Drug WarRant

We’ve talked before about the folly of all-out poppy eradication efforts in Afghanistan, but nobody in power appears to understand basic economic principles. With high demand for opium and very few viable alternatives (and no strong infrastructure yet in the country), all that eradication can do is cause the people to oppose the U.S. and their own government. As eradication efforts are stepped up, those criminals who wield the most power or fear will control the distribution and the black-market profits will rise to levels that make the subverting of government officials in a chaotic country like Afghanistan childs play.
Smarter solutions exist. Various sources have suggested that we buy up Afghanistan’s opium for legitimate medical purposes. And the Senlis Council (via TalkLeft) is proposing that solution again and will present a detailed proposal today at Chatham House in London.
And of course, this makes a lot of sense. There are, for example, 130,000 farmers in India who grow opium legally. Why not in Afghanistan?

Bizarrely, that includes… Afghanistan.
The U.S. is spending $780 million on counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan, money that could be spent buying and developing medicines.
But there’s been no indication from the U.S. or British governments so far that such an idea would even be discussed. All the efforts are focus on eradication, just like in Colombia (and that has turned out so well…)
In fact, according to this article, eradication efforts in Afghanistan have recently been expanded to include…. marijuana.

Marijuana earns farmers one quarter of what they get from poppies, but some farmers grew it in order to try to follow the government edict not to grow poppies. The police waited until it was almost ready to harvest.

Isn’t it in our best interests to have stability in Afghanistan? To have farmers able to make a living? Shouldn’t we look at all options?
The Senlis Council is the primary international drug policy reform organization, and they’re starting to be heard (not much here in the U.S., but elsewhere). Here’s hoping that the British, at least, listen to them today.

You may remember me talking about the case of Weldon Angelos — a music producer with no previous record who sold marijuana three times to officers. Because he had a gun (never used or even brandished), his total potential sentence was 63 years. The absolute minimum the judge could sentence him was 55 years (which the judge did, under great protest for the severity of it).
The Denver Post has a good article about the upcoming appeal: Pot-sale case puts focus on mandatory sentences.
For a first offense, a Utahn got 55 years in prison. A Circuit Court appeal says that’s unconstitutional.

Remember the constitution?

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I’d say this qualifies as excessive.

I understand that the court may not wish to get into the never-ending business of drawing arbitrary lines as to what constitutes a cruel and unusual length of sentence. But it would be nice if they’d at least take a look at some of the worst, like this one and tell the government: “What. Are you nuts?”
We also need to get this country into the position where elected officials believe that pushing for longer sentences is a vote-loser. That will probably require getting the public to realize that longer sentences for non-violent offenders means significant financial cost — either in higher taxes or the reduction of spending on other favored projects. Since this administration has introduced the pseudo “no-cost” federal spending regime (unlimited borrowing and spending), it may have to happen at the state level (or when all that borrowing comes back to hit us).

A number of people have already blogged about this:
Check out this AP article by Mark Sherman:

The first reaction I have is a good one and matches the general thinking… See, another example of how the drug war corrupts. Here’s a top drug official in Guatemala who is corrupted by drug profits. At least we caught him and his deputies…
And then my years of watching the drug warriors and what they’ll do kicks in, and I look more skeptically (some may say with more paranoia).
What more does it say about Castillo?

But wait! Look at a different AP article written by Juan Carlos Llorca:

Notice the difference? (I wonder why Mark left out that critical line?) Now it makes you start to think. And all three are pleading innocent.
“…corrupt officials at all levels of government”? Sounds familiar. So what was the Guatemalan government doing?
In the NY Times:

They had corrupt drug officials and sent them here to be arrested? They wouldn’t want to arrest their own officials, huh?
Interesting.
Back to the Llorca article:

Oh, yes. That makes the DEA very happy.
I don’t know what the story is here. But there’s a whole lot that smells bad.
Update: Nice to see I’m not alone. Eric in one of my email discussion groups had similar questions.

A fascinating article in the Tucson Weekly:
Marijuana World: A look at pot: its users, its trade, its cultivation, the research and the anti-prohibition movement by RenÚe Downing.
Very nicely done.

In the current Drug War Chronicle, editor David Borden is looking for the soundbites that make it easier to quickly make the case for ending the drug war. You can never express it all in a single soundbite, but there are lots of soundbites that can be effective (based on the situation and the audience — things like “The drug war puts both drug sales and profits in the hands of criminals.” (Another variant of that for a slightly more open audience is “The drug war puts drug sales, drug safety, and drug profits in the hands of criminals.”)
David got his inspiration from the recent Drug Policy Alliance conference. Maybe even a particular session that Drug WarRant visitor Larry attended. Larry wrote me a very nice email:

Thanks, Larry. There are very effective arguments in those pages. Glad to see they’ve found an audience.
Today, however, I feel like using a different kind of soundbite. Maybe one with expletives. Some would call it alarmist or even hyperbole, but I’d say:

We need to end the drug war because it is destroying our country and our freedom.

I know I have a lot of readers from other countries. I hope they’ll bear with me for this moment. I am a patriot. I believe in my country, its constitution, and the principles of freedom which are supposed to be paramount. I will not (and may not) stand by idly when those principles are being trashed by elements of our government:
“bullet” Today’s item #1: From The Agitator (of course) comes an update on the Troy Davis case. Troy is one of those on my Drug War Victims page. He was killed in 1999, but the lawsuit is just getting started, and the information that is emerging is horrific.
First, go back to the event itself. As Radley notes:

A year earlier:

And now:

Read all of Radley’s piece. It’s shocking and does not fit the America in which I believe.
“bullet” Today’s item #2: From TChris at TalkLeft is this report in the Baltimore Sun.

America?

A reported increase in cocaine prices has naturally caused the Drug Czar to step forward and claim victory in the war on drugs and in the Colombian fiasco in particular.
But while this Knight-Ridder story, picked up by a ton of papers, repeats Walters’ bragging, it also gives the other side, with an overall sense that it’s too early to tell if this means anything.
And the Reuters article quotes Ethan in response:

If it wasn’t for the increase in efforts by a wide range of drug policy reformers showing the failures of Plan Colombia, the press would now be reporting Walters words without a rebuttal.
Little steps.

Radley Balko has a great couple of pieces (1, 2) on the new version of the horrendous Straight programs (see also our discussion about the Semblers last week) called Kids Helping Kids.
The Agitator already has this list, but it’s worth repeating. Check out these warning signs put out by the group (any four means your kid should be enrolled in a torture program):

Has your child….

• seemed depressed
• become rebellious and defiant
• had trouble with the law
• had a bad attitude
• avoided you upon arriving home
• become increasingly isolated
• had a drop in grades
• required extra sleep
• dropped out of favorite activities
• changed friends
• started looking unkempt or unhealthy
• changed image/clothes/personal style
• been caught lying
• possessed unexplained money
• threatened or attempted suicide
• frequently broken curfew
• been fired from work
• come home high or drunk
• destroyed car or property

Do you…

• argue with your spouse about your child’s behavior
• feel anger or dislike for your child
• fear you are a failure as a parent
• “bargain” with your child to change
• compromise your own values
• lower your expectations
• feel frustrated because nothing seems to change your child’s behavior
• cover up for your child
• make excuses for your child
• feel relieved when your child leaves the house
• give money to your child
• fear your child might injure him/herself
• fear your child might injure others
• desire to spend less time at home
• fear your child is out of control

How many of these signs applied to you? I was a preacher’s kid who never got in a bit of trouble (and never even tried alcohol until college), and yet I bet that 12 of these applied to me when I was in high school.
Update: The Onion understands.

In the early history of marijuana prohibition, there were plenty of bizarre stories. There was government expert Dr. James Munch who testified in court, under oath, that marijuana had turned him into a bat (until even Anslinger was embarrassed by his testimony).
Then there was the evidence presented to Congress about the dangers of marijuana:

Surely, you say, that was in the dark ages. We don’t think that way any more.
Jump forward to yesterday: Pit Bulls to be Tested for Marijuana

Ah, yes, marijuana was found in the home. Nothing else could explain why pit bulls would attack people, so it must have been the marijuana. Marijuana eaten by the dogs causing violence. Right. (If anything, it would make them docile and sleepy.)
I’m sure there were other things in that home as well. Bread, flowers, drain cleaner — why not test to see if any of those caused the dogs to become violent?
The level of ignorance involved here is astonishing.

… or another one in your face, Drug Czar!
Via Marijuana Policy Project: Largest-Ever Study of Marijuana, Depression Finds Fewer Depressive Symptoms, Better Mood:

So is this just a small effect that could be open to interpretation?

So how could the drug czar be so wrong? (other than the fact that they like to lie and manipulate data)
It’s the junk science approach that they use. If, for example they study a group of depressed people and find that many of them use marijuana, they’ll link depression with marijuana use. However, it is more likely that depressed people are using marijuana as self-medication for their depression. This study is better, because is takes full populations and looks at the overall effect — and overall, those who use marijuana (whether depressed or not) are less depressed than those who do not.
Earlywine confirms this:

No, I wasn’t at the Drug Policy Alliance convention — I was in a kind of personal computer hell for a few days. Three disconnected events: 1. A separate website I run had its server and two backups fry at the hosting company and we lost everything from late October on. 2. A messageboard I manage (on a different server) for a theatre company was maliciously hacked with all messages deleted — got that mostly restored. 3. On an external hard drive at work, over one Gig of original photographs of mine were mysteriously deleted. We’re still working on trying to recover some of the data.
Enough about that — let’s get back to talking about the drug war. I’ve got the best group of commenters in the world, who have been keeping discussion going here while I’ve been out of action.