Drug WarRant

25 year old Nguyen Van Tuong will soon hang for smuggling drugs to Australia and making the mistake of routing his flight through Singapore (he should have used Travelocity).
TalkLeft has been covering this well, including the strange story of the Singapore hangman.
Over at Crooked Timber, Brian Weatherson questioned Singapore’s justification for hanging and suggested some kind of human rights protest. The majority of the commenters to that post missed the point and mostly seemed to parrot the dual talking points of “Singapore has the right to enforce its own laws” and “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” (I would guess that you could come up with at least a half-dozen non-drug laws that are enforced in other countries to which those same commenters would vociferously object, like some of the extremist Islamist laws enforced against women).
One of the best comments about this story comes from Glen Whitman at Agorophilia:

In other words, if you know that you face death for smuggling drugs, the law itself provides incentive to kill any witnesses? The law itself provides incentive to shoot it out to the death with the police. This is a lesson to Singapore, but also from Singapore.
The same lesson applies to the drug war here, even though we don’t use Darshan Singh’s services. As we have ratcheted up the penalties for drug trafficking over the years, we have, through the law, added incentives for criminals to use force to avoid capture. This increase in the use of force and the inflation of weapons for protection then encouraged law enforcement to increase their use of force. Now we’re stuck in the middle, dodging the bullets. (Other side effects have included the use of children and the poor as mules.)
Inflation of violence is a direct result of our own laws. This statement is not in any way meant to excuse or reduce criminals’ responsiblity for their own violence, but it is essential to note that there are inexorable forces in criminal justice (as a function of economics) that we ignore at our own peril.
When you are driving and you’re caught speeding, you curse to yourself, think about the delay, and the cost of the fine, and how it’ll affect your insurance, and that you’re embarrassed to be caught, and how everyone’s going to be looking at you pulled over on the side of the road, but you pull over anyway, because in the overall scheme of your life, these are minor indignities that you can face and move past. What if that same situation meant that you would lose everything you own and spend the next 55 years in prison? Would you pull over without hesitation?

Link

Morales has made it clear that he wouldn’t side with the drug warriors.

I wonder who the U.S. will send to “monitor” the elections?

Walters isn’t even trying any more. Check out this standard obligatory news release: Drugged Driving as Common as Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Teens. He’ll get some play from the dumber media outlets, but I’m betting most of the majors will pass on it or question it.
Here are a couple of the startling discoveries:

Anyone who was ever a teen since cars were invented will not be surprised to learn that teens might use a car to do something that they can’t do at home. I’m only surprised that it’s the second most popular place.
Then, there’s this one…

This is the best you’ve got?? That is so incredibly weak. This study doesn’t cover such basic details as how recently marijuana was smoked (could have been days), whether it caused impairment, or even… whether the one tested for marijuana was driving, or was a passenger or a pedestrian. I can give you this page of studies about marijuana and driving, and yet the Drug Czar can only come up with the old trauma unit garbage. Come on, John. Give me something hard.
Oh, and by the way, I decided to follow the link to theantidrug to check out the “New Driver’s Kit” (which I never found), but I got distracted by the section of Resources for Faith Leaders that had this gem:

I wonder why I’ve missed all the reports of marijuana smokers dropping dead the first time they use it. Oh, that’s right — because nobody has even died directly from smoking pot. Ever.
“bullet” I know we don’t have Andrea Barthwell to kick around much anymore, but I miss her, and I caught her lying (or at least misleading) again big time today. Even though it’s only peripheral to the drug war, it’s still a whopper and worth discussing.
Check out this Illinois news item:

OK, it gets good here. The fatal 15. Ooh, scary. But wait a second. How do they figure that again? “percent of all traffic fatalities” ??? Does that really mean anything?
So I looked up the statistics in the U.S. Department of Transportations Traffic Safety Report 2004. Sure enough. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities: Rhode Island at 50.6 percent, Illinois at 45.2 percent, and so forth, down to the lowest: Alaska at 31 percent. Problem is that this says nothing about the overall level of traffic fatalities in the state. So I compared Illinois (one of the fatal 15) with Alaska (the supposed safest in this model).
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities per 100,000 population:

• Illinois: 4.75
• Alaska: 4.73

The reason it’s so close? Alaska is a more dangerous state for traffic fatalities than Illinois. It turns out that Illinois is very safe state for traffic fatalities, so even the low amount of alcohol related fatalities show up as a high percentage of total fatalities. Fatal 15? Not a chance.
(Oh, and the definition of alcohol-related fatalities? It’s 0.01 BAC or higher. That’s right.)
So how did this “Fatal 15” crap get started?
We go to the website of the Coalition to End Needless Deaths (END)

That’s right. Barthwell’s group invented it. And what is the purpose of END? From looking at their website, it appears to be a scam to bring in tax-free donations so that Andrea and Thomas can talk to the media once a year about the Fatal Fifteen.
It’s Barthwell. Business as usual.

Could’ve told you this would happen.
Lots of up-in-arms in the blogosphere today over Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity in the Washington Post.

Apparently, CIFA is already reading some blogs, and Atrios went so far as to put out a distress call seeking a libertarian — he’s apparently ready to believe in those black helicopters.
None of this would be possible to the extent that it is now without the past decades of erosion of the rights of American citizens under the excuse of the war on drugs. And during all that time, people sat by and said, “Why should we get worked up over some stoned hippies? It’s not worth diluting our efforts for or against gay marriage and abortion. After all, we don’t deal drugs (sure we smoke some pot and stuff), but we’re not the ones they’re after.”
And when the Justice Department said with each erosion, “Trust us. We’ll only use these powers to get the bad guys,” the nation collectively bent over and accepted it. And now the 4th Amendment is so far up our asses that it’ll take some major surgery (or a DEA agent doing a full cavity search) to get it out again.
And now we also have an administrative mindset that is willing to give an official and public sanction to the notion that torture is OK when needed to get information from the bad guys. Not here. Yet. Trust us.

“bullet” At Dare Generation Diary:

• Link. Just how are school drug zones calculated, anyway? As the crow flies or as the dealer walks? (NY State Court of Appeals goes with the crow)
• Profiting from the Drug War, part 47,283.

“bullet” D’Alliance talks about GOP Support for Industrial Hemp. I take issue with the headline. The hemp bill referred to was introduced by Ron Paul (as much libertarian as Republican) and three Democrats. And then you’ve got a couple of Republicans that are interested in the issue for practical reasons. Perhaps the title should be: “A small assortment of rogue, lilbertarian-minded politicians from both sides of the aisle support Industrial Hemp despite the active antagonism and indifference respectively from the Republican and Democratic parties.”
“bullet” Grits for Breakfast notes what should be obvious, but seems to be missed by our law-and-order prison-complex punishment-oriented criminal justice system:

Earlier this week, I mentioned the Senlis Council’s well-researched and eminently commonsense proposal to license opium production in Afghanistan for medical needs and turn the black-market problem into a legal crop that would support the farmers while reducing the power of the criminal black-market.
So far, there’s been very little response to the actual proposal, although this Australian article noted how quickly international prohibitionists rejected the idea without even adressing its merits.

Right. And your message to your farmers is…?
Part of the Senlis proposal was based on a report from the International Narcotics Control Board…

The Senlis Council proposed increasing supply to lower the cost and make it more available in developing countries. But after their report, the Interntaional Narcotics Control Board changed its tune and claimed there was actually a surplus, and that the lack of morphine availability in developing countries was a question of their countries being unwilling to spend the money, not the high price(!)
It’s almost comical watching these prohibitionists work. One of the arguments against the proposal (this was used by the spokesperson for the INCB) was that increasing the legal supply would increase the risk of diversion of opiates to the black market! Right. We don’t dare divert crops from the black market to the legitimate market because some of that might end up back in the black market!
“bullet” How’s the war going?
In the meantime, some articles have been touting a degree of success in Afghanistan as the number of acres planted with poppies has been reduced (although yield has increased). However, more balanced articles (like this one in the NY Times) report something different.

Of course, nobody has any good alternatives for the farmers (except the Senlis Council, whose proposals get rejected out of hand). And the amount of development assistance available really only makes temporary differences…

What was the problem with the Senlis proposal again?
“bullet” Stupid Reporters.
In a related story, a new UN survey came out regarding drug use in Afghanistan, and the press has been tripping over itself in its eagerness to appear illiterate.
Note this version from Canada.com:
The opening line:

The headline:

Which is it? Users or Abusers? Do you need a dictionary?
Now take a look at the Reuters report (with information supplied by the United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN)):

“Use” or “Abuse,” folks? Make up your mind.

Oh, now we’re talking about addicts? Well, that was the UNODC spokesman talking. How is the reporter covering it?

Treatment of drug users??? What would that entail?
Drug User = Drug Abuser = Drug Addict. What kind of crap reporting is this?
“bullet” Prohibitionists adjust goal line
Over the years, prohibitionists have always wanted to hoodwink people into believing that prohibition actually works, so they have come up with some goal of “winning the war” by a certain year. Weren’t we supposed to be drug free America by 1994 or something? We’ve had several of those “goals” that we’ve completely passed. The truth is that prohibition doesn’t work, so any goal set by them is impossible to acheive.
But perhaps they’re getting smarter and moving the goalpost back. A counter-narcotics working group recently had a meeting in Germany…

So were are the goal posts now?

Drug-free in Afghanistan by 2055. I can’t wait.

I’ve heard of these roadside fishing expeditions before, but this was the first time I’ve encountered one.
I was heading out of town to visit relatives for Thanksgiving on Tuesday morning and discovered that the sheriff had set up at a local rest area (I-55 Funk’s Grove Rest Area at mile marker 149, 10 miles south of Bloomington, Illinois). There were two signs on the roadside before the rest area exit. The first one apparently indicated that there was a roadblock ahead (I quite frankly didn’t pay attention to it), and the next one said “All vehicles subject to search.” The second sign was just 20 yards or so before the rest area exit.
The idea is, of course, that they don’t actually have a roadblock ahead, but they search the cars that exit into the rest area, figuring that anyone carrying drugs will want to take that opportunity to get off and destroy the evidence before hitting the roadblock. The Supreme Court has ruled against drug interdiction roadblocks, but I can’t remember if they’ve heard one of these fake-roadblock/go-after-those-who-avoid-it situations (anyone have the answer?)
As I passed the rest area, I could see cars being stopped as an officer with a dog went around the car sniffing for drugs — perhaps using the horrible Supreme Court ruling in Caballes v. Illinois for guidance. (I’m wondering if the Caballes ruling will result in an increase in these fishing expeditions.) Of course, Caballes was based on a valid traffic stop. Would this kind of stop also be considered valid for a dog sniff that would, by itself, justify a full search?
Now, I can’t report this without pointing out the “stupid” factor. Even assuming you don’t know about this fake-out technique used by the cops, still — how stupid do you have to be to assume that the cops are stupid enough to warn you about car searches while giving you an easy way to get off the road before the roadblock? And yet, I suppose that’s the reason the sign is so close to the exit — not enough time to think it through. All you can do is react.
Unfortunately, relatives and a meal were waiting for me so I couldn’t take the time to stop and check it out — I would have loved to have had a chat with the officers about constitutional rights.
Here’s another question for you: In this situation, could I pull into the rest area and stand on the sidewalk with a sign that read “You are not required to consent to a search’? Since the officers have no evidence that a crime has been committed but are simply fishing, would my free speech rights trump laws against interfering with an officer?
What do you think?
Update: Radley Balko provides excellent background on the status of the Supreme Court thinking regarding these stops.

I’ll be gone for a few days, and while I should be able to get email, I’ll be unable to update the blog. Go to the sites on the left if you get bored — plenty of good stuff there.
If you’d like, read A story for Thanksgiving (Isidro and Teresa Aviles) — my Thanksgiving post from a couple of years ago.
Consider this an open thread. Talk amongst yourselves.

A few months ago, I mentioned the horrible Operation Meth Merchant:

The arrests were for selling legal items like sudafed (in legal quantities), while “knowing” they would be used to make meth. The undercover cops would hit convenience stores run by Indians (who often spoke limited English) and casually mention slang terms like “cooking” to refer to meth — something the foreign clerks didn’t even understand. A stupid law, a stupid sting, and a gross injustice.
Now the ACLU is taking on the case:

I hope the ACLU prevails and all 44 cases are dismissed. That still would not be justice. The government cannot be allowed to get away with such blatant abuses of citizens’ rights.

“bullet” Check out this AP story from North Carolina: Former judge calls drug war a ‘failure’

An entire article talking about the costs of prisons and how reducing sentences and changing how we deal with the drug war could save money. And without the usual irrelevant obligatory quote from some sheriff saying “But what about the message we’re giving to children?”
Hmmm… is this starting to work as a pocketbook issue?