Drug WarRant

No softening of anti-drug war

Singapore explains its new adjusted death penalty plans.

SINGAPORE – Singapore’s move to introduce changes to its mandatory death penalty for drug offences will boost its agencies’ ability to fight the growing scourge both at home and abroad, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.

With the changes, agencies like the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) will be better able to get more information from drug mules, he added.

The reason: These criminals will be spared the gallows only when their information leads to the arrest of drug traffickers or the destruction of a syndicate.

That’s right. They know that the ones they’re executing are only mules, and they’ll continue to execute them unless they know enough to get someone higher to take their place.

This is the drug war. It is our drug war translated to places where freedom and human rights mean even less than they do here. This is the drug war that extremists like Peter Hitchens are talking about when they say we haven’t really fought the drug war.

This is why we fight to end the drug war. Not cheaper pot. There’s a much higher purpose. It’s about liberty and humanity. And life.

As the usual gang of academics in drug policy have, over the years, continually pointed out the uncertainties of legalization given the lack of any actual examples of legalization, I have often publicly wondered at the lack of interest in pushing for a Justice Brandeis-style “laboratory” to give us that actual data.

Now that Washington and Colorado have stepped up to the plate and voted for legalization despite the paralyzing reams of uncertainty that surely must be haunting their every waking moment, it’s nice to see Mark Kleiman appreciating this new laboratory: States as laboratories for marijuana policy.

So the obvious way to learn something about marijuana legalization would be to try it out one state at a time: relying on what Justice Brandeis called “the laboratories of democracy.” If Colorado’s legalization went badly, that would be a much easier problem to correct than if the mistake had been made on a national basis. […]

So why shouldn’t the federal government cut Colorado and Washington some slack? As long as those states prevent marijuana grown under their laws from crossing state lines and thereby subverting marijuana prohibition in the rest of the states, the Justice Department could step back and let the consequences of the new policies play themselves out. They might succeed, or they might fail. In either case, the rest of us could learn from their experience.

I’m pleased to see Mark engaged in this new opportunity for data.

From NIDA:

Huh???

Just doing some random thinking here…

One of the obstacles we’ve faced in the past is what we might call the “soft” support for legalization. By that, I mean that there were a lot of people who seemed to support legalization, but were either afraid to talk about it publicly, or considered it a kind of “future consideration” issue — one they supported privately, but didn’t consider important enough to give public support (“we can’t spend political capital on something like that right now when there are so many other important issues” was a common thread on liberal websites, for example).

It seems to me that we’ve done a pretty good job of breaking through that barrier. Partlly with groups like LEAP and SSDP and others, talking about legalization has become more… acceptable to people, and with the emphasis on violence in Mexico, etc., the immediacy of the issue has increased.

So now, with two states passing legalized marijuana, all those who have supported legalization, regardless of how soft their support, feel empowered, which will help dramatically with future efforts.

So, it’s time to look at the opposition to legalization, and I think we can show that it’s soft as well. Other than the die-hard prohibitionists and those who profit from prohibition, the general public that opposes legalization is unlikely to feel strongly about their opposition. They’re opposing legalization, for the most part, because they think they’re supposed to – after all, the government has told them to.

But we know that the opposition is soft — for proof, simply look at how wide the range of poll numbers is depending on how the question is asked. If people’s opposition changes based on the wording of the question, it’s very soft.

I’m already seeing some anecdotal evidence of friends who are speaking positively of the votes in Colorado and Washington as something important — and these are people who never talked about marijuana publicly before.

We could theoretically see a rapid growth in poll numbers for legalization nationally, simply because the voters in those two states validated the topic. It’s no longer some pot-head pie-in-the-sky dream, it’s state law.

Regardless of how easy or difficult it is for Colorado and Washington to implement their new laws, the laws already have major impact. They’ve emboldened countries around the world, validated the views of legalization supporters and may cause the dissolution of soft opposition.

…

What does this mean for those of us who are fighting for more than the legalization of cannabis? Well, I’m optimistic there as well.

While opposition to marijuana legalization has been soft, that hasn’t been true when it comes to opposition to legalizing other drugs. We’ve always known that legalization of other drugs will be a much tougher battle and will take more time to build support.

However, one of the great things about the cannabis legalization movement is that we have succesfully linked it to the evils of prohibition. I’m seeing so many articles that are essentially saying that we should support legalizing marijuana because the drug war is so destructive — not “the war on marijuana,” but “the drug war.” That’s a great foundation for future efforts.

At a raging fire consuming blocks of the city last night, Fire Chief Kil Gerlikowski pooh-poohed suggestions that they cut the gas supply that was fueling the fire. “That won’t stop the fire. It’ll still have wood and other materials that will keep it going,” said Kil. “It’s a bit naive to think that shutting off the gas is a solution.”

…

Legal drugs won’t stop cartels: expert

“People say, ‘gee if we could just legalise drugs, maybe we could stop violence in Mexico’,” Mr Kerlikowske told the First International Conference on Law Enforcement and Public Health on Monday.

But he said the cartels were also involved in so many other aspects of organised crime that ending their drug trade would not stop their violence.

“So I think it’s a bit naive for us to think that this issue around drug prohibition, as it’s often called, is going to reduce violence or reduce significantly the amount of money that will come into the transnational organised crime groups.”

We’ve seen numerous articles about the votes emboldening other countries.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft has an excellent article about Colorado Representatives drafting bills to keep the feds out of state marijuana laws: CO Reps to Introduce Bill on Marijuana to Protect Amendment 64

Rep. Diana DeGette says she is putting the final touches on a bill that would amend the preemption section of federal drug law to add a clause that excludes state marijuana laws. The Denver Post, in an editorial, applauds her for taking action and for urging the Justice Department to “show restraint.” Reps. Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter are also working, with DeGette and independently, on federal bills that would allow Amendment 64 to proceed, rather than waiting for an answer from D.O.J.

Jeralyn also points out passages in the U.S. Attorney’s manual that are extremely relevant to prosecutorial decisions as they may relate to going after marijuana offenses:

Nature and Seriousness of Offense. It is important that limited Federal resources not be wasted in prosecuting inconsequential cases or cases in which the violation is only technical. Thus, in determining whether a substantial Federal interest exists that requires prosecution, the attorney for the government should consider the nature and seriousness of the offense involved. A number of factors may be relevant. One factor that is obviously of primary importance is the actual or potential impact of the offense on the community….

The impact of an offense on the community in which it is committed can be measured in several ways…. In assessing the seriousness of the offense in these terms, the prosecutor may properly weigh such questions as….what the public attitude is toward prosecution under the circumstances of the case. The public may be indifferent, or even opposed, to enforcement of the controlling statute whether on substantive grounds, or because of a history of non-enforcement, or because the offense involves essentially a minor matter of private concern.

Unlikely allies behind marijuana votes in Washington, Colorado

What transpired in Colorado and Washington were disciplined efforts that forged alliances between liberals and tea party conservatives, often using public health arguments to advance their cause.

Proponents and analysts said both states benefited from existing medical marijuana statutes, money from national liberalization supporters and a sometimes disorganized opposition.

Thought it might be worth opening up this up given discussions we’ve had here in the past.

Every year, elementary students are encouraged to do the most bizarre activities in furtherance of the DEA-glorifying Red Ribbon week. Here’s another one: Creating a drug-free message, which includes things like “crazy sock day with a reminder to ‘Sock Out Drugs!'”

I particularly loved the door-decorating contest with the winner “Toadily Against Drugs!”… particularly when you consider the psychoactive properties of the substance in the glands of many toads.

Link

The irony for the U.S. government is that Mexico, and the rest of the world, now has a U.S. precedent to cite when creating blueprints for a post-Drug War world.

“Now we are not like madmen in the desert,” Jorge Hernández, president of the Collective for an Integral Drug Policy and legalization advocate, told Time. “This transforms the debate.”

The votes in Washington and Colorado have world-wide significance.

Jim Corbett of USA Today Sports put out the most clueless piece today regarding the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, with assistance from Lindsay Jones and Jeff Zillgitt of USA Today Sports: Amendments don’t change leagues’ stances on marijuana

Now there’s one huge glaring omission in the entire article that completely invalidates any meaning. As you read some quotes from the article, I’m going to supply the missing element for you in pictures.

NBA spokesman Mike Bass told USA TODAY Sports that the amendments won’t impact the league’s substance-abuse policy: “Marijuana is a prohibited substance under our collectively bargained anti-drug program,” he said.

So, the message is simple: No matter what state law says, light up a joint and a sports career can go up in smoke. […]

Former Broncos tight end Shannon Sharpe, a member of the Hall of Fame, told USA TODAY Sports that loosening the league and NFLPA’s collectively bargained substance abuse policy that mandates suspensions for using the drug won’t change any time soon because it sends the wrong message.

“That will never happen. Not in our lifetime, because of the way kids follow what NFL players do,” said Sharpe, a CBS analyst. “If you look at Little League football, kids who play want to wear the pink towels and shoes for breast cancer awareness … they follow everything the big guys do.

“The voters have spoken in Colorado. They don’t think to a certain degree, the amount is a big deal. They voted and said so. But I don’t see the NFL, basketball or baseball condoning it.” […]

“There are a lot of things that are legal outside of the NFL — Ephedera, Adderal. There are certain things you can take as a normal citizen walking around the street that are legal,” Sharpe said. “It sends the wrong message.”