Drug WarRant

Not a very strong headline, but…
Dare Generation Diary reports that reform to the horrid HEA (Higher Education Act) financial aid provision (that denies financial aid to students with a drug conviction) passed the Senate yesterday (as part of the spending bill in that 51-50 vote where Cheney broke the tie).
Now, first of all, there isn’t enough praise that can be given to the efforts of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. These folks have worked tirelessly for years, developing partnerships, getting universities to pass resolutions, lobbying directly with Congress, etc. to make inroads in this issue. And they’ve taken on the worst of the drug warriors (including Souder) to do so.
Unfortunately, the celebration can only be partial. First, the spending bill itself is far from certain to be passed — since extra provisions were inserted in the Senate version, it has to go back to the House, and the House probably won’t be back in session until late January. The bill only passed the House by about 6 votes last time, so expect some drama.
Second, even if/when the HEA reform provision is passed (as I expect it will be eventually), it’s still a hollow victory. It only exempts those who had a conviction prior to attending college. Any drug conviction while in college will end financial aid. The entire provision should have been repealed — this kind of penalty doesn’t exist for anything other than drug use. It targets poor people who smoke pot. (Surprise, surprise.) Someone who isn’t rich, who gets caught passing a joint at a party, loses their financial aid and ends up not getting an education, regardless of how well they’re doing in school. How does that help them or society?
Support SSDP and help them continue their fight against the HEA provision.

Yesterday’s Lima News (Ohio) and Ft. Wayne News Sentinal (Indiana) editorials discuss the spying business and bring up the 4th Amendment…

Nice to see editors remembering the Fourth Amendment, noting its importance, and recognizing that it’s been weakened by the war on drugs.

More stupidity.

This is one of these new cases of charging someone simply because there were traces of tetrahydrocannabinol in the blood (Ehret claimed he had smoked the day before), without any indication of impairment.
But here’s the kicker. Check out this quote by idiot District Attorney Paul Bucher:

???
Does he even have a clue as to the words coming out of his mouth?

In Kenner, Louisiana, a tragedy happened.
Rebecca Doussan (age 26) and her twin sister Rachel were injecting cocaine. Rebecca left the apartment to get some more, and when she returned, discovered her sister drowned in the bathtub, with the water still running and the bathroom door locked.

Now Rebecca is being charged with 2nd degree murder for supplying Rachel with drugs which “”turn out to be the direct cause of death.”
Can someone tell me what the point of this prosecution is?

• Punishing Rebecca? She was punished more by the death of her twin sister than any jail sentence could possibly hope to accomplish. It’s also not like there’s any question that Rachel took the cocaine willingly.
• Deterrance? How can this law or prosecution thereof provide any deterrance? Will someone think “Oh, I’d better not give my sister drugs because if she dies I could get in trouble.”? Even assuming anyone knows about this odd provision, they’re not going into a drug experience expecting death as an option, so deterrance is out.
• Providing closure to the crime victim and their family? Oh wait, that’s right, this law is punishing the “crime victim’s” family.
• Using up excess tax funds lying around by prosecuting and jailing Rebecca?

It’s just stupid.

Will Washington engage Morales? by Jim Lobe is a very interesting article about the challenges faced in Bolivia-U.S. relationships, with Morales in charge.
Analyst John Walsh notes:

Apparently, there are some in the State Department who are smart enough to be willing to show some flexibility in this area, including top Latin American aid Thomas Shannon, who recently replaced hard-liner Roger Noriega.
But the State Department will have to contend with the hard-core drug warriors in Congress as well as the ONDCP and DEA, and the knowledge that if flexibility is shown in Bolivia, everybody down there is going to want some.

If the U.S. doesn’t work with Morales, we could end up with a growing block of Latin American countries hostile to the U.S. If the U.S. does work with Morales, we could see a complete shift in the Latin American drug war dynamic.
Fascinating.

Those of us involved in drug policy reform have seen the continual destruction of the 4th Amendment in the name of the drug war and we have shouted until we were hoarse, as the general population turned a blind eye to law enforcement and the federal government continuing to expand their “tools.” And we watched as those tools were turned on the innocent and used to entrench and expand a policy that treats American citizens as criminals.
911 was a tragedy in many ways. In a bizarre twist, it was a tragedy for the future of freedom in this country because of the tastes and lusts of the federal police system. Now there was a new justification for more “tools”: terrorism.
The recent revelations of warrantless spying on American citizens by the NSA under the express authorization of the President is horrifying, although unfortunately not very suprising. President Bush has admitted to the particulars…

Spying on people to protect their civil liberties? Sort of like raping someone to protect their virginity.

Now in everything I’ve read so far, including the statements by Attorney General Gonzales, I don’t see any way that the program could be considered legal unless (as seems to be their argument):

1. The President is, by nature of being President, exempt from all laws (except for those related to blow jobs). And if that’s not enough…
2. The Congress, when authorizing the use of force against terrorists, by implication revoked all previous law and the Constitution as it relates to the President.

Right.
Sigh
They don’t even try very hard to justify taking away rights anymore.
The thing is that the system was already so easy for the government to use. You just go to a secret FISA judge (often referred to as a rubber-stamp judge) and get a warrant (almost never turned down). If you don’t have time, start your spying and get the warrant later (within 72 hours).
The spying they are doing simply means that they don’t even want a judge looking at it or knowing that they’re doing it. Why? Because they’re so embarrassed? Or because the judge might balk at the scope of the investigations? Hmmm…

Links to terrorist organizations. And what does the federal government consider terrorism?
“bullet” During the 2002 Superbowl, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) aired two thirty-second ads targeted at young Americans who do drugs.æ One of the ads asked, “Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you.”
Links to terrorism. Every person in America who has smoked pot?
“bullet” When Orin Hatch introduced the Victory Act (to add to the Patriot Act) in 2003, it was sub-titled:

Narco-terrorism. A big new word since 911.
“bullet” The DEA’s traveling museum exhibit: Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You
“bullet” In the recent attempt to extend the Patriot Act (which already has been used to a great degree for drug investigations), a provision was inserted relating to meth. How was that appropriate?

The war on terrorism at home. Has a nice ring to it if you’re looking for more tools to use on the American citizen.
The thing is, of course, that we have no idea how this spying has been used. And that’s the point. We are put in the position of having to trust one source. Without even a friendly judge we don’t have anyone looking out for the American people who can say, “Whoa, that’s going too far.” (Anybody who’s been involved in retail sales or auditing knows the critical importance of the two-person rule. That’s what checks and balances in our system are all about.)
So we’re left to speculate. And given the information above, it doesn’t take much to start looking for your tin-foil hat.
Take the case of Marc Emery, for example. A Canadian with many ties, financial and otherwise, to people in the states. A Canadian who sold seeds to a relatively harmless plant. A Canadian that the DEA really wanted to nail. And after months of investigations, they had him arrested.

Gee, I wonder if any American citizens’s communications with Marc Emery (including those of a current candidate for Governor of Alabama who publicly and proudly worked with Emery) were part of this warrentless spying?
We need to join with everybody in every part of the political spectrum to stop this intrusion on our rights.
And for those of you who “trust President Bush to do the right thing,” I urge you to consider that these powers, if not stopped by Congress and the people, will never be given up by any administration. Imagine your worst nightmare as President and then imagine them with this unchecked power.

You can bet they’re not happy in the U.S. Drug War HQ today.
Link

Morales has been a strong advocate of developing and marketing legal uses for the coca plant — the plant that has been used safely for centuries — for chewing, tea, soft drinks, toothpastes, medicines, etc. (Remember where Coca-Cola got its name and its original kick?)

Well, I doubt he’ll be able to live up to the “zero cocaine” boast, but if he succeeds in making coca a viable crop for commercial purposes (he’s even talking about exports), then he should be able to go far in reducing the power of narco-trafficking and the production of cocaine in his country (through both reducing demand within the country, and reducing the comparative incentives for farmers to work with criminal traffickers).
Note: Two years ago, I mentioned that denying Morales a visa was a boneheaded move by the U.S. I’ll stay with that assessment of our foreign policy.

So much going on, I wish I had time to post right now.
“bullet” The Agitator is still working the Cory Maye story.
“bullet” The converstaion with DAMMAD’s Steve Steiner continues at Dare Generation Diary
“bullet” Federal Judge Calls DEA’s View of Hemp ‘Asinine’ (no kidding!)
“bullet” Feingold notes that the sneak and peak provisions of the Patriot Act are mostly used to go after drug cases. (It’s not really about terrorism — it’s about going after our own citizens.) Add the fact that a meth bill was added to the Patriot Act, and it becomes sickeningly transparent that the politicians don’t really care about terrorism, but like having it around to use as a club to scare people into giving up rights.
At the same time, several major media sources revealed that the Bush administration may have been illegally spying on American citizens for several years, and Congress is asking for an investigation.
Perhaps in part because of this, the Patriot Act extension was temporarily derailed yesterday as the Senate failed to invoke cloture (the ending of discussion), but Frist at the last minute switched his vote to no (knowing it was losing) so he can bring it up for a vote again at any time. There will likely be some arm twisting going on.
What will happen? Is it possible for the American public to rise up and say “We won’t give up our rights any longer.”?

Mark Kleiman misses it again. He’s at a conference on “drug markets and violent crime.” He reports:

Now this is interesting. And it’s fascinating to see cigarettes in this equation, as New York has one of the most (if not the most) drastic cigarette taxes in the country. New York State is 8th in the country with $1.50 per pack in taxes, and New York City adds an additional$1.50, bringing it to $3 per pack in taxes.
But now Mark tries to oddly use the cigarette example as a way to stop… well… people like me.

Does that suggest perhaps that the amount of tax has to be taken into consideration? I mean, Mark even said it: “…since a high tax…”
Not when you’ve got a blind spot that you can drive a truck through. Even while admitting both the “high tax” and the “one limit” qualifiers, he dismisses legalization and regulation out-of-hand.
His conclusion?

The right policy response isn’t obvious? Yeah, it sure is tough to figure out. Let’s see…

• Strict Prohibition: Too extreme.
• Light Prohibition: Doesn’t get them off the streets.
• Extemely High taxation: Encourages black markets.
• ???:

Nope. Mark can’t quite come up with anything to put in that fourth option.
(Here’s a hint, Mark. There are many places in the country where cigarette smuggling isn’t a black-market item. You might want to take a look at what happens when the tax rates aren’t extreme.)

Here’s a request for input from all of you. One of the most annoying tricks used by drug prohibitionists is the old “What message would that send to the children?” used in opposition to any drug policy reform, usually when the facts are against them.
I would like to put together a page of actual messages that we send to children by continuing prohibition as it exists.
Things like…

• “Lying is OK when adults are talking about drugs.”
• “Our interest in what’s good for the family is less important than our desire to punish.”
• “If you make a mistake regarding drug use, we’d rather have you die from it than have information that might save your life.”
• “If you make a mistake regarding drug use, we’re going to make sure that your friends are too afraid to get help that might save you.”
• “If you’re going to use drugs, we want to make sure that you get them from a criminal, with uncertain purity and dosage.”
• “We’re really hoping that heroin addicts will get HIV and hepatitus from shared needles and die. That’s why we won’t allow needle exchange.”
• “You have no rights. We can come and test your blood or your urine or search you whenever we feel like it. You’re property.”
• “We use sick people as a tool for our political purposes. We don’t care whether they are in pain or die from a lack of medicine.”
• “We sit in Washington drinking martinis and thinking up ways to destroy the lives of kids who like to smoke pot.”
• “We’ll destroy the livelihoods of poor farmers and decimate their crops in order to make the drug dealers and drug warriors richer.”

In comments, add your own, or adjust the wording of some that I’ve given.