strictly on the Government’s say-so, even if the Constitutional “niceties” which exist to prohibit such behavior haven’t been complied with. “It may be wrong,” spits out Jonah, but we should do it anyway, because these people deserve it.

Atrios jumps in:

True, I suppose it’s quite outrageous when drug dealers do such things. But that didn’t, you know, happen in this case which is why we require warrants for such things. It’s why probable cause matters. It’s why Jonah needs to go back to 3rd grade civics so that he understands that we’re not a country of collective guilt and the fact that some bad guy somewhere stashed drugs on his kids does not mean we should grant agents of the state the right to strip search all kids, include Jonah’s own offspring, without warrants. Searching the premises, under someone’s bed, is not the same as lifting up a little girl’s skirt.
What country do these people want to live in? Jeebus. What the hell were we supposed tbe fighting the Cold War about again?

Jonah reponds a couple of times, including this item:

[…] And the wall between dictatorship and liberty does not stand or fall depending on whether or not drug dealers have extra legal manuevering room to hide drugs in the pants of their ten year old daughters. [emphasis added]

and here

[…] But I reject the Dershowitzian tactic of claiming that an extremist view of procedural due process and the celebration of legal technicalities — wholly unimagined by the founders — makes you a stronger believer in the Constitution.

Though he claims otherwise, Jonah Goldberg’s statements put him in company with a disturbing group in this country that often act like the Bill of Rights was something the ACLU created in order to set criminals free. While Jonah doesn’t specifically mention it, some of his phrases — “zero sympathy,” “warrant or no,” “whether or not drug dealers have extra legal manuevering room,” “extremist view of procedural due process” — are in league with those who complain about people like me standing up for what they call ‘criminal’s rights.’
Well let me tell you — the only ‘criminal’s rights’ in the constitution are the 8th Amendment “guarantees” against cruel and inhuman punishment. All the rest are printed there to remind the government of the fundamental rights of people — of citizens of the United States — the guilty and the innocent.
People like Jonah see one scumbag get off because of “procedural due process,” and think the system is broken. And yet, it is the extreme care of holding to due process that sets our system of freedom apart. It says, “Yes, the job of the police is harder, and some scumbags may get off, but that’s the price of freedom — the price of a system that says a person is innocent until proven guilty — the price of a system that believes that an individual has the right to be secure in his or her person, house, papers, and effects.
So in effect, the extreme procedural due process, as it relates to our presumption of innocence and our freedom of self and possessions, is an essential part of that “wall between dictatorship and liberty.”

I’ve never quite figured out Dick Morris. He comes off to me as a sleazy political opportunist, yet there are people in Washington who listen to him.
In his OpEd America is shifting leftward published in The Hill, he gives advice to Republicans to recapture the political momentum, including this gem:

As the victory of Evo Morales in Bolivia makes clear, cocaine is concomitant of oil in fueling terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The narcoterrorists use our dependence on black oil and white cocaine to power their anti-American work and terrorist activities. Soon their terror will spread to our shores. Already the cocaine infects our young.
Bush should urge drug testing, with parental consent, in schools in his State of the Union address and put drugs back in play as a domestic issue. Crime is down, but drug use is still a vital Republican issue. Put it back on the agenda.

What a load of disconnected crap! No facts. No attempt to actually link policy to results. All that matters is whether it can be turned into a talking point, and perhaps used to generate fear. But then, that’s how Washington works.
Via California Patriot Blog, who writes:

We need to take a cue from notable Republicans like Milton Friedman, George Shultz, and Gary Johnson, and make ending the War on Drugs part of the Republican agenda. Doing so would not only be Constitutionally correct, but morally correct as well.
If the GOP goes with Dick’s plan then I’m just going to give up and vote Libertarian.

Fun OpEd by NORML’S Paul Armentano in today’s Washington Examiner

Following a string of violent incidents – including a pair of stabbings – between rowdy football fans during the team’s previous games, Giants Stadium officials made the bold move to halt sales of the intoxicant. The rationale for the ban? Jets spokesman Ron Colangelo could not have been more blunt: “It’s for the safety of our fans.”
Alcohol’s long-standing association with aggressive behavior, whether it’s among raucous sports fans or late-night bar patrons, is well-publicized and much debated. Yet, a relevant fact that is often overlooked in this public discourse is that an alternative, almost equally consumed intoxicant, is rarely, if ever, linked with violence – – marijuana. However, unlike alcohol, marijuana is illegal and not only at Giants Stadium.

The whole thing is worth reading — some great factual info about marijuana’s lack of connection to anti-social behavior.

The family of Anthony Diotaiuto (see here, here, and here for background) is still looking for answers, and on Tuesday they filed a lawsuit.

The family of a 23-year-old man killed by the Sunrise Police Department’s SWAT team filed a lawsuit Tuesday saying the city broke public records laws by not turning over documents related to his death. […]
Attorney William Scherer III wrote in Tuesday’s lawsuit that the city of Sunrise illegally denied parts of the family’s first public records requests and ignored three subsequent requests. Attorneys for the family sought police department documents ranging from SWAT policies and training manuals to tactical notes and documents on the raid itself.[..]
There have been discrepancies in the police department’s account of the incident, including whether Diotaiuto pointed a gun at the SWAT team, and the amount of marijuana found at the home. A neighbor also disputed whether SWAT members knocked before raiding the home, as police say.