Drug WarRant

I don’t pretend to understand the political structure and procedures nearly as well as I do for the U.S., but there has been a new report put out by the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on drug policy study and recommendations as a result of extensive study and taking evidence from a variety of sources on drug policy. This report has already caused quite a stir.

The report was embargoed until today, but the Daily Mail jumped the gun with an hysterical screaming headline on Sunday (with a truly bizarre juxtaposition of a free glass of champagne offer on the top of the page).

Of course, the truth is far more complicated than that.

However, it does appear that there are some very good recommendations included in the report (along with some not-so-good ones).

The big ones are that the report calls for the immediate establishment of a royal commission to consider alternatives to current drug policy, including decriminalization and legalization. They also recommend that the government look closely at Portugal’s system (the committee traveled there).

This good article by Alan Travis in the Guardian is a much more coherent read about the report (than anything you’d get in the Mail): David Cameron urged to take ‘now or never’ step on drugs reform.

Naturally, the hard-liners over there are not responding very well to the report.

Check out this truly ignorant piece by Thomas Pascoe: Drug policy cannot be decided by commissions on the basis of empirical evidence. It’s a moral problem

A grim sense of inevitability surrounds the suggestion by the Commons Home Affairs Committee that a Royal Commission be established to consider the legalisation of certain drugs, particularly cannabis. The suggestion that the legalisation of drugs ought to be subject to a commission of impartial experts is particularly tiresome. […]

Drug-taking is a moral issue. The fact that large numbers of young people feel the need to obliterate reality through drugs says something both about them and us. First, drug use feeds into a culture in which people take refuge in imaginary lives, rather than taking practical steps to remedy their problems. Second, it implies that as a society we can offer nothing else to these people, that release from the crushing boredom of many people’s daily existence cannot be found in charity work or education or self-betterment.

Legalising drug use endorses both of those viewpoints. Whether you want to build the New Jerusalem or simply improve your own lot, one way to ensure you fail is to turn inwards and seek the solitary consolation of a fantasy world. To take such a despairing view of people’s prospects is a moral tragedy.

Then there have also been the tossing out of ridiculous and false scare items about drugs.

(Reported in tweet by @Release_Drugs)

“It’s like going from a pint of beer to a pint of neat vodka” Minister on growing strength of cannabis (2:14) http://t.co/2BG8W09M

Um, no. If anything, it’s like going from a pint of beer to a shot of neat vodka.

Of course, the real issue is that this is merely a report. It would require action by politicians to be implemented.

It’ll probably end up on a shelf.

As demonstrated here (also via @Release_Drugs):

“We are open to new ideas but we will not consider decriminalising drugs” Minister contradicts himself (2hrs 14mins in) http://t.co/NZbZy1GX

Anyway, the truly good news is that here is yet another piece of this inexorable shift in international opinion about the drug war. The hardline governments can only withstand this continuous bombardment of facts and common sense for so long before their defenses crumble under the onslaught.

If you enjoy the read, here is the full report, and after the jump, I have provided the full conclusions section (the most interesting bits are sections 26, 42, and 43). You’ll notice a range of things discussed in this report, and many of them are suggestions of better methods of enforcement, but there’s also a sense throughout the report of looking at overall harm reduction (including reducing the harms of the drug war), which is a very good shift in focus.

Continue reading →

I know, I know.

I have a friend who teaches at-risk youth and she’d really like to show them the “Breaking the Taboo” film, but it would be better if she could also show a film with a different perspective and turn it into a writing assignment.

Any suggestions? Obviously, I don’t think we’re going to find one as good as Breaking the Taboo, but I don’t want to insult them with anything obviously stupid (no Reefer Madness, or that bizarre Church Lady parody, etc.)

Tommy Chong is interviewed on The Young Turks and he seems outright optimistic about the future after the votes in Washington and Colorado.

“Huge, huge difference. It’s going to bring about the legalization of hemp, for instance […] It’s also going to empty the jails, and we’re probably going to disband the DEA. Yay! […] Washington and Colorado are just the toe into the water. The whole country is following.”

Just the thought of the U.S. without the DEA is really quite stirring.

There’s nothing this administration hates worse than leakers… except when it’s doing the leaking intentionally to use the media.

There’s no better tool for official leaks than the New York Times, which has a policy against using unnamed government sources — a policy that it ignores constantly.

Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use

WASHINGTON — Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.

Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts.

[…]

Federal officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Several cautioned that the issue had raised complex legal and policy considerations — including enforcement priorities, litigation strategy and the impact of international antidrug treaties — that remain unresolved, and that no decision was imminent.

The Obama administration declined to comment on the deliberations, but pointed to a statement the Justice Department issued on Wednesday — the day before the initiative took effect in Washington — in the name of the United States attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan. She warned Washington residents that the drug remained illegal.

The article goes on to explore some potentially extreme options with no indication that these specific options are being considered.

This appears to be a blatant political trial balloon using the New York Times to see what kinds of reactions there are and what political fallout might come from action… or inaction.

Update: I wrote to Charlie Savage for some clarification on the story. In reading it, I couldn’t positively connect the specific options listed to the sources. It was inferred that those came from the sources, but not linked (and with the third one actually attributed to someone else, that also made me cautious about assuming).

He wrote back:

@DrugWarRant Yes, this is something they are mulling. Also, saw your blog re tool for planted trial balloon – you are, forgive me, paranoid.

So apparently, the unnamed sources did specify at least those first two rather outrageous options.

And yes, I am paranoid. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, when considering either the history of this administration, the history of the drug war, or the history of the New York Times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtNF-Le2L0&sns=em

In the state of Washington, people are now apparently legally smoking pot and getting gay-married (though not necessarily both at once), and from browsing the news reports, it appears that God has neglected to smite anyone, and there are no reports of rampant cannibalism or other societal collapses.

It’s still early, though, so we’ll keep a close watch on the sky…

The new documentary, Breaking the Taboo opens tomorrow… on YouTube. Interesting notion to have a film open on YouTube, but it certainly is a good way to get wider distribution immediately. Based on the trailer, it sure looks like it could be a good one.

At the link above, you can also sign their petition to end the drug war. And if you take a look at the supporters they have, or the list under the mission statement, it’s pretty impressive, and sure dispels the old tired notion that drug policy reform is just about potheads wanting to get high.

Event the relentlessly hysterical pro-prohibition rag The Daily Mail seemed to get excited about the film after seeing all the celebrities that showed up to support it at last night’s screening.

I don’t expect the film will be overtly pro-legalization, but it will be overtly pro-change, and specifically include a call to change the single convention. Here is their mission:

We call on Governments and Parliaments to recognise that:

Fifty years after the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was launched, the global war on drugs has failed, and has had many unintended and devastating consequences worldwide.

Use of the major controlled drugs has risen, and supply is cheaper and more available than ever before. The UN conservatively estimates that there are now over 250 million drug users worldwide.

Illicit drugs are now the third most valuable industry in the world, after food and oil, all in the control of criminals. Fighting the war on drugs costs the world’s taxpayers incalculable billions each year. Millions of people are in prison worldwide for drug-related offences, mostly personal users and small-time dealers.

Corruption amongst law-enforcers and politicians, especially in producer and transit countries, has spread as never before, endangering democracy and civil society. Stability, security and development are threatened by the fallout from the war on drugs, as are human rights. Tens of thousands of people die in the drug war each year.
The drug-free world so confidently predicted by supporters of the war on drugs is further than ever from attainment.The policies of prohibition create more harms than they prevent. We must seriously consider shifting resources away from criminalising tens of millions of otherwise law abiding citizens, and move towards an approach based on health, harm-reduction, cost-effectiveness and respect for human rights.

Evidence consistently shows that these health-based approaches deliver better results than criminalisation. Improving our drug policies is one of the key policy challenges of our time. It is time for world leaders to fundamentally review their strategies in response to the drug phenomenon.

At the root of current policies lies the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. It is time to re-examine this treaty, which imposes a “one-size-fits-all” solution, in order to allow individual countries the freedom to explore drug policies that better suit their domestic needs.

As the production, demand and use of drugs cannot be eradicated, new ways must be found to minimise harms, and new policies, based on scientific evidence, must be explored.

Wired: U.S. Ready to Offer Mercenaries $10 Billion for a Drug-War Air Force

Unsure how your private security firm makes money as the U.S. war in Afghanistan winds down? One option: Go into the drug trade — more specifically, the lucrative business of fighting narcotics. The State Department needs a business partner to keep its fleet of drug-hunting helicopters and planes flying worldwide. You could make up to $10 billion-with-a-B.

Starting next month in Melbourne, Florida, the State Department will solicit some defense-industry feedback on a contract to help operate its 412 aircraft, based in at least eight nations, before it reopens the contract for bidding. Among the missions the diplomatic corps needs fulfilled: “Provide pilots and operational support for drug interdiction missions such as crop spraying, and the transport of personnel and cargo,” according to a pre-solicitation the department’s bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs released on Friday.

Must be some of that Third Way stuff the ONDCP keeps talking about.

Sorry for the lack of posts the past few days — the L.A. trip wiped me out, and now it’s the last week of school with a lot of catching up to do.

Interesting legal development: California Court: Landlord Can’t Evict Medical Marijuana Dispensary

One of the tools that the feds have been using has been to threaten the landlords and get them to do the dirty work for them by evicting the dispensary. This ruling notes that as long as the lease indicated that the business was for medical marijuana, the landlord can’t use the state courts to evict them for doing what they said they would do and what’s legal under state law.

Gee, maybe there really are some limitations to applying U.S. law to the entire globe. U.S. law targeting drug smugglers in foreign waters is deemed illegal

In a bit of a blow to the endless war on drugs, a federal appeals court has concluded the 1986 law used to charge the defendants is illegal. In November, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta vacated their convictions after finding that Congress exceeded its constitutional power when it passed a portion of that law that was used to prosecute them.

The appeals court found that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act could not be used for prosecuting drug smugglers arrested within the 12-mile territorial waters of foreign countries such as Colombia, Panama, Guatemala and Honduras.

Only a minor restriction to the global domination of the U.S. drug war, but important nonetheless.

Pretty pathetic. Colorado Business Groups Ask Feds to Enforce Marijuana Laws

That’s right – a bunch of Chambers of Commerce and other organizations have sent a letter asking for the feds to step in. It’s a truly bizarre letter. They say that the legal uncertainties of the clash between state and federal laws create a difficult business climate, but their only suggestion for solving it is for the Feds to impose draconian enforcement and they completely ignore the other way to resolve the difference.

On November 6, 2012, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64, a statewide initiative that makes it lawful for any adult to possess up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Passage of Amendment 64 has left considerable uncertainty for employers and businesses in Colorado with regard to their legal rights and obligations. At a time when the Colorado economy is successfully emerging from the most recent economic downturn, enjoying certainty in our business decisions will assure continued growth in our economy.

The Colorado business community, as represented by the signatory organizations noted below, seeks clarity from the Department of Justice with regard to your intentions to enforce federal law under your prosecutorial discretion.

The provisions of Amendment 64 are in direct conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and other provisions of federal law. The CSA clearly states that federal law preempts state law when there is a positive conflict between the two jurisdictions.1 Furthermore, Amendment 64 violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution as well as our government’s treaty obligations ratified by Congress.2
Consequently, we encourage the enforcement of the CSA, to provide the certainty and clarity of law we seek.

Another whirlwind weekend for me. I’m up in Chicago now – just played a couple of hours of Christmas music on the piano for a nice alumni event at the Allerton Hotel. Tomorrow I’m off to Los Angeles and I’ll be doing an event Sunday afternoon and then taking the red-eye back Sunday night.

So play nice and share the pizza.

…

The local paper asked me to comment on the medical marijuana bill in Illinois. It was kind of odd, because my mindset is currently so far beyond the petty things that they’re arguing over that it was hard to even focus on the arguments.

It was like “Oh, wait, you want me to comment on legalizing medical marijuana? Right. What were the arguments against?”

Medical marijuana bill could be voted on next week