Drug WarRant

Newsweek’s Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas, in the March 29 issue (available on the stands tomorrow), note that in the first few months of the administration:

Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence…

This is additional verification of reports that have been circulating for some time. This June, 2002 colunmn in Alternet noted:

While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of the FBI’s financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs….

In Phoenix, where the now infamous Ken Williams memo originated, counterterrorism agents complained bitterly about their efforts being given “the lowest investigative priority” by a supervisor who preferred glamorous drug-fighting investigations.

And now we also hear this weekend from Network of European Foundation’s (NEF) Comite de Sages that world-wide drug policy is encouraging terrorism by creating a profitable black market:

“This regime fosters terrorism because it provides the funds for terrorism and it endangers international security,” NEF member Sir Keith Morris, a former British ambassador to Colombia, told a press conference….

…former Interpol secretary general Raymond Kendall, a member of the NEF, argued Wednesday that the UN should “change its approach from repressive law enforcement to look at consumption and demand and harm reduction methods.”

Eugene Oscapella, from the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, said: “The UN has not stopped to think that it is precisely prohibition that is making drugs such a desirable commodity.”

The foundation argues in a recent paper that “the drug trade under a system of prohibition has become a major, if not the major, source of funding for many terrorist groups.”

(see also my post Friday on the Senlis Council)
An anonymous reader commented on Friday that:

“As long as terrorists use drugs to finance their murderous activities, I will be against illicit drug usage.”

Well, you’re welcome to be against illicit drug usage, but if you want to prevent terrorists from using drugs to finance their murderous activities, you need to change the prohibitionist policies that make it profitable. It’s that simple.
The evidence is so overwhelming that I find myself wondering if the majority of our political leaders (on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the ocean) are:

1. Stupid
2. Cowards who are unwilling to take a difficult political stand that will make a positive impact in the world
3. Corrupt criminals who getting paid by special interests to continue a corrupt drug war
4. Willfully ignorant, preferring to hold on to an irrational belief, because any other course would undermine their world view.
5. Terrorists

What’s your vote? Combination of the above? Something else entirely?

Here’s an amazing little item that slipped by me while I was out of town. I did not realize that the Drug Czar was so incredibly talented!
You may recall last September in Seattle that the Drug Czar was criticizing a vote to de-emphasize marijuana enforcement activities, and he said:

“The real issue is should we legalize marijuana,” Walters said. “Let’s have a debate about that.”

Well, naturally, I, and most other drug reformers said “Any time, any place.” I even offered to pay my own way.
Well it looks like there can be no debate. The Czar waved his magic wand last week in Las Vegas and declared that legalizing marijuana “is not an area for legitimate debate.”
Wow! The magnitude of his powers!
Rather than actually debating, he was able to magically negate the existence of alternate viewpoints or awkward facts!
Note: While you’re at it, check out Steve Sebelius in the Las Vegas Mercury who seems to be almost as outraged about Walters as I am.

Ross, a defense attorney and regular reader of Drug WarRant (nice to know!), tipped me off to this story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Arnold Melnikoff is being fired for sloppy work. For years he’s been working for the state of Washington, as a crime lab forensic scientist, doing tests that end up as evidence in trials, and often end up being the basis for lengthy prison sentences. An audit determined that he used improper procedures in his work — an audit that was called because several of his “convictions” ended up exonerated by other testing.

Ten of the 14 cases criticized in the audit as having “insufficient” data to identify substances could not be retested because law enforcement agencies had discarded the evidence, Logan said.

The audit described Melnikoff’s overall drug-analysis work as “sloppy” and “built around speed and shortcuts.”

In the previous five years, he’d handled 1,315 drug cases for almost 100 federal, county and municipal law enforcement agencies, according to State Patrol records.

The kicker? The Seattle Post Intelligencer discovered that a year after the audit, state officials had not notified anyone about these flaws. Now, three days after their investigative report, the state is grudgingly releasing some of the information to some of the county prosecutors.

Defense attorneys also weighed in yesterday, saying it wasn’t up to crime lab officials to decide whether Melnikoff’s alleged mistakes warranted disclosure.

“That’s like asking the fox to watch the henhouse,” said Roger Hunko, president of the 750-member Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“bullet” TalkLeft has the unbelievable story of Miguel Mendoza Palominos, a poor Mexican who just received 10 years in federal prison for the crime of being duped into being a patsy for a marijuana grow operation. So now we’ll spend about $25,000 a year to house him in prison and then we’ll send him back to Mexico. Dumb.
“bullet” Also from TalkLeft comes this article by Paul Armentano of the NORML Foundation:

Suspicionless student drug testing is a humiliating, invasive practice that runs contrary the principles of due process. It compels teens to submit evidence against themselves and to forfeit their privacy rights as a necessary requirement for attending school. Rather than presuming our school children innocent of illicit activity — as statistically, the overwhelming majority of them are — until proven guilty, this policy presumes them guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Is this truly the message the Bush administration wishes to send to America’s young people?

You can make your voice heard here.
“bullet” LastOneSpeaks is on top of the continuing problem of spraying in Columbia and points out the new online version of the Columbia Week newsletter.

State Department figures from 2002 found a resulting 15 percent decline in Colombian coca cultivation, but also showed a 23 percent jump in Bolivian cultivation and an 8 percent jump in cultivation in Peru. Even within Colombia, spraying has spurred a balloon effect, spreading cultivation to provinces and regions previously free of coca, including Colombia’s highly biodiverse national parks.

Just is case you want to know what our foreign policy in Latin America looks like, check this out.

From the Senlis Council release on the 17th:

Canadian Senator, Pierre Claude Nolin, strongly criticised the US led drug war at a press conference in Vienna today, following an International Symposium on Global Drug Policy organised by The Senlis Council in parallel to the 47th Session of the Commission on Narcotic drugs (CND). Senator Nolin served as the Chair of the Canadian Special Committee of the Senate on Illicit Drugs.

“Drug war policies threaten the basis of democracy, economy and the rule of law in many countries or regions of the world,” Senator Nolin stated. “The world deserves drug policies that are global, effective and respectful of human rights,” he continued.

“Sooner of later, governments of the world will have to, in the names of transparency and honesty, acknowledge that the drug war is a massive failure,” declared the Senator. “The war on drug discourse is outdated and disrespectful. It is time to make world leaders accountable.”

 The Senator underlined the importance of society’s involvement in the creation of drug policies. “In a free and democratic society, the population should be part of the debate. Citizen involvement in the discussions about the future of drug policy is the magic ingredient.”

This Canadian senator is one to watch. I like him.
The Senlis Council, an international drug policy think tank has taken a strong position opposing UN drug policies and US influences in those policies in particular.

“The dominant role played by the United States in determining UNODC policies should be scrutinised,” said Emmanuel Reinert, Executive Director of The Senlis Council. “It is unacceptable that a UN agency should find itself hostage to the political agenda of one country”, he continued….

“The present UNODC global drug policy has become another failed US war, but this time under a UN flag”, Mr. Reinert continued, “For the US to denounce harm reduction policies is deeply irresponsible. It is urgent for these programmes to be fully recognised by the UN drug control bodies to prevent a world health disaster.”…

“We cannot simply sit back and let this situation continue. Current drug policy is failing dramatically,” he concluded, “It is time to face facts. This is a war without end. The US domination of the global drug policy is a dead end.”

LastOneSpeaks and TalkLeft have been covering the stupid new bills being proposed for drugged driving testing.
From NORML:

Please Tell Congress To Identify Impaired Drivers, Not Marijuana Smokers. Urge Your Congressman To Reject H.R. 3907 And H.R. 3922

NORML needs your help convincing Congress to reject a pair of bills that would criminally punish marijuana smokers for “drugged driving” simply if inactive marijuana metabolites are detected in their bodily fluids – even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive.

H.R. 3907, sponsored by Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), demands that state legislatures amend their DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) to enact mandatory minimum penalties for anyone convicted of driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Under the proposal, states have until 2006 to pass and enforce DUID laws “approved by the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,” or lose portions of their federal highway funding.

H.R. 3922, sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of legislators including Reps. Robert Portman (R-OH), Sander Levin (D-MI), Steven LaTourette (R-OH), Mark Souder (R-IN) and Jim Ramstad (R-MN), seeks to impose so-called “model” DUID legislation upon all 50 states – demanding they enact statutes sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle “while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person’s body, as measured in the person’s blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance.”

These bills represent an all out federal assault on the marijuana smoking community. Because inactive marijuana metabolites (inert compounds indicative of past drug use) remain detectable in the blood, and particularly urine, for days and sometimes weeks after past use, this legislation seeks to define sober drivers as if they were intoxicated. Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver at most for a few hours; certainly not for days or weeks. To treat all marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the drug’s effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair.

Fortunately not everybody is supporting this legislation. From the Las Vegas Review-Journal (Porter’s home paper) comes this scathing criticism:

But there has not been even the slightest effort by supporters of this law to present any scientific nexus between the zero-tolerance standard Rep. Porter imposed in Nevada and the average driver’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Even putting aside such rational objections, by getting Washington involved in another effort to blackmail the states, Rep. Porter betrays the very principles for which he and his party supposedly stand….

Every state punishes motorists who drive while demonstrating actual signs of impairment. That is a righteous cause. But mandating that the states adopt standards — potentially with no identifiable relationship to actual impairment, at that — is not the role of Washington politicians or bureaucrats … and Mr. Porter’s constituents should let him know that.

Other important figures have also shown reluctance:

“We believe that as a basic principle states need to enact laws that meet their own needs,” said Cheye Calvo, a transportation policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies, goes further, advising its members not to adopt drug-impaired driving laws at all for the time being.

Wendy Hamilton, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said her group supports efforts to curb drug-impaired driving.æ But she cautioned it is difficult to set an across-the-board standard for all illegal drugs when they may affect driving differently – or not at all.

“There needs to be more research,” Hamilton said.æ

I’ve already given a fair amount of detail on marijuana and driving on this blog.
Intelligent criticism, however, is unlikely to deter our House of Representatives, which could very likely pass these bills, unless everybody gets active to stop them. Take a moment now.

…Seabrook, New Hampshire, which voted 1,521 to 464 for a new town ordinance requiring regular mandatory drug and alcohol testing of all town employees to be done at the local hospital.
Now they’re having to face the consequences of their action, which include:

• All volunteers are considered employees, so included in the drug and alcohol testing will be volunteer members of the Planning Board and the Budget Committee, and those who volunteer to coach teams or teach in the Seabrook Recreation Department.
• All union contracts in the town will have to be renegotiated to include testing or the contracts will not be legal.
• The Selectmen position is officially considered a 24-hour a day job. This may mean that they are never allowed to drink.
• Each test costs $40-$50, but no budget provision was made for the testing expense,
• The hospital plans on conducting the tests and charging for them, but not releasing the results of the tests to the town, since that would violate doctor-patient confidentiality laws. Apparently the new town ordinance only called for testing and didn’t cover what was to be done with the tests.

Consider Seabrook, New Hampshire for your next vacation. Enjoy the sea, and the brooks, and be entertained by all the resident idiots. Just think of them as part of a carnival sideshow. Besides, they need your tourism dollars to pay for their drug and alcohol tests.

Hot off the electronic presses! The 2004 edition of Drug War Facts (pdf) is now available.
Full of tons of useful material (you can also view individual portions at the web site).

I’m still catching up on my reading from the time I was gone. Here are a couple of things from TalkLeft that you shouldn’t miss.
“bullet” TalkLeft has the info on a Denver Post series on the drug war. Most notable is this incredible piece by Robert Hardaway. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so.
“bullet” TalkLeft also has the story of a 96 year-old woman arrested for cocaine possession and a million dollars worth of drugs missing from a Florida Police evidence room, plus a crime lab scandal in Washington State.
Stuff to do on Tuesday, March 16 in Illinois

1. Vote. See my endorsements for guidance.
2. Don’t let the Drug Czar get away with lies. Keep him honest by stopping by the summit at Radisson Hotel in Schaumburg, 1725 Algonquin Road (9 am to 5 pm)

After the incredibly blatant statement by the General Accounting Office that the Drug Czar’s Office was allowed, nay encouraged, to lie (not that we were surprised by the lying part, just the willingness of the GAO to shrug their shoulders over it), I decided that maybe we could use this to our advantage.
So I started with the Associated Press:

Dear Editor:

I wanted to alert you to the recent United States General Accounting Office response to a complaint about the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and their use of false and misleading information.

The complaint from U.S. Representative Ron Paul:
http://www.mpp.org/WarOnDrugCzar/complaints/gao_complaint.html

And the GAO response:
http://www.mpp.org/pdf/GAO_response_0304.pdf

That response included in part:

“Even though the statements may have been controversial, they were made within the context of ONDCP’s statutory responsibilities, which include taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain controlled substances such as marijuana…

“The Deputy Director’s statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director’s individual statements in detail.”

The GAO has specifically noted that the ONDCP is not only allowed to provide misleading or false information but is in fact practically required to do so in order to achieve its mandate.

This philosophy is contrary to the AP Code of Ethics, which includes, in part:

“The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent. Truth is its guiding principle.

“It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner…

“The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.”

Given this conflict between the ONDCP mandate and the AP Code of Ethics, It would seem prudent that the AP pursue a policy of automatically requiring independent verification of any releases coming from the ONDCP, including statements by Director John Walters, and Deputy Directors Andrea Barthwell, Scott Burns, Barry D. Crane, and Mary Ann Solberg.

It is unfortunate that we have a government agency that apparently must provide false information in order to do its job. Fortunately, the AP is not required to disseminate it.

Sincerely,

Pete Guither

Feel free to copy the letter and send it to the media of your choice. Then, while you’re at it, go for the politicians:

Dear Senator …….. …………,

I want to alert you to the recent United States General Accounting Office
response to a complaint about the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) and their use of false and misleading information.

The complaint from U.S. Representative Ron Paul:
http://www.mpp.org/WarOnDrugCzar/complaints/gao_complaint.html

And the GAO response:
http://www.mpp.org/pdf/GAO_response_0304.pdf

That response included in part:

“Even though the statements may have been controversial, they were made
within the context of ONDCP’s statutory responsibilities, which include
taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain
controlled substances such as marijuana…

“The Deputy Director’s statements about marijuana are thus within the
statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to
examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director’s individual statements in
detail.”

The GAO has specifically noted that the ONDCP is not only allowed to
provide misleading or false information but is in fact practically
required to do so in order to achieve its mandate.

It is extremely improper for tax money to be used to support an agency
whose purpose appears to be to give false information to the taxpayers.

Congress must step up and change this, either by eliminating the ONDCP, or
by changing the wording of its mandate to require that it provide accurate
information without an overriding agenda.

Sincerely,

Pete Guither

It’s easy and fun! Copy this letter and then put your zip code in the “Write to Congress” box on the left. Two minutes and you’re done.
If you enjoyed doing that, go to MAP and see what other letters you can write.