Drug WarRant

One of the desperate measures taken by prohibitionists was the attempt to get liberal environmentalists on their side by talking about the destruction of public lands and use of toxic chemicals in illegal marijuana grows, etc. This meme was pushed by the ONDCP, by law enforcement, and at times, by some media.

Of course, they were assuming that people would be too dumb to see the obvious — that it was prohibition that was causing this.

It seems pretty clear now that this particular obnoxious ploy has run its course. This article in Mother Nature Network shows why: Why the legalization of marijuana may be good for agriculture

Energy-efficiency isn’t the only benefit that may come with legalization. From better management of irrigation to monitoring of fertilizer runoff, bringing the industry out in the open has the potential to greatly mitigate the harmful impacts of cultivation. As I’ve speculated before, marijuana growing may also provide a gateway for some young people into horticulture as a profession.

And just in case you aren’t sure how geeky pot growers can get, here’s an example of the kind of in-depth discussion that’s been going on in the industry . Who knows, maybe our tomato growers could learn a thing or two?

Radley Balko has a disturbing piece about the recent horrific anal probe case in New Mexico: Anal Probes And The Drug War: A Look At The Ethical And Legal Issues

Oddly, according to constitutional scholars and medical ethicists I’ve consulted, the indignities imposed upon Eckert and Young were both illegal and unethical. And yet it also may be that (a) none of the law enforcement officials or medical personnel responsible for the violations are likely to be held accountable in any way, and (b) they could probably do it all again tomorrow, and still wouldn’t likely be held accountable.

Our system is so corrupt, largely due to the drug war, that the rule of law has become a joke. Public officials can break the law and violate human rights without consequence, while average citizens have to plea bargain to avoid massive sentences for minor drug charges.

This is another huge motivating factor for ending the drug war. A chance to clean up the criminal justice system.

There’s an interesting, though completely fatally flawed OpEd in the Detroit News by former federal prosecutor Mark Osler:

Drug policy: Moral crusade or business problem?

At the root of this failure is a simple error: We have treated narcotics as an issue of morality rather than business. Our efforts have been focused on punishing relatively minor actors through mass incarceration rather than on the very different goal of shutting down drug businesses. A starting point as we reconsider our efforts should be the simple recognition that narcotics trafficking is first and foremost a business.

That means that we need to put business experts in charge of the effort to close down narcotics businesses. This change might make all the difference.

A business expert, for example, would know enough to identify a proper measure of success or failure. The only real way to know if narcotics interdiction is working isn’t how much cocaine is piled up in a bust, or how many people we lock up. Rather, the best measure is an economic one: the price of narcotics on the street. If we are successful at restricting supply, the price should go up (given a rough consistency of demand). Hiking the price is important. We have learned from cigarettes that raising the price of something addictive reduces usage rates. Still, governments continue to measure success by narcotics seized, arrests made, and sentences imposed rather than the street value of illegal drugs.

Mark Osler is right in his criticisms of the moral crusade approach, and also about some of the stupid things we’ve been doing in the drug war (measuring success in piles of cocaine, sweeping up low-level dealers, etc.).

However, the notion of winning the drug war by putting business leaders in charge, while novel, is simply out of touch with reality.

Yes, we would be better off if those involved in setting policy understood economic principles better (supply and demand, etc.) — they’d then realize that the drug war can’t work.

But putting business leaders to work utilizing their business skills to combat drug trafficking is a non-starter, for the simple reason that the black market exists outside the realm (and the civilized rules) of the business economy.

Where business leaders would employ lawyers, traffickers employ gunmen. And so on.

The only way to make this idea work is to take drug trafficking out of the black market through legalized regulation. Then business models would apply and could have a great impact on how drugs were marketed and sold (of course, that’s exactly the kind of thing that terrifies people like Mark Kleiman and Kevin Sabet).

I don’t usually post links to stories for which I am only able to read the teaser and the rest is behind a subscription paywall, but… I just couldn’t resist this opening, where Patrick Radden Keefe of the New Yorker appears to tell us the driving force behind legalization in Washington State.

One morning in August, Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at U.C.L.A., addressed the Seattle city council on the subject of marijuana. Kleiman is one of the country’s most prominent and outspoken analysts of drug policy, and for three decades he has argued that America’s cannabis laws must be liberalized. Kleiman’s campaign used to seem quixotic, but in November, 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado passed initiatives legalizing the use and commercial sale of marijuana.

Who knew?

Now the title of the piece is “Buzzkill: Washington State discovers that it’s not so easy to create a legal marijuana economy.”

So in the remainder of the article I can’t read, I can only guess that the hero of our story begrudgingly discovers that legalization is full of uncertainties and concerns.

I have a couple of minor predictions:

1. Over the next couple of years in states/localities that have legalized or otherwise reduced penalties for marijuana, there will be a variety of studies (of mixed legitimacy in methodology) that will show an increase in the number of drivers testing positive for cannabis. This will be widely reported.

2. Over the same period of time, those same states/localities will experience a reduction in traffic fatalities. This will be rarely reported, particularly in connection to point 1.

The last two prohibitionist talking points that will remain kicking and screaming, even after the fat lady has sung, will be driving and children.

That’s right! Forget basketball, or music, or chess. Join the fun club where the main activity is taking drug tests. Pass them and you get to stay in the club and earn discounts from local businesses.

Link

McFarland hopes that with this program students can see the rewards and benefits of staying drug free. One way he hopes to promote this is by schools and local businesses to give these students perks, such as some much off a meal, extra credit towards a class or test or a pass on one day of conditioning if the student plays a sport.

Every student who signs up for the Drug Free Club will receive an ID card. To continue to stay in the club, students must be able to pass all of the drug tests that will be given in that year.

This really sounds a bit creepy to me. A drug free ID card?

Link

Here at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, we are proud to work alongside veterans who lend their talent and energy to the important task of reducing drug use and its consequences across the country.

I have a feeling that our veterans who are regular commenters here may have a slightly different perspective…

Resolution:

NAACP SUPPORTS ALLOWING STATES TO DECREASE PENALTIES FOR LOW-LEVEL DRUG POSSESSION

WHEREAS, as a result of the “War on Drugs” and mandatory minimum sentences imposed largely at the federal level, the prison population has exploded in the past few decades; and

WHEREAS, one crucial result of these misguided and misplaced policies has been the disproportionate over-confinement of racial and ethnic minorities: more than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities; and

WHEREAS, two-thirds of all persons in prison today for drug offenses are people of color; and

WHEREAS, more than 700,000 people annually are arrested in the United States for the possession of marijuana; and

WHEREAS, even though numerous studies demonstrate that whites and African Americans use and sell marijuana at relatively the same rates, studies also demonstrate that African Americans are, on average, almost 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, and in some jurisdictions Blacks are 30 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites; and

WHEREAS, there are also extreme economic consequences to the present day enforcement of marijuana laws; nationally, states spent an estimated $3.61 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010 alone; money that could be spent on education, job training, and other valuable services; and

WHEREAS, several states throughout the U.S. have departed from current federal law to develop more well-tailored and effective guidelines and sentencing ranges for small, low-level marijuana use which are moderating some of the more extreme federal policies and their repercussions; and

WHEREAS, these state laws are at times at odds with federal laws; and

WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in the 113th Congress, H.R. 1523, with strong bipartisan support, which would prohibit the federal enforcement of marijuana laws in states which have lesser penalties.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP supports H.R. 1523 and encourages its swift enactment; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NAACP Washington Bureau shall contact Members of the Congress and urge the swift enactment of H.R. 1523.

H.R. 1523 is the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013.

It amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide that provisions of such Act related to marihuana shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with state laws relating to the production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.

Congress needs to listen to the NAACP on this.

According to Tom Angell, of The Marijuana Majority:

“For obvious historical reasons, many civil rights leaders who agree with us about the harms of marijuana prohibition still remain reluctant to see the states chart their own courses out of the failed ‘war on drugs.’ Having the NAACP’s support for a states’ rights approach to marijuana reform is going to have a huge impact and will provide comfort and cover to politicians and prominent people who want to see prohibition end but who are a little skittish about states getting too far ahead of the feds on this issue.”

Andrew Sullivan has an outstanding column based on his appearance with David Frum on CNN to talk about marijuana.

Marijuana and Moralism

I know Ross will differ on the substance, but I doubt he will argue that my support for marriage equality stemmed from mere libertarianism (which would have led me to oppose all such marital benefits for everyone) but from a deep moral sense that we were (and are) violating the dignity of the homosexual person and perpetuating enormous pain for no obvious reason.

Now, the argument for legalizing marijuana is not quite the same. It’s much more based on the simple argument of personal liberty. But it has its moral components as well. The grotesquely disproportionate impact of Prohibition on African-Americans is an affront to any sense of morality and fairness, just as the refusal to research cannabis for its potential medical uses – to prevent seizures in children, for example – seems immoral to me. Some might argue that the right response to this is decriminalization, not legalization. But keeping marijuana illegal profoundly constrains the potential for medical research on it, sustains a growing and increasingly lucrative criminal industry, and does nothing to keep it from the sole cohort for whom it could do harm: teenagers.

Andrew has been a passionate and articulate voice for marijuana law reform for some time. It’s always nice to see him taking on the David Frums and Ross Douthats of the journalism world.

Students learn ‘drug free is way to be’

Wednesday afternoon, deputies visited Southside Elementary School and came with an armored vehicle, a horse, two motorcycles and a helicopter. Public Information Officer Natalie Barton said they bring their specialized vehicles because children love them and it grabs their attention, which allows deputies to spread the anti-drug message.

Hey, kids! Look at all these cool weapons. Using a tank against your friends is lots more fun than doing drugs.