Drug WarRant

Radley Balko’s powerful post reminding us of Robert Scheer’s prescient pre-911 article on the drug war, Afghanistan, and terrorism.

Mark Kleiman reports on a seminar he attended on drug abuse control policy with this amazingly important post:

As part of my preparation, I had Kenna Ackley, my research assistant, pull together some numbers. Between 1980 and 2004, the number of drug dealers in state and federal prison is up more than twelvefold, from 24,000 to 325,000. Most of that increase is cocaine dealers.

Over that same period. the retail price of cocaine is down about 80% in constant dollars, from $535 a gram equivalent in 1980 to $105 today.

Those numbers convince me of something I wouldn’t have believed: that, under U.S. conditions, no practicable level of drug law enforcement can raise the prices of mass-market drugs.

Although Mark’s been, to my mind, somewhat too cautious in advocating significant reform (see Mark Kleiman gets it wrong), he’s come to an important realization here that needs to be communicated further:

If that’s right, then the right measure of the effectiveness of drug law enforcement isn’t the costs it imposes on the illicit markets, but its effect on the side-effects that result from the operation of those markets: violence, corruption, neighborhood disruption, seduction of minors into illicit activity, and (if significant) financial contribution to terrorist operations against the U.S.

And you’ll find that in every one of those cases, the negative effects are higher under prohibition than just about any other model.

Two more voting guides added:

• Indiana — This is a state with real highs and lows. Indiana is most known in the drug policy reform world as the home of drug war cheerleader Mark Souder (3rd District) and author of the financial aid drug provision. He’s particularly dangerous because he is Chair of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, which means he controls much of the drug war conversation in the House of Representatives. Students for Sensible Drug Policy have been after him for some time. I’d love to see Maria Parra beat him.
  The good news in Indiana is the 7th District. Three candidates and all of them not only support medical marijuana, but also support eliminating federal funding for programs associated with the war on drugs. Amazing. Nice choice if you live in Indianapolis.
  In quite a number of races in Indiana, the only good choices are with the Libertarian party, which seems quite active in Indiana, at least in terms of the number of candidates fielded. I’d recommend supporting that activity.
• North Dakota — just completed this one because it was small (so I could have two more states instead of just one). Not very interesting choices there, I’m afraid.

Full voting guide with all states completed so far is available here.

This Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004, Montel Williams presents an appeal for the legalization of medical marijuana. Check this press release out (I’m quoting extensively because it’s just that good!):

Montel publicly announces that he uses marijuana to ease the debilitating pain of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). He is joined on the show by several guests who use medical marijuana to aid their illnesses, and experts who offer pros and cons on the topic of legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes.

On the show, Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker from Lauderhill, FL, tells Montel that he has been receiving medical marijuana from the government for over 20 years as part of a federally funded program. He suffers from a rare condition called Multiple Congenital Cartilaginous Exostosis and says he has been enrolled with 12 others in a compassionate-care program that allows treatment with government-grown marijuana from The University of Mississippi. Though President Bush ended the program in 1992, Rosenfeld still receives medical marijuana on a monthly basis from the government.

You notice that the government doesn’t like to talk about that program much, where they have been providing medical marijuana for decades.

Don Murphy, Maryland’s former Republican State Delegate, says he “voted for higher penalties for large amounts of marijuana and other drugs.” But then, he says, his father died of cancer, and he learned too late of the value of medical marijuana. According to Murphy, “My father died in 1997 of cancer, and I didn’t even know marijuana’s medicinal value for him.” He says he “didn’t try to get it.” But, Murphy continues, “I can tell you one thing, elected or not, I would have (tried to get medical marijuana for his father to ease his pain), and I defy anyone in this audience or anyone else to say they wouldn’t do the same thing.”

How many relatives of politicians have to get cancer for the truth to sink in? Very strong statement from Murphy. But, uh oh, look who’s back! She left the Drug Czar to pursue a two day career as a possible candidate for Senate in Illinois (losing the nod to Maryland’s Alan Keyes), but she hasn’t given up her old career spreading propaganda.

The opposing viewpoint is stated by Dr. Andrea Barthwell, MD, former White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, who says to Montel, “The problem with trying to bring medications to the marketplace through a popular vote … is setting modern medicine back to the turn of the century.” Barthwell continues by saying, “We developed a process through which we would evaluate botanicals, biologicals, even a molecule that we found in a lab, and would manipulate that in a way to increase its efficacy, reduce its side effect, and bring it to the people in a way that protected the public health.” She claims that legalizing marijuana at this point in time, compares to “snake oil salesmen handing out medication from the back of a stagecoach.”

Montel passionately rebuts her statement, referring to the government funded medical marijuana program that Rosenfeld openly discusses on the show. Williams exclaims, “Talk to me about stagecoaches. Tell me about the stagecoach from Washington D.C. that delivers this to a pharmacy every single week!”

Busted! Why would the government be supplying these individuals with medical marijuana for decades if it wasn’t safe? The truth is that the government doesn’t even want to investigate medical marijuana and blocks it at every turn.

To which Dr. Barthwell replies, “Well, there are some exceptions, and there are other patients that could get it through exception, but what we know is that … independent scientists who determine medicine in this country … determined that there was potential for medication development for marijuana, but that the research should follow the same scientific principles that we follow for all other medication development.”

Of course. Just need to find a way to make sure it’s profitable to drug companies.

To which Williams responds, “For 20 years in a row there’s been research garnered by the US government. You can research this guy (Irvin Rosenfeld)!”

Busted again. How is it that the government has been supplying medical marijuana to patients for 20 years and has not even considered (or allowed) any research on the efficacy of medical marijuana on these patients that they are supplying?

Other guests on the show include: A mother and grandmother of an eight-year-old boy from Rocklin, CA, who claim his aggressive behavior was initially treated by over 16 psychotropic drugs with no success, until they discovered medical marijuana. And a woman from Oakland, CA, whose body is unable to synthesize traditional medication and can only function with regular intake of medical marijuana.

Also appearing on the show are: Dr. Donald Abrams, MD, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California/San Francisco; Rob Kampia, Executive Director of the Marijuana Policy Project; and Roger Curtiss, addiction counselor and director of alcohol and drug services of Anaconda/Deer Lodge, an outpatient treatment facility in Montana.

I’m going to want video of this one.

Recent CNN headline and lead:

N.Y. judge’s ruling affects ‘high’ court
NEW YORK (Reuters) — New Yorkers dreading jury duty take note: it’s OK to be drunk on booze or high on pot or cocaine while doing your civic duty.

Before you get too confused by this, the story is really the fact that CNN is using a drug and alcohol issue in a sensational way to get your attention.
In actuality, the judge did not say it’s OK to be drunk or high on jury duty, nor that you could avoid arrest for possessing drugs while on jury duty. He simply stated that the impairment of alcohol, drugs, or fatigue did not, by itself, constitute the legal definition of “outside” influence that would be grounds for setting aside a jury verdict.
And this is the correct decision.
After all, it is supposed to be a jury of your peers (couldn’t resist that).

Link

Sept. 18, 2004 æ|æ OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Former child star Macaulay Culkin was arrested on drug charges Friday during a traffic stop, authorities said. The 24-year-old actor, best known for his role in the “Home Alone” movies, was taken into custody on complaints of possession of a controlled dangerous substance without a valid prescription and possession of marijuana, according to the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s office.

Culkin, who lives in New York City, was booked into the Oklahoma County Jail and released after posting $4,000 bond, a jailer said.

Authorities confiscated about 17 grams of marijuana from a vehicle in which Culkin was a passenger. Officers also found 16 milligrams of prescription medications used to control anxiety and seizures, according to a police report.

Culkin was in a vehicle driven by a 22-year-old New York City man who was stopped for driving 70 mph in a 60-mph speed zone and for making an improper lane change. After receiving a verbal warning, the driver allowed police to search the vehicle.

First: 16 milligrams of prescription medication? Is that a lot? Can you even see that amount? (There’s 500 milligrams of pain reliever in my Tylenol) And about 1/2 ounce of pot.
Second: Folks. Do not authorize authorities to search your car, your person, your purse, your house. You have the right to refuse such searches. (You musn’t resist searches if they occur anyway, but you need not say “Yes”)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Once you say “Yes” to a search then you have surrendered your rights. Law enforcement knows how to ask persuasively (sometimes going to illegal lengths), but all you need do is politely refuse permission, saying that it is against your political beliefs to authorize such searches (even if you aren’t carrying anything, you should never agree to a search).
For extra help, download and print the ACLU Bustcard (pdf) and carry it in your wallet.
Update: Reader Trent points out that 16 milligrams of a prescription medicine can be a whopping dose, depending on what drug it is. I admit I was a bit flip in my comment about the amount seized (without knowing what the drug was, we really don’t have a sense of the significance of the amount). In retrospect, I think I was thrown by the fact that they apparently only listed the amount of the active ingredient — I’m used to hearing about drug charges being listed by the amount/weight of the entire product, including the stems/seeds/blotter paper/starch or whatever.
Further Update: Reader Mark points out that Just Cause Law Collective has some good “street-level” common sense information on knowing your rights.

What’s the difference between detention and
arrest? If arrested, what’s the one and only form you
should be willing to sign without a lawyer? If
interrogated, what are the magic words? [“I’m going to remain silent. I
would like to see a lawyer.”]

I’ve talked here about Alaskan courts and their sensible approch to possession of 4 ounces or less of marijuana in your own home (if you haven’t read that first post, take a moment to do so — the judge’s comments are amazing!). And recently the Alaskan courts held that a warrant required reasonable belief that there was more than 4 ounces of marijuana present.
Last week, the Alaskan Supreme Court denied a petition by the state attorney general’s office seeking reconsideration.
Good.
However, the Attorney General continues to be an idiot:

“We’re not giving up,” [Attorney General Gregg] Renkes said.

He’ll be taking his case to the legislature where he’ll try to prove marijuana is a harmful enough drug to warrant amending the constitution.

“The state has been denied an opportunity to present a record of the harmfulness of marijuana,” Renkes said.

Oh, I’d like to see that presentation of evidence. What’s he going to do, show them a copy of “Reefer Madness?”

“I’m really appalled that it appears some people are still fighting the culture war of the 1970s,” he said.

Actually, I think it’s Renkes who’s fighting the culture war of the 70s, seeing hippies behind every joint.

Residents of Eugene, Oregon have filed a suit for $25,500 in damages, plus punitive and other damages.

A lawsuit over a controversial 2002 drug raid in Eugene’s Whiteaker neighborhood claims that police lied to persuade a judge to give them a search warrant to raid three adjacent houses near West Fifth Avenue and Adams Street in search of a marijuana growing operation.

The early morning raid – in which 59 officers used an armored truck and diversionary explosions of “flash-bang” grenades in a militaristic show of force – found no drug operation and resulted in no criminal prosecution.

[emphasis added]

The article is quite interesting in that it lists a whole range of specific details and ways that the police purposely misled the judge in order to get the warrant. Read it all. You’ll be amazed.

Fortunately, no one died in this one.

Teresa Guiler and James Elliott, who are in their 50s, were home watching television when the masked men stormed into the house. Guiler, whose arm was in a sling from a previous injury, told police that they had the wrong man as they pointed a gun at her and Elliott, who is deaf and had recently received a liver transplant, she said. …

“What justification can you give to kick a 54-year-old man who’s down on the ground,” Meeks said about Elliott, who is a Vietnam War veteran. “All he saw was men in masks with rifles. He was terrified. Then to get knocked down and stomped. They picked him up like a suitcase. The Police Department said they acted in normal procedure, but that’s not normal.”

The police plan on sending a written apology.
See Last One Speaks and Desert Cat for commentary. I don’t feel up to it tonight.

is a registered student organization at Illinois State University, and they now have a spiffy new web site.
I am their somewhat neglectful faculty advisor, finding myself too often busy working on this site rather than attending their meetings, but I’m a huge fan of what they’re working to do.
If you’re at Illinois State, why not get involved with M.A.S.H.? Their meetings are every Wednesday at 8 pm in Stevenson 223. They also have occassional movie showings (they showed Grass earlier this week. They also have Hey Hemp events where they make some incredible hemp jewelry and they hold a Hemp Fest in December and April.