Drug WarRant

I was impressed with this CNN story: As haze clears, are American opinions on pot reaching tipping point? (except for the obligatory pun in the headline).

It is a story of a lot of people getting caught flat-footed by the sudden surge of the legalization movement…

“I’m surprised by the long-term increase in support for marijuana legalization in the last six or seven years. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t look like a blip,” said Peter Reuter, a University of Maryland public policy professor with 30 years experience researching drug policy.

Reuter, who co-wrote the book “Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate,” said he believes two factors are spurring the shift in national opinion: Medical marijuana has reduced the stigma associated with the drug, making it “less devilish,” and the number of Americans who have tried the drug continues to rise.

This is now becoming the conventional wisdom of even the very mainstream press — that cannabis legalization is probably inevitable. The only real question left is “How?”

Mayor Bloomberg tries to defend Stop and Frisk in this horrible piece in the New York Post: Frisks save lives

He basically takes the position that Stop and Frisk has been responsible for a decrease in violent crime, even though he has no evidence proving it (in fact, other cities without Stop and Frisk saw the same reduction in violent crime).

Even if it were true (which it isn’t), Bloomberg acts like that’s all that matters. He simply justifies the acts by the supposed results. But we have a Constitution, and therefore you can’t just do anything to people simply because it… works. What would otherwise prevent him from simply creating concentration camps for minorities if he could show that it would reduce violent crime?

He complains:

Throughout the trial that just concluded, the judge made it clear she wasn’t at all interested in the crime reductions here or how we achieved them. In fact, nowhere in her 195-page decision does she mention the historic cuts in crime or the number of lives that have been saved.

Exactly. Because that was, quite frankly, irrelevant to the question of whether the use of Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional. What did he expect her to do? “Well, what you’re doing is unconstitutional, but it works so well, so we’ll just ignore it.”

Bloomberg has shown, in various ways, a complete disrespect for the law. And here he does again.

And he has company.

Kal Penn is, once again, proving that he doesn’t have anywhere near the smarts of the stoner character that he plays in the movies.

He tweeted:

Great op/ed by @MikeBloomberg on the merits of “stop-question-frisk”. http://t.co/QVeGVqlNDF

When asked if he forgot his “snark” tag, he responded:

@Only4RM nope. It’s a good policy. Sad to see such activist judges ruling against public safety

…and he kept digging in even further…

@CWmsWrites lol well already been a victim of violent crime. It’s a sound policy and we need to stop trying to get rid of it

…to bordering on racism…

@CWmsWrites and who, sadly, commits & are victims of the most crimes?

@BridgetMarie it angers us all but the stats don’t lie. We need to do better to uplift our urban & rural communities.

…

The Daily Show has a delightful piece where they turn Stop and Frisk around.

Ken White at Popehat has an excellent post that’s extremely helpful for those who would like to understand the Holder memo and federal sentencing: The Eric Holder Memorandum on Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Explained

He concludes:

I’m not happy that the methodology for the change is a fairly dramatic expansion of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors already had a vast amount of discretion in imposing mandatory minimums — they decided whom to charge federally at all, and decided when a defendant cooperates whether that cooperation is sufficient to spare them the mandatory minimum sentence.

But previously, with certain exceptions, the Justice Department required prosecutors to seek the mandatory minimum when it was applicable. The Holder Memorandum confers an additional and substantial measure of discretion by letting prosecutors judge which defendants deserve mandatory minimums based on some criteria that incorporate wiggle room.

The Holder Memorandum also continues to normalize vast prosecutorial discretion by making explicit that prosecutors can dictate Jane Doe’s sentence simply by deciding whether or not to mention drug weight in her indictment. Federal prosecutors therefore retain almost unimaginable power to change the course of lives, to coerce cooperation, to separate some defendants from others.

It’s a pretty powerful point. We’re not likely to see real longterm reform via the good will of prosecutors.

One interesting reaction to Holder’s comments today came from a certain former Attorney General… Former AG Mukasey: Holder Has Wrong Approach on Mandatory Sentences

“Mandatory minimums impose a certain rigidity in sentencing that’s not appropriate in the individual case,” Mukasey said Monday on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” […]

Mukasey said he would be happy to work with Holder to find proper ways to change mandatory sentencing laws.

Oh, really?

Anybody else remember Michael Mukasey? Think back, …way back, to early 2008.

We had just done a bit of sentencing reform, and were releasing some prisoners who had been given ridiculously long sentences under the 100:1 crack/cocaine disparity (now down to only a merely ridiculous 18:1).

Here was Mukasey then:

Speaking before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that “a sudden influx of criminals from federal prison into your communities could lead to a surge in new victims as a tragic, but predictable, result.”

Somebody needs to ask him how that prediction turned out.

Should Marijuana Be Rescheduled? — Kevin Sabet, sounding really desparate to remain relevant given everything going on.

What does Holder’s speech really mean? Who knows? It certainly had some attractive rhetoric, but at that level, you can afford good speechwriters, so your rhetoric should seem like ambrosia. Actual action is yet to happen.

If I was to guess, I would say that Holder’s speech is the equivalent of throwing the door wide open, while his actions will be merely opening the door another crack. But that’s OK – we’re used to that and we’ll get another foot in that crack and keep that door open just a little more. We’ll never back down so there’s only one way for that door to go.

Why a Federal Judge Says the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Program is Unconstitutional by Jacob Sullum.

So much to talk about.

– Sanjay Gupta on CNN

– Attorney General vows to end the war on drugs, or do something about sentencing, or something.

– DEA in the crossfire

– Kevin Sabet apparently lies

– Plan Mexico falling apart

– Changes in the laws in Uruguay, Illinois, and other exotic locations

That’s the phrase coined by Hanni Fakhoury that’s used in this Salon article about the DEA’s use of NSA data and subsequent fabrication of evidence trails. It’s an apt analogy, although the phrase sounds vaguely oxymoronic when referring to the DEA.

The article notes that it’s tough to get the general population enraged about this (though they should be). However, I’m at least happy to see that it’s getting some traction in the media, and truly hope that it continues to blow up in the face of the DEA. What’s likely to make a difference is all the defense attorneys who are now busily preparing their new appeals.

One of the things that is really telling in this story is that the DEA bizarrely didn’t seem to think that there was really anything wrong in what they were doing. I think they got blindsided by the reaction.

It’s similar to the completely clueless statement by Michele Leonhart when talking about the perjury of supersnitch Andrew Chambers.

“The only criticism (of Chambers) I’ve ever heard is what defense attorneys will characterize as perjury or a lie on the stand.”

They have gotten so used to considering themselves above the law, that they actually forgot that’s where they went.

Lying it’s just what you do to get the job done. Re-creating an evidence trail from scratch is just part of the standard red tape that you go through to complete a drug arrest.

They’re not even consciously thinking about the fact that they’re breaking the law violating the Constitution.

It makes me wonder what it’s like when DEA personnel go home…

“Hi, honey! Great to be home. I’m exhausted. I’ve been having sex all weekend.”

“Wait — you cheated on me?”

“Oh, no, it wasn’t cheating. I would never cheat on you. It was part of my job. Don’t worry — my boss said it was perfectly fine and that it doesn’t count as cheating when we’re on the case. Fighting this drug war is a tough job, and we’ve got to be willing to do whatever it takes. So other rules don’t apply. You understand, don’t you, honey?”

“Sure thing, sweetie. Till death do us part…”

With Gil Kerlikowske scheduled to move to customs and borders, CelebStoner asked Tommy Chong about the drug czar position, ’cause face it – Tommy’s way more entertaining than Gil.

Tommy Chong: If I Were Drug Czar

The first thing I would do if I were Drug Czar is empty the jails of people doing time for drug-related offenses.

I would then turn Detroit into the largest grow room operation in the world. Every empty room in Detroit would be related to growing marijuana.

I would legalize the growing and production of hemp throughout the world.

I would open rehab facilities that offered marijuana as a gateway drug to the sober world.

And I would not tax growers. I would only tax marijuana from the retail side in the form of a business tax and then only a very small tax.

I would legalize (with doctor’s supervision) all drugs, including heroin, cocaine and meth.

Of course, there isn’t a single thing on that list that he would have the actual power to do as drug czar (and I’m sure he knows that – this interview was for fun and to make points). He might be able to provide funding for the rehab facilities, but that’s about it.

In fact, the drug czar doesn’t seem to have all that much power to actually make changes independently.

“ONDCP advises the President on drug-control issues, coordinates drug-control activities and related funding across the Federal government, and produces the annual National Drug Control Strategy…”

Where the drug czar’s power comes is in influencing policy and in being the voice of policy.

If I were drug czar (no, thanks), I would probably get on as much media as possible to talk about the failure of drug policy as it exists, to recommend that the states be given the opportunity to try different policies, and to lobby Congress to help make that happen. I would also use whatever leverage I had in the administration to advise reining in the abuses perpetrated by the DEA and other federal agencies. And, I’d recommend a budget where interdiction and domestic enforcement were dramaticaly slashed (I’d be overruled, of course, but I might get some coverage).

What would you do?

…

Speculating about what you could actually do as the drug czar isn’t nearly as much fun as unfettered speculation. For a lighter approach, read my piece If I were Contrarian-King of the United States, which I wrote some years ago, but still holds up pretty well today.

For those of you who have been asleep the past couple of days, one of the big pieces of news is that television doctor Sanjay Gupta has publicly apologized for his previous position on marijuana (video below) and now has come out with a strong statement that we have been misled and marijuana is, in fact, a legitimate medicine.

Some of you may say “Why should we care?” After all, we already know this stuff and we don’t need Sanjay’s validation. Sure, it’s nice that he actually dug into it and learned some more and was willing to have his preconceptions challenged, but how does that change anything really?

The answer is that there are millions of people in this country who never do their own research on drug policy, and whose entire perception of the world is from television “news.” When their television doctor tells them that he was wrong and he’s now discovered the facts – that marijuana is a good thing – well, that’s going to stick with them.

It’s another element in the tipping point.

Sanjay Gupta has put together a documentary on the subject called “Weed,” which airs Sunday at 8 pm Eastern, 7 pm Central on CNN. In this article, he talks about the documentary and his conversion. It sounds pretty interesting – hope it gets a lot of viewers.

Here’s the video of him apologizing on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tqg2y3yYR0&sns=em

This is just a little observation regarding how quick we are to rush to the assumption that a government ban is an appropriate solution to any problem.

I was reading a non-drug-war-related piece over at The Reality-Based Community (about cell phone use while driving and a train accident somewhere) and had a comment exchange that I found telling in this regard.

Pete Guither says:

I find it interesting that you seem to combine two very separate thoughts into one in this post. The first thought is that cell phone use is a dangerous distraction, don’t do it (just turn it off). The second thought is that legislation is needed. Yet no attempt is made to connect the two.

This is just an observation, not necessarily a criticism — after all, you may have independently considered the evidence and concluded that legislation is the proper course and just felt that this wasn’t the post to share that information. It seems to me that a proper intellectual analysis requires that we establish 1. that legislation would solve or significantly reduce the problem, and 2. that legislation is the only, or at least the best, solution to do so. Who knows? Maybe education or peer pressure would be more effective. Or maybe legislation is actually the best approach.

This is such a common thing we do. We have a strong tendency to operate on the horribly flawed “this is bad: therefore, legislation” syllogism. It’s given us decades of drug war, endless fights over abortion and all sorts of other societal problems. And legislation we do pass oftentimes ends up failing to fix, or even exacerbates, the problem.

It would be nice if we took more time to first ask the question, “Is this problem best served by legislation?”

Commenter J. Michael Neal says:

How else do you propose to ban cell phone use while driving?

Wow.

I clarified:

In case it isn’t clear, the actual question is: “How do you propose to have people stop using cell phones while driving?” And no, that is not the same question.

J. Michael Neal says:

We disagree on your last sentence. Absent a ban you might reduce people using cell phones while driving but you will not stop them. If that’s what you want to do, a ban is your only option.

Yes, he actually believed that stopping cell phone use and banning cell phone use were the same thing!

Now, on the other hand, the post’s author, James Wimberley, at least realized that “ban” is not equal to “stop,” but justifies going into automatic ban mode anyway.

James Wimberley says:

The costs of a ban are very low, and the conduct stigmatized is clearly dangerous to third parties. A low success rate would still meet a cost-benefit test. I think the onus of proof is on the opponents of legal bans. [emphasis added]

Onus of proof on the opponents. That’s a concept! A pretty ugly one. And what if it turned out that some approach other than banning would have a higher success rate? That would throw your cost-benefit test out the window.

You don’t have to be a libertarian, or otherwise opposed to large government, to desire proper analysis of a problem and its potential solutions before rushing into a ban.

Yet the impulse in the general population is to ban, whether they are on the left or the right.

Those of us involved in drug policy reform have seen so clearly first-hand the unmitigated disasters that can come from the rush to ban, and so are less susceptible, perhaps, to that impulse. But we need to help others see that banning is not equal to stopping the problem, or we’ll have a hard time convincing those who believe drugs are a problem that legalization is actually better.