Drug WarRant

It’s really, really bad law and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal reports that it’s about to get some constitutional scrutiny at the state level.

A new law aimed at so-called drugged drivers is facing constitutional challenges as the first prosecutions under the legislation go to court.

Instead of establishing a threshold by which drivers who have used illegal substances could be judged to be impaired, lawmakers have made it unlawful for drivers to have “any detectable amount” of drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and Ecstasy in their bloodstreams.

Those words are now the targets of defense attorneys.

“Unlike consumers of alcohol for which empirical evidence shows a relationship between blood level and impairment, drug users can be penalized for the mere use of a restricted substance even after considerable time has passed, so long as it is allegedly detected even under what is here an undefined standard,” defense attorney Laurence M. Moon wrote in a case involving a Milwaukee man being prosecuted under the law. “This discrepancy is irrational.”

I’m not sure what the grounds would be specifically at the state level, but I hope this law gets shot down. I’d be interested to watch the government try to defend their compelling interest in an “any detectable amount” provision.

“It is very typical for the question to be raised about whether the new law is constitutional,” said Janine Geske, a distinguished professor at Marquette University Law School and former state Supreme Court justice. “Because this law is not like operating while intoxicated and there is no specified amount, I think that is a serious, legitimate issue to raise.

“Whether it will rise to the level of making it unconstitutional remains to be seen.”

We’ll be watching.

An interesting release came out about 2 weeks ago from Hemptown Clothing:

Hemptown Clothing Inc., a leading provider of environmentally responsible clothing, is pleased to announce that it has entered into a collaboration with the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) on the development of a patentable enzyme technology process that may see hemp fibers replace cotton worldwide.

The collaboration between Hemptown and NRC is intended to produce hemp clothing fabric that would match cotton in price, while eliminating the tons of pesticides and enormous water consumption required by cotton. Furthermore, industrial hemp is 5 times as efficient as the same acreage of forestry in the conversion of atmospheric carbon dioxide into plant materials for industrial application, thus allowing the latter to remain as the reservoir of the greenhouse gases.

In addition to the textile sector, the availability of clean hemp fibers at reasonable cost will enable widespread application in industry to provide rigidity for plastics as vehicle interior trim with reduced weight and ease of recycling, and in buildings as a natural insulator, as compared to the traditional fiberglass.

An efficient enzyme system will give a competitive advantage to Hemptown or to any third party companies to whom it licenses the process. This ground-breaking fiber technology is expected to be delivered into the market within the next 3 years.

“Hemptown was identified as an ideal partner for NRC,” said Scott Ferguson, Business Development Officer for the NRC Institute for Biological Sciences. “Their understanding of the Hemp Fiber industry, coupled with their stability and strong corporate profile, made them an excellent candidate with which to help develop this new generation biotechnology. We are excited about the prospects for this collaboration, which could ultimately revolutionize the apparel industry as well as many other industrial applications.”

“If we are able to provide our environmentally friendly hemp fiber activewear, at a price that is equal or better than that of current cotton products, there is no reason for consumers to not make the smart choice.” commented Hemptown Clothing President, Jason Finnis. “We are enthused about the initial developments, and intend to use this technology to launch a proper hemp textile industry in Canada, as well as all other industrial hemp growing nations around the world. The potential market for the use and licensing of this hemp production technology worldwide may be in the billions of dollars.”

I wish the best of luck to the new collaboration and fervently hope that they succeed. If hemp can compete financially with cotton, then the whole ballgame will change. When the international (including American) garment industry starts puchasing Canadian hemp instead of U.S. cotton, all hell will break loose. And then, you’ll see one of these two outcomes:

1. American farmers are allowed to grow industrial hemp, creating the beginnings of a booming American hemp industry; or
2. We invade Canada.

Adam J. Smith of Progressive Capitalist has a very interesting post on recent moves to have the FDA assume regulatory control over tobacco. In part:

We live in a society in which most “recreational” drugs are prohibited. That is to say, they are completely unregulated. Illegal under almost all circumstances to produce, market and possess, recreational drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, methamphetamine, psychadellics and heroin are nonetheless easily available without age restriction, purity requirements, or labelling in every part of the country. Perversely, the very fact of their prohibition means that these substances are more, rather than less likely to be sold to young people, and are often the self-medication of last resort for thousands of mentally ill people who lack medical insurance or prescription drug coverage. …

So what does all of that have to do with Tobacco? If the FDA does gain authority over tobacco products we as a society will have an opportunity for a serious debate on what it means to rationally and effectively regulate potentially harmful — along with some not-so-harmful — recreational substances in a free society. Right now, the debate is often mis-framed as an either-or choice between all-out prohibition, with its attendant unintended consequences, and the type of loose regulation that we have now with tobacco (and to a lesser extent, alcohol) meaning few labelling requirements, broad-based (if somewhat restricted) advertising, and a product that is available in every corner convenience store in every community in the nation.

The post is well thought out and quite provocative. To his credit, Adam recognizes the potential dangers that can come from over-regulation (increased black-market, etc.) and doesn’t assume that regulation can cure all ills (on either side). I’m not sure I’m as optimistic, given our government’s reputation — I figure that this move toward regulating tobacco might just as easily create a new “war on tobacco” prohibition spree (Adam also notes this possibility). But I’d like to believe that he’s right and a rational discussion could take place.
Read the full post. What do you think? Can FDA regulation of tobacco actually help create a sane drug policy?

From the AP:

Michael Badnarik, a computer programmer from Texas, won the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination on Sunday.

Badnarik, 49, of Austin, defeated former Hollywood movie producer Aaron Russo on the convention’s third ballot, after former radio host Gary Nolan, who was eliminated on the second ballot, endorsed Badnarik.

Badnarik’s take on the drug war:

The government’s war on drugs violates the rights of Americans so egregiously that it is a bigger threat than the drugs themselves. Libertarians do not want our children taking drugs either, but we recognize that the several decades of drug interdiction haven’t slowed the flow of narcotics into this country. Children take drugs because criminals actively sell them. Criminals sell drugs because they are astronomically profitable. Drugs are highly profitable only because they are illegal. The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs.

Drug laws have not reduced the amount of drugs on the street. Drugs are far more common now than they were before we started this stupid “War on Drugs.” Drug laws established an “asset forfeiture” policy which violates our right to be secure from “unreasonable search and seizure” and our right not to be “deprived of property without due process of law.” This policy has a tendency to corrupt our police agencies who use the assets as “unreported income.” You probably don’t remember the Prohibition, but all it did was raise the price of alcohol. The only thing the “War on Drugs” has done is to raise the price of heroin and marijuana – and to make them profitable enough to kill for. If we decriminalize drugs, then they will no longer be extremely profitable. This will remove the black market incentive, and make our city streets safer in the process.

I’ll be discussing Badnarik some more as we get into the election season.
More on the nomination (including some very interesting details and vote totals) at Random Act of Kindness (which, I feel the perverse need to point out, endorsed both Nolan and Russo).

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – A Swedish art exhibit featuring cannabis plants may have to be canceled after police confiscated the plants in a
drugs bust.

The exhibition, due to open on Saturday in the university town of Lund and titled “Counterclockwise Circumambulation,” was partially destroyed when
police cut the plants to take them away as evidence, artist Sture Johannesson said.

The plant is grown in the region for its fibers and Swedish media said
Johannesson’s hemp was not the type used by smokers. He could replace
the plants, but said they had already begun to grow back. “They will have to
come back on a regular basis to prune,” he said on Friday.

More on the exhibition here. It sounds interesting, ironically inspired by a banned exhibition poster from the 1960s.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics will be releasing a report this afternoon regarding prison population in the U.S. from June 2002-June 2003 (the most recent period studied).
Some “highlights:”

• The nation’s prisons and jails held 2,078,570 men and women on June 30, 2003, an increase of 57,600 more inmates than state, local and federal officials held on the same date a year earlier
• From July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, the number of state and federal prisoners grew by more than 2.9 percent, the largest increase in four years. The federal system increased by 5.4 percent, and state prisoners increased by 2.6 percent.
• An estimated 12 percent of all black males in their twenties were in jails or prisons last June 30, as were an estimated 3.7 percent of Hispanic males and 1.6 percent of white males in that age group. Sixty-eight percent of prison and jail inmates were members of racial or ethnic minority groups.
• The 50 largest jail systems housed a third of all jail inmates. Nineteen of these operated at or above their rated capacities.
• Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate (number of prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year per 100,000 residents) at 803, followed by Texas (692), Mississippi (688), Oklahoma (645) and Alabama (612). Maine has the lowest with 148, followed by Minnesota (150), North Dakota (175), Rhode Island (187), and New Hampshire (193). [Local readers: Illinois is at 341.]

Update: The full report is now available on the BJS site.

O’Reilly is against open societies. World O’Crap notes that Bill needs to stop going to Doors’ concerts.
Basically, Bill seems to believe that we need to keep arresting 750,000 people for marijuana each year — otherwise inconsiderate men will blow smoke in 9-year-old boys’ faces at a Doors concert without fear of O’Reilly.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) comes this commentary by Barry R. McCaffrey and Mitchell S. Rosenthal.

Driven in large measure by harsh drug laws, our prison population has
grown from 200,000 to two million over the past 30 years. Now, the tide
is turning and, by legislation or referendum, one state after another is
changing these laws. But not New York, where the hardline Rockefeller
laws remain the nation’s most draconian.
The laws enjoy little public or political support. Just about all
interested parties — legislators, advocates of various persuasions, and
all sectors of the criminal justice system — favor change.

Wow! This is from Barry McCaffrey, former Drug Czar under Clinton and one responsible for much of that prison population and for setting the stage for Walters (our worst Czar ever). Sure, after McCaffrey left his office, he expressed some concern about the drug war — too little, too late. And now, what is he doing?

At Phoenix House, we have been treating drug-abusing offenders (in
prison and out) for nearly 40 years. We were among the first to show
that treatment, not incarceration, is a more effective, less expensive
way to curb drug use and drug-related crime.

OK, treatment. Definitely preferable to prohibition (and a big switch from his emphasis as Drug Czar). So what does he have in mind for reform?

• Reform should ensure the treatment of as many nonviolent offenders as
  possible.
• Sentences for drug offenses should be reduced, but not to the point
  that they no longer provide a meaningful incentive for defendants to
  accept long-term residential treatment.
• In-prison treatment should be mandated for offenders with a history of
  drug abuse who are not appropriate candidates for community-based
  treatment — or are unwilling to accept it.
• Although other, less restrictive treatment options may occasionally be
  appropriate, mandated treatment for offenders should involve no less
  than 12 months of residential treatment, followed by 6 months of
  outpatient aftercare.
• Penalties for quitting treatment or failing to comply with a treatment
  regimen should be imposed swiftly and automatically….

Ahhh, now I get it. This is about lobbying for his new business. And it’s still all about prohibition, just with enforced, mandatory, lucrative treatment thrown in. And who is this Rosenthal who co-wrote the article?

Gen. McCaffrey, former director of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy, is a director of Phoenix House, of which Dr.
Rosenthal is president and founder.

Crystal clear.
However, they had one statement that, if you remove the fact of their naked greed in re-shifting prohibition to support their business, resonates strongly.

There is little doubt that the Rockefeller laws are ineffective. There
is no question that they are unfair. To acknowledge their flaws is not
to sanction drug use. Addicts do not, because of their addiction, belong
in prison.

.. and citizens do not, simply because of their drug use, belong in prison, nor are they by definition addicts requiring treatment.

My original post back in January…

From the Oregon Register-Guard:

[Kari] Rein, 42, and her husband James Jungwirth, 41, a U.S. citizen, have lived in Williams, near Grants Pass, for 15 years. They run an herb and seaweed
harvesting business and have a 14-year-old daughter and a 7-year-old son.

11 years ago, Rein was convicted of growing six marijuana plants for personal use and received probation and community service. The judge at the time said he was confident it was for personal use,

“And I’m also satisfied that the two of you are people who are capable of
being productive and are being productive in society,” the judge continued,
“and I don’t think at this point that jail really serves any benefit to
anyone.”

Here’s the tragedy —
Kari Rein is an immigrant, and immigration officials now (11 years later) want to send her back to Norway.

According to Rein’s attorney, immigration officials say the conviction
qualifies as an aggravated felony and mandates deportation under 1990s
immigration rules that have received souped-up enforcement since the Sept.
11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Six pot plants over a decade ago, and you send a wife and mother away from her home? Does this government have ANY sense of morality?

This week’s news:
Oregon governor pardons woman facing deportation to Norway
Kari just found out on Monday. This really is great news. I’m sure Kari and her family are very excited. And I am personally relieved that in this case justice triumphed, but I’m still outraged that it even became an issue.
And I got pissed off one more time with the statement made by the governor’s office:

“In this case, Kari Rein met all the qualifications,” said Mary Ellen Glynn, a spokesman for the governor. “She has expressed remorse. She was no threat to public safety. She has been a model citizen prior to this event and since that time.”

What I wanted to hear from the governor’s office was “Well, duh! It would be monumentally stupid not to pardon her in these circumstances.” Instead, it’s this self-righteous “Well, at least she’s shown remorse for her horrible crime of growing six plants eleven years ago.”
A pardon isn’t enough. She should get an apology, and have her legal fees paid back to her.

A reminder that Guest Drug WarRants are always welcome. Here’s a new addition – a piece on drugs and sports.