Drug WarRant

While waiting for the Supreme Court decision in Raich, it’s still fun to do a little speculating. So I was interested to read Mike’s post at the Ashcroft v Raich category of the Crime and Federalism blog, discussing the government’s market argument.
While Mike disagrees with the reasoning of the market argument, he claims that it will prevail with the Justices (9-0 or 8-1). Here’s how he describes it:

1. Congress has chosen to enter the broader market of regulating controlled substances.æ Once of these controlled substances is marijuana.
2. Every time a person purchases medical marijuana, he does not turn to the illicit drug market.æ Because fewer people purchase drugs illegally, demand for illegal drugs decreases. This decreased demand causes the prices to go down.æ In a similar vein, Judge Posner observed: “[L]aw enforcement activity raises the cost and hence price of illegal drugs and as a result of the price increase reduces their consumption.”
3. Since the price of illegal marijuana has decreased, people who could not have afforded marijuana, can afford the reduced price.æ Thus, there are more drug users.
4. Congress has a legitimate interest in keeping drug prices high (as part of its scheme to keep drug usage low).
5. Therefore, Congress may regulate non-commercial marijuana use to keep prices high, and thus demand, low.

Strangely, this is a fair representation of the government’s market position, which I find completely absurd. Here, for example, is an exchange during the oral argument:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: If we rule for the Respondents
in this case, do you think the street price of marijuana
would go up or down in California?

MR. CLEMENT: I would be speculating, Justice
Kennedy, but I think the price would go down. And I think
that what — and that, in a sense, is consistent with the
government’s position, which is to say, when the
government thinks that something is dangerous, it tries to
prohibit it. Part of the effort of prohibiting it is
going to lead to a black market, where the prohibition
actually would force the price up. And there is a sense
in which this regulation, although not primarily designed
as a price regulation — the Controlled Substance Act, I
think, does have the effect of increasing the price for
marijuana in a way that stamps down demand and limits the
— and in a way that reduces demand. And I think that’s
all consistent with Congress’ judgement here.

Yep, very similar. The thing is, for Mike’s prediction to hold, it seems to me that the Justices would have to have very thick skins considering how ridiculous they’ll look.
Consider this. For the market argument above to hold true, you must accept the following:

1. The government’s strategy requires that medical marijuana patients purchase marijuana from criminals. If grandma in her wheelchair doesn’t go out to the corner and score some pot, then Congress’ legitimate interest will be undermined.
2. If the government’s strategy requires more people to use marijuana to keep the prices high (so they can reduce consumption), then any success would automatically be a failure. If they keep consumption high, thereby raising prices, then consumption will be reduced, but that will lower the price, which will increase consumption. Oh, No!

Surely, the Supreme Court Justices must have a little bit more sense of self-worth than to actually write an historic commerce clause ruling in support of such a ridiculous circular argument? I would hope so.
Now this doesn’t mean that the government can’t legitimately use the argument in other situations that price increase is a desired means toward reducing consumption. For example, they could argue that crop eradication increases prices, thereby reducing consumption. But they can’t legitimately argue that they need people to use illegal marijuana in order to keep prices up, to reduce consumption.
At least, not without educated people laughing in their faces.

One of yesterday’s entries on the drug czar’s blog:

The Red Lake Shooter and Drugs

Some disturbing content on the Red Lake shooter’s blog has come to light. Jeff Weise, the teenager who allegedly shot and killed 9 people at Red Lake High School, Minnesota wrote, “I’m nothin’ but your average Native American stoner. I’m mellow half the time, mostly natural, but mostly drug induced as well. I’m not a junkie, or an alcoholic, MJ is my gal’ of choice.”

Here’s the article referenced (annoying registration required).
John Walters, do you really want to go there? “Disturbing content…” Oh yeah, let us connect the dots and say that marijuana caused him to shoot up the school?
Of course, this was a long article and you found that little reference from one of his older writings buried in it. Let’s get a sampling of a few other things in that article.

He was taking large doses of the anti-depressant Prozac, which has been connected to violence in other youths, some said. He frequented a neo-Nazi Web site and admired Hitler. …

“My mom used to abuse me a lot when I was little,” he wrote on one page. “She would hit me with anything she could get her hands on, she used to drink excessively too. She would tell me I was a mistake, and she would say so many things that its hard to deal with them or think of them without crying.” …

On July 21, 1997, Weise’s 31-year-old father committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest; some members of the band have said he was involved in an armed standoff with police when he did it. …

On March 5, 1999, his mother was a passenger in a car driven by Elizabeth May Jourdain. They were in Shakopee and it was about noon when Jourdain ran a red light and slammed into a tractor-trailer making a left turn.

Jourdain was killed and Joanne Weise suffered a serious injury that left her brain-damaged. After recuperating from her injuries, she had to be placed in an assisted-living home where, Jeff would later write, she “had to re-learn how to tie her shoes.” …

“On anti-depressants. Seeing a therapist… That’s about it. I got a brand new pair of cuts on my wrists that are gonna turn into beautiful scars some day.” — An excerpt from Weise’s profile at yahoo.com

Oh sure. It was the marijuana.
Harry J. Anslinger, a liar and a racist who was one of the prime contributors to marijuana being illegal today, used to spread false stories about a young man who killed his entire family while on pot. Walters must just be trying to emulate his idol.

The Las Vegas Review Journal is justifiably suspicious about this atrocity:

Editorial: Metro cop planted drugs in suspect’s car
Sheriff says suspensions will suffice

While officers were in the process of arresting local resident Mark Lilly last July on suspicion of selling harmless legal substances and claiming they were narcotics, an official police spokesman now admits, canine officer David Newton placed real controlled drugs in Mr. Lilly’s vehicle. He has since contended he did so “as a training exercise” for his dog.

It seems pointless to ask whether contaminating active crime scenes is an accepted time, method, or location for a canine “training exercise.” A better question might be what Officer Newton was doing carrying narcotics to an active crime scene in the first place. Has he been charged with possession of those narcotics? Were they of a quantity that would get anyone else automatically charged with “possession with intent to sell”?

Police next expect us to believe officer Newton “forgot” he had placed the drugs in the car, whereupon officers Kevin Collmar and David Parker searched the car, found the planted drugs, and charged Mr. Lilly with possession of actual controlled drugs without proper licenses or prescriptions.

Read the whole article. It’s really bizarre. It’s also scary. And regardless of whether the officers were corrupt or somehow criminally stupid and negligent, suspension is insufficient.
There can be no tolerance when it comes to the issue of law enforcement officers planting drugs on people. We put our freedom in their hands.
Any one of us could find ourselves in prison for years based solely on a corrupt officer planting drugs. In particular when you have multiple officers testifying against you (as in this case) – what court will believe you’re innocent?
You have to make it clear. In this case, Sherriff Bill Young should be fired for not firing the officers, and then they should be fired. Period.

Check out this excellent rebuttal at Hit and Run to yesterday’s stupid New York Times article on medical marijuana.

Yesterday, in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s imminent decision in Ashcroft v. Raich, the medical marijuana case, The New York Times ran a bizarre story that suggests cannabis is more likely to drive a patient insane than relieve his symptoms. “There remains much confusion over whether marijuana in fact has any significant medical effect,” declares Times reporter Dan Hurley. The confusion, it turns out, is mostly in his own mind. …

Dan Hurley’s article tomorrow in the New York times is a strange, unbalanced article about medical marijuana, giving a lot of space to opponents, and then claiming there isn’t enough “clinical” evidence to support medical marijuana.
The problem is that he can’t even read his own article.
Take a look first at some of the “problems” he mentions (or quotes):

Yet there remains much confusion over whether marijuana in fact has any significant medical effect. … But the reality is, we don’t know. …While little scientific evidence supports such a lifesaving role for marijuana … There’s not been a randomized, controlled trial demonstrating that marijuana or any cannabinoid is any more effective in controlled seizures than a placebo … We have a product that has been legitimized without any evidence of efficacy. … researchers said that the results should be interpreted cautiously, because the study had been intended to test only short-term benefits … Showing clinical benefit in humans has been an elusive beast. … But the clinical studies just aren’t there. …

Boy, you’d really get the notion that clinical studies haven’t supported medical marijuana, wouldn’t you. But then he says:

In 1997, Dr. Donald Abrams, an oncologist and assistant director of the Positive Health Program at the University of California at San Francisco, became the first doctor authorized by the National Institute of Drug Abuse to receive marijuana to conduct research to determine if it provided medical benefits.

Now more than a dozen California researchers are studying it under the auspices of the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. [emphasis added]

Isn’t the big story here why the federal government has restricted studies? Can’t you read your own article, Dan?
There are plenty of problems with this ignorant article, including presenting the questionable (and controversial) schizophrenia study without noting that the study did not, in fact, diagnose any schizophrenia or psychosis.
Come on, you can do better than that, NYT.

Via Hit and Run comes this bizarre factoid presented by Lorraine Turchansky in the Canadian Press

Up to 50 per cent of users can be addicted after the first dose of crystal meth…

What does that mean? Up to 50 per cent? Can be? Zero fits that definition. The only thing that can be determined for sure is that exactly 100% of people named Lorraine Turchansky who write for the Canadian Press don’t know what they’re talking about.

Are We Losing the War on Drugs?
An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy
By David Boyum and Peter Reuter
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
(Released March 25, 2005)

How Goes the “War on Drugs”?
An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy
By Jonathan P. Caulkins, Peter H. Reuter, Martin Y. Iguchi and James Chiesa
RAND Drug Policy Research Center, funded by The Ford Foundation
(Posted March 21, 2005)

Two major scholarly research sites, two almost identical critiques of the drug war (note that one of the authors worked on both).
In both cases, the studies are grossly flawed in that they operate under the assumption, for the purposes of the study, that prohibition can be the only model. Therefore they almost completely ignore:

• Side-effects of prohibition itself such as prohibition-fueled violence
• The impact of other potential models, such as legalizationa and regulation, on their recommendations. (Imagine a doctor recommending a course of treatment for obesity, and being able to recommend surgery or drugs, but not exercise or dieting. Such a limited diagnosis would be quackery.)

Despite the fact that the flawed studies depend upon a continuation of some mix of prohibition and treatment, both were extremely harsh in their evaluation of current drug policy.
These are not radical think tanks. They’re solid, well-respected, and often called upon to testify in Congress. These devastating attacks on the current administration’s policies could be quite powerful. Both had very nasty things to say about the reliance on incarceration, and both criticized the emphasis toward marijuana prohibition.
Before I give you highlights from the studies, there’s one point that I found particularly interesting. I’d often wondered why the administration is so obsessed with marijuana, yet I hadn’t thought it through. It’s really quite simple. After getting failing grades in the past because of an inability to show results in the drug war, the government set a goal of reducing drug use by 10%.
How do you do that? Work on treating hard-core drug addicts that cause the most trouble? No, they’re too small a number and take too long to affect. However, the largest number of actual drug users are casual marijuana users — it’s easy for them to quit, so that becomes a great target for reaching stupid goals like a reduction of 10% in drug users. So the administration has consciously and intentionally crafted a policy that specifically goes after casual marijuana users who are not a problem, while neglecting drug addicts who have a problem.
It also affects other aspects of their policy:

• Harm Reduction? No, that’s good for long-term health, but doesn’t give them immediate reduction of numbers. Better to go for abstinence only policy for potential short-term numbers gain even if it’s worse in the long-run (and if an addict dies, that helps the numbers too).
• Reality-based education? No, that’s better for long-term, but abstinence-only education gives them short-term numbers gain.
• Medical marijuana? No, those people still count as drug users under federal statistics.

So, as both studies note, the very numbers-based approach to goals encourages drug policy that is completely backward and counter-productive.

This editorial in the Sentinel and Enterprise (Fitchburg, MA): More cops needed to win drug war
It’s an editorial that calls for a strong stance in the drug war and calls for more money to be spent to win it.
Now here’s the example that they use in the editorial to demonstrate how serious the problem is:

For people like Paul McNamara, a Fitchburg police officer, the war on drugs in North Central Massachusetts is not an academic exercise.

McNamara found himself fighting for his life one day while working on Fitchburg’s STRAIT (Strategic Tactical Response and Intervention team) unit.

A man attacked McNamara and Sgt. Joaquin Kilson on Crestview Lane after they stopped him for having an open container of beer.

“It was a fight for our lives,” McNamara told the Sentinel & Enterprise. “It went from an encounter of, ‘What’s your name,’ and ‘You know you can’t be drinking here,’ into hand-to-hand combat very quickly.”

McNamara said the man came to Fitchburg to buy drugs, but he must have already been high when he arrived.

“We were on the ground fighting, the three of us, and we didn’t know where our weapons or radios went. A woman nearby handed Sgt. Kilson his radio,” McNamara said. æ “It took four or five of us to arrest him.”

McNamara and numerous other officers and law enforcement officials literally put their lives on the line every day to fight illegal drug trafficking and use.

As far as I can tell from this story, the only “drug war” danger they faced was the beligerance of a beer drinker, and their own incompetence in losing track of their weapons and radios while wrestling with him.

“bullet” Mexico: Arizona Daily Star

Mexico is mobilizing 6,400 soldiers next week to its northern states in response to a vicious drug war that has left nearly 200 people dead this year, officials said. …

Using Humvees, four-wheel-drive trucks and helicopters, the soldiers will work with agents from the Mexican Federal Attorney General’s Office to destroy drug crops in southern Sonora and launch operations against the clandestine runways drug traffickers use on the border south of Arizona.

The military buildup on the northern border will last one to two months, then the extra soldiers will leave, he said.
æ

It comes during a tenuous time when Mexico’s powerful drug lords battle for control of lucrative areas along the border with the United States.

OK, let me get this straight. There’s violence between rival drug lords due to the profitability of the black market, so you solve that by sending in a bunch of soldiers to destroy crops and then leave? And this will do what to drug prices and profitability? And the violence of the rivals will stop? Hello? Is anybody home?
“bullet” Afghanistan: New York Times

The American military will significantly increase its role in halting the production and sale of poppies, opium and heroin in Afghanistan, responding to bumper harvests that far exceed even the most alarming predictions, according to senior Pentagon officials. …

To support the new effort, the Defense Department is requesting $257 million, more than four times the amount last year, in emergency financing for military assistance to the counternarcotics campaign, in addition to the $15.4 million in the Pentagon’s budget for fiscal 2005, which began last Oct. 1.

Cato responds:

In “Drug Prohibition Is a Terrorist’s Best Friend,” Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato’s vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, explains that “the harsh reality is that terrorist groups around the world have been enriched by prohibitionist drug policies that drive up drug costs, and which deliver enormous profits to the outlaw organizations willing to accept the risks that go with the trade.

“Targeting the Afghanistan drug trade would create a variety of problems. Most of the regional warlords who abandoned the Taliban and currently support the U.S. anti-terror campaign (and in many cases politically undergird the Karzai government) are deeply involved in the drug trade, in part to pay the militias that give them political clout. A crusade against drug trafficking could easily alienate those regional power brokers and cause them to switch allegiances yet again.”

“News” Article in The Daily Telegraph (Australia) by Angela Kamper:

Chloe died because we all failed her

SMOKING marijuana drove Timothy Kosowicz mad and he strangled an angelic little girl. …

“This seems to be yet another example of the link between cannabis use and mental illness, a link which from my judicial experience and reading, I regard as well-established,” Acting Justice David Patten said.

Words fail me.