Drug WarRant

Via Jacob Sullum at Hit and Run…
The government’s new “cool” anti-meth web site prominently links to Meth is Death, which lists these “facts”:

• 1 in 7 high school students will try meth.
• 99 percent of first-time meth users are hooked after just the first try.
• Only 5 percent of meth addicts are able to kick it and stay away.
• From the first hit to the last breath, the life expectancy of a habitual meth user is only 5 years.

So let’s do the math. According to census figures, there are 17 million high school students. That means that 2,428,571 of them will try meth and 2,404,285 of those will be instantly hooked. Five percent will be able to kick the habit, but the rest (2,284,070) will die in five years.
If this had any grounding in reality, it really would be an epidemic of unprecedented proportions.
But of course, none of those numbers are real (in fact, even the website contradicts itself constantly). It’s just more hype. More meth madness.
Remember, meth is a problem. [Note to Mark Kleiman: I am not claiming that meth is a non-problem.] But meth madness propaganda is potentially more dangerous. Just as crack hysteria caused a series of laws in the 80’s that led to the incarceration of horrific percentages of our black population, meth hysteria could do similar damage in the future. (Not to mention that fact that nobody who does drugs is likely to believe any real cautions from a government that lies so obviously and consistently.)

So it’s been about a month since the administration got raked over the coals by some representatives for not spending enough time dealing with meth, and it got picked up in the media.

Just enought time to come up with a catchy operation name, whip up a fancy logo, and tell all the drug task forces around the country to hold off on any meth lab busts they have so it can all be part of Operation Wildfire.
And today they announced:

WASHINGTON, D.C.–Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Karen P. Tandy today announced the results of the DEA-led “Operation Wildfire,” the largest nationally coordinated law enforcement initiative designed to target all levels of the methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution chain in the United States and continue the fight against the spread of methamphetamine. This unprecedented law enforcement effort involved over 200 U.S. cities and resulted in the arrest of 427 individuals.

Notice that the release is missing the usual DEA language talking about how many months of investigation were involved (probably because it was less than one).
For a thrown together effort, Tandy really laid it on thick:

“This historic enforcement effort illustrates our commitment to extinguishing this plague and protecting innocent Americans from the harmful ripple effects meth leaves behind.”

As usual, Walters was also around to pretend that the efforts would actually change something.

“The enforcement actions announced today provide a shock to the system of meth trafficking and production,” ONDCP Director John Walters said.

Too bad these people don’t have real jobs. Their boss would see through this PR BS in a heartbeat.
That Operation Wildfire name is catchy though. And oddly appropriate for the DEA. It conveys the sense of an unplanned out-of-control force that indiscriminately destroys everything in its path.

Keep up with the latest at Music Versus Guns (new site to deal with this attack), and UTRave (message board).

Drug warrior Robert Charles has an Op-Ed in today’s Washington Times. He spouts a lot of random nonsense that has absolutely no meaning at all, and then makes this suggestion:

As Afghanistan staggers under a heroin trade that could end democracy, why not go to the heart of the problem and find common ground? Why not build on the absolute moral overlap between Sharia Law’s opposition to heroin and our own moral opposition to drugs and drug-funded terrorism?

In one way, he’s right. There is common ground between the drug war moralists in this country and some of the extremism that can come from Sharia. Both would rather punish drug users than actually consider drug policy that might work.
Is this what we’re fighting for? So our extremists can unite with their extremists to impose a warped moral judgement on the rest of us?
Oh, and by the way, Robert Charles is lying. As he full well knows,

Drugs don’t fund terrorism, prohibition does.

Link

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that his government may ask the United States to extradite U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson to Venezuela for suggesting American agents should kill him.

[Note: Robertson made the threat after Chavez kicked out the DEA for spying.]
There’s a reasonably good argument that there’s sufficient reason to consider Pat Robertson’s statement a violation of U.S. law.
Now I personally don’t think that Robertson should be extradited to Venezuela (as much as the prospect appeals to me).
But a country that would claim that Canada must extradite Marc Emery for selling plant seeds can hardly be on firm moral ground in refusing to extradite someone who calls for the assassination of a foreign leader on national television.

Shorter Mark A.R. Kleiman

Jack Shafer is dangerous and wrong, and I’m going to prove it by completely agreeing with every point that he makes.

How bizarre.
Jack Shafer says that crack was a problem and that meth is a problem, but we don’t help the problem by over-hyping. Mark Kleiman says that Shafer is full of it and that while we don’t help the problem by over-hyping, we must recognize that crack was a problem and meth is a problem.
Someone needs to teach Kleiman how to read an entire article.
Kleiman says that Shafer’s “whole thesis [is] that a non-problem is being hyped into a problem.” OK, let’s see…
Shafer about crack:

Lives were lost and families ruined, but as god-awful bad as crack was, it was rarely as bad as the press, government, and the rest of the drug-abuse industrial complex made it out to be. [emphasis added so Mark can see it]

Where did he say it was a non-problem? Not there. In fact, he called it “god-awful bad.” OK. Maybe it’s when Shafer approvingly quoted Newsweek:

“The truth is bad enough; there’s nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost, by hyping the dangers of drugs.” [emphasis added so Mark can see it]

Or maybe Shafer considers meth a non-problem:

Before my in box floods with e-mails accusing me of endorsing methamphetamine, let me extend my strongly worded advice to all: Don’t use this drug. Don’t, don’t, don’t. Don’t.

Somehow Shafer’s “whole thesis” reads a bit differently to me.

Well, I just finished my six-weekend run of my show in Chicago. Was pretty busy over the past couple of days with strike and everything. Looks like a lot of interesting stuff happened in the past two days.
“bullet” Grits for Breakfast has the report on how the states do in incarcerating marijuana smokers. Unsurprisingly, Texas has the lead.
“bullet” Libby at Last One Speaks compliments me, and then proceeds to show me up with a bunch of great posts. Go read. Including:
“bullet” AARP piece on the DEA’s war on pain relief.
“bullet” Tierney does it again. Marijuana Pipe Dreams

D.E.A. officials have already shown they’re quite capable of persecuting someone who uses marijuana to deal with AIDS, and they may well be even more eager to go after someone who encourages research into their least favorite drug. When it comes to marijuana research, the federal policy is “Just Say Know-Nothing.”

“bullet” Surprise. Surprise. (Via Radley Balko.) Newsweek declares Colombia a Failed ‘Plan’
“bullet” Liberals used to care? Jacob Sullum notes:

The drug policy scholar Harry Levine has done some digging in The New Republic’s new online archive and uncovered evidence that liberals used to get upset about marijuana arrests. For those of us who have become accustomed to a New Republic whose editors are at best indifferent to the injustices perpetrated in the name of a Drug-Free Society, even as annual marijuana arrests have reached record levels, these reminders of a time when they cared about such things are poignant.

At New Haven Register: Family wants answers after man’s death in SWAT raid

Since his 23-year-old son, Anthony, was laid to rest Aug. 13, Andrew Diotaiuto has returned repeatedly to his grave at North Haven’s All Saints Cemetery.

He sometimes makes two or three trips a day from his home in East Haven.

Burying a child is always painful, but the last moments of his son’s life are especially troubling. […]

“Why did they do this to my boy?” is the question on Andrew Diotaiuto’s mind, according to his sister, Marie Notarino of Branford.

For those who have not followed the story of the death of Anthony Diotaiuto, see earlier posts here and here.

The family wants answers.

“They’re upset about what happened and want an explanation,” Kevin Boyd, a spokesman for Conrad Scherer, a law firm that represents Whittier.

It appears that this story is one that is not going to go away quietly (and I’m going to do what I can to make sure we continue to talk about it).

Television and print media in Florida have closely followed the story. It also has taken on a life in Internet blogs, where some see it as another call to change the nation’s drug laws.

Good. They noticed.
I wonder if that paragraph got people searching the internet for this story, and if so, whether that’s what brought commenter joe carrol. He’s apparently not completely up on navigating blogs, so he left this comment on an unrelated post.

Like they knew it ws a bb gun! Bottom line is he was knowingly breaking the law and armed himself. The police were doing there job! I know he was a nice boy . They all are after things like this happen He wasn’t an angel. He was an armed drug dealer! If he wasn’t, none of this would have happened. Parents, point to this as a reason why your children shouldn’t get invovved in drugs. I doubt that you would have done anything differently if you were in there situation.I don’t want to see anyone killed, but don’t act like he did nothing wrong!

Joe seems to think that merely breaking the law entitles police to break into your home and shoot you. Joe, have you ever gone over the speed limit? You know, I don’t know many angels (I know some that claim to be, but they’re usually the worst). But calling him an armed drug dealer? How does that fit with a young man who is working two jobs and is living with his mother?
The issue here is not whether Anthony broke a law. The issue is really how law enforcement enforces (with a side issue that the law itself is wrong). You say “I doubt that you would have done anything differently if you were in there situation.” Well, that’s just not true. Because what I would have done differently is never participate in that kind of home invasion (even if it meant getting fired). It’s wrong.
No, the police weren’t doing their job. Their job is to serve and protect. At sunrise, in Sunrise, on August 5, they forgot.

Via TalkLeft comes Reefer Madness in the 8th Circuit by Doug Berman.

The defendant in Chauncey, as a result of a criminal history leading to his classification as a career offender, received a sentence of 100 months after being convicted of possessing with intent to distribute less than two ounces of marijuana. According to Judge Lay’s dissent, “Chauncey’s undisputed purpose was to help [his friend] obtain marijuana to alleviate the painful effects of her multiple sclerosis.”

Excellent comment on this by Aaron over at Sentening Law and Policy:

When Robert Lee Chauncey was arrested, he didn’t resist, he cooperated with the police and told the truth. Unfortunately it seems that his honesty and forthright behavior had no bearing on his sentencing whatsoever. In fact it seems to have worked against him and help consolidate the the prosecution’s case under the letter of the law.

Do we really want to see individuals who are apprehended with a few ounces of marijuana shooting it out with the police because they don’t want to spend the next decade in prison. That will be the likely consequence of these types of decisions.

The Provo Daily Herald discusses the permit issue for the attacked Utah rave. Why it took until today for this detail in reporting to be achieved is beyond me.

While the debate rages over the level of force police used to quell a party Saturday in Spanish Fork Canyon, the crucial legal question has shifted. Organizers may or may not have obtained a mass-gathering permit from the Utah County Commission — but did they need one?

[…]In addition to the health permit ensuring portable toilets, food and other health concerns, Utah County Code 13-4-2-1 mandates a security-related permit for any “anticipated assembly of 250 or more people which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for 12 or more consecutive hours.”

The electronic dance beats began thumping at 9 p.m. Saturday in the Diamond Fork area and thrived for more than two hours before 90 fully armed SWAT members from various area teams swarmed the crowd of roughly 300.

Had authorities permitted the party to continue, event promoter Brandon Fullmer of Salt Lake City-based Uprock Records said the party was scheduled to conclude at 6:30 a.m. Sunday — a couple hours short of the limit set for the permit. Privately contracted security personnel as well as the sound technician (from Salt Lake-based Performance Audio) both confirmed they were contracted for that same time period. Fullmer and landowner Trudy Childs have retained a Salt Lake attorney who has filed formal legal requests for copies of all related documents from the health department, county attorney and commissioners.[…]

Nonsense, countered Utah Sheriff Jim Tracy. Based on 700 presold tickets and organizers’ anticipated crowd of thousands, he said authorities quite reasonably expected partygoers to linger to 9 a.m. and beyond.

Of course, Tracy has quite a history of poor judgment.
Note: Check out the picture in the first article. Looks like a gorgeous place for a rave.