Drug WarRant

This has been reported widely already while I was gone (See Grits, and The Agitator (with not one, but two links to rebuttals), and Hit and Run.)
However, it bears repeating here.
The DEA, at their new JustThinkTwice website, is actually claiming that alcohol prohibition was a success!

A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed—so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto). Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents.

Yes, the DEA is longing for the days when alcohol was illegal. How moronic!
Interestingly, at one of the other sites, a commenter suggested that we are being unfairly critical of the DEA — that it could be interpreted that they were just claiming the simple fact that there was a reduction in use, not that prohibition in its entirety (and with all its attendant problems) was a success.
But that, of course, is nonsense. You can’t ignore the myriad disasters of prohibition and just claim success in a numbers game of use. Particularly when you’re using that to justify continued prohibition in another area.
Just for the sake of argument, however, let’s take a moment and ignore all the violence, corruption, subsidization of criminal elements, uncontrolled dangerous/poisonous substances, collateral damage, increased exposure to youth, etc., etc.
Even if you ignore all that, the DEA’s argument is specious.
First, because they’re picking and choosing their numbers. If you read the Agitator’s links, you’ll see just how much they’re fudging (read “lying”).
Second, because a numbers game of “use” is useless. When prohibitionists tout the importance of, and supposed reason for, prohibition, they usually talk about the dangers and destruction caused by drugs/drug addicts. But when they use the numbers game, they’re actually talking about all drug use regardless of abuse/danger.
In fact, prohibition tends to only reduce casual, non-problematic use — those who prefer to follow the law (even if they disagree with it) and have only a mild interest in using the particular substance. Those who are likely to abuse drugs (or in the case of the earlier prohibition, alcohol) will tend to do so whether it is legal or illegal.
So, even a strong prohibition-fueled reduction in use has insignificant value in terms of actually helping those who need it, or reducing abuse.
Now, take that insignificant value and add back in all the negatives caused by prohibition and, whether it’s attacking alcohol or drugs, you have an inept and cataclysmic policy that destroys everything it touches.

Link

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) — Teens in the handful of states allowing medical marijuana are no more likely to use the drug than those in other states, according to a study released Tuesday.

We already knew this, but it’s nice to have another study confirming it.
Of course, that doesn’t stop the ONDCP from spouting gibberish.

“Misleading messages that harmful substances are somehow ‘good for them’ send teens exactly the wrong message,” [ONDCP’s Tom] Riley said. His statement did not directly address the study’s state-by-state findings.

Uh, Tom… Are you paying any attention to the words coming out of your mouth in the context of this story?
Let’s see… So the study says that the “message” of medical marijuana doesn’t cause teens to use marijuana, yet you still say it is somehow a “wrong” message for them. What does it do? Make them think bad thoughts? Oh, I get it! It’s a wrong message because it makes teens realize that the government’s been lying to them, and they might grow up to become politically active, and cause people like Tom Riley to become unemployed. Ah, yes. A dangerous message indeed.

So here’s the outline:

• 14-year veteran New York Firefighter spends day after day at ground zero pulling out pieces of people — a face, a scalp with hair, an arm…
• Nightmares plague him and he turns to drugs
• Caught once in a random drug test, he’s slated to be fired, losing his pension

This is part of the department’s zero tolerance policy, which doesn’t allow for such silly little niceties such as, oh, I don’t know… maybe helping a brave firefighter who’s been traumatized by a terrorist attack?

Zero tolerance works, officials say, because it is a bracing deterrent to those who do not take the prohibition seriously.

That’s such a load of crap.
Zero tolerance, whether it’s part of this move to fire a firefighter or whether it’s in our schools, is actually a policy that says that it’s OK to toss away the lives of individuals (regardless of the situation) in the pursuit of the “goal” of prohibition.
Zero tolerance also says that we, as a society, are not capable of, or willing to use judgement in evaluating situations.
It’s ugly.
It’s also a betrayal of the entire concept of justice.

Justice: the quality of being just or fair
Just: 1: used especially of what is legally or ethically right or proper or fitting;… 2: implying justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all

Unfortunately, the Zero Tolerance philosophy is ubiquitous. For example:

• Drug Testing is a form of Zero Tolerance. It says that we do not need to evaluate whether an employee is able to do their job. We’ll let it all ride on an often irrelevant drug test.
• Zero Tolerance drugged driving laws have nothing to do with safety
• Mandatory minimums in court are also a form of zero tolerance, leaving no room for evaluating individual circumstances
• The HEA financial aid drug provisions are a form of zero tolerance

There are plenty of other examples.
Zero Tolerance: The Policy Choice for those with Zero Intelligence

It was a wonderful and refreshing extended weekend, brought down only by the depressing news that continued to break through from New Orleans.
It was interesting to discover that, with all the stranded and starving people, they found time to make a jail and fill it, in part, with “addicts possessing small amounts of drugs… One man had mooned a state police car on patrol. ”

I’m doing some camping in Wisconsin and Iowa, with no internet access (or TV or radio…), so talk amongst yourselves (I should be back Wednesday).
Consider this an open thread and a place to pass on any interesting developments in the war on drugs while I’m gone.

“bullet” Via Libby at Last one Speaks comes Pueblo Family Gets $230K For Mistaken SWAT Raid

PUEBLO, Colo. — A Pueblo family who said masked police officers broke into their home without a warrant will get a $230,000 settlement from local, state and federal officials. […]

The settlement called for the city and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to pay the family $100,000 each. The state will pay $30,000.

“bullet” Via TalkLeft comes more on the Utah rave permit

The permit in question now fuels pending legal action against Utah County. Brian M. Barnard, attorney for Childs and the concert promoters, High Point Productions and Uprok Records, said he’ll file a civil-rights suit in federal court. While Barnard has not yet filed a formal complaint, he’s confident the law is on his client’s side. […]

“I don’t think there’s any question that the sheriff misapplied the ordinance and acted improperly,” Barnard said, adding that the raid was discriminatory and an act of censorship. “If individuals break the law, punish them. But don’t assume that everyone who goes to a rap, hip-hop, or electronic music concert is a criminal.” The Sheriff’s Office did not return phone calls.

If enough towns start having to pay huge settlements, maybe they’ll start to wonder if these gung-ho SWAT style task forces are really worth it.

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.