Drug WarRant

Joe Biden brings the checkbook.

US offers more aid to fight Central America drug crime

Mr Biden said the US had supported Central America under a regional security initiative with some $361m (£230m) since 2008.

“We’re asking our Congress for another $107m next year,” he said. […]

The drugs issue is likely to surface next month when regional heads of state, including US President Barack Obama, gather in Colombia for the sixth summit of the Americas.

Joe’s writing checks on money we don’t have in order to try to keep President Obama from having to face tough questions about failed policy.

Update: Even writing checks isn’t going to silence the region. Check out this outstanding article by Laura Carlsen that was picked up in Honduras Weekly: Upping the Drug War: Doing Biden’s Bidding

His message is that the administration that presides over the nation with the largest illegal drug market in the world and actively funds a global war to enforce ineffective prohibition policies will not consider any form of legalization. But it supports “dialogue.”

Can that position really qualify as dialogue? A dialogue on how to “be most effective in confronting transnational criminal organizations” must start from the recognition that the current US strategy has increased violence, done nothing to reduce crime or illicit drug flows and had a devastating impact on “people’s daily lives and daily routines” in Mexico and Central America.

A real discussion on effective strategies has to include the option of legalization. […]

Biden appears to have been charged on this trip with deterring any move toward legalization in the region and aligning nations in the war on drugs.

He has a tough road ahead of him. Latin American citizens and government leaders are openly protesting a model where their nations pay in blood and lives to fill US defense contractor’s pockets and spread the Pentagon’s global reach — with few, if any, positive results.

Biden may have taken the checkbook with him and these countries will probably take the money offered, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anymore that it will buy their silence.

To use that influence to suppress debate on innovative and very possibly effective alternatives to the bloody drug war is bad politics and the opposite of the kind of “equal partnership and mutual respect” the Obama administration promised at the Trinidad and Tobago Summit in 2009. Part of the purpose of Biden’s trip was to prepare for the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April. At that summit, the hemisphere’s nations will be able to judge whether Obama’s presidency changed relations as promised three years ago.

If Biden’s trip was only about locking in policies of drug war militarization and discouraging independent regional initiatives, the Obama administration will arrive in Cartagena having broken those promises and dashed hopes of a more just realignment of relations in the hemisphere.

I’m thinking that the Summit of the Americas is going to be something to watch.

Mexico Kills Cartel Big Shot, But Drug Violence Worsens

Drugs factory raided

A total of 90 cannabis plants, with a street value of between £20,000 and £30,000, were seized from the property […]

Ian Hodge, who lives in Berryfield Road, Cottingham, saw officers loading the cannabis plants into a police van.

He said: “Everyone in the village is talking about the raid and some people are really stunned. I’m not surprised a cannabis factory has been found in Cottingham because, with all the activity to shut down drugs houses in Corby, the problem is likely to move outside the town.

I really find the word “factory” to be bizarre when referring to growing some marijuana plants. It’s a garden. Even if it’s indoors, it’s not a “factory.” Do UK residents actually say “cannabis factory”? Or is the reporter putting words in his mouth.

Here’s the real fun stuff:

Police are warning that when cannabis plants reach the final stages of maturity the odour they release has carcinogenic properties.

Officers who deal with the plants use ventilation masks and protective suits and people who have plants in their home, especially anyone with young children, may be exposing their family to a health risk.

Wow! Just completely making things up now.

It’s so outrageous that the police inspector interviewed in the article actually wrote in the comments section that he said nothing of the sort and he had no idea where the reporter got the idea.

Interestingly, no reporter’s name is given with the article.

Update:

Thanks to Daksya in comments…

Check out this delightful follow-up by Ben Goldacre — really nice job by Ben at digging into this story and finding the faults from both the police and the press. Be sure to read the comments there — that’s where the real action takes place.

And thanks to Jake for letting me know that the word “factory” is commonly used in the UK to refer to grow-ops.

TED talks.

In an engaging and personal talk — with cameo appearances from his grandmother and Rosa Parks — human rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson shares some hard truths about America’s justice system, starting with a massive imbalance along racial lines: a third of the country’s black male population has been incarcerated at some point in their lives. These issues, which are wrapped up in America’s unexamined history, are rarely talked about with this level of candor, insight and persuasiveness.

About 26 minutes. Powerful stuff. And definitely relevant to the war on drugs (as mentioned in passing at the very end).

Pat Robertson, on the 700 Club, reiterates his support for marijuana legalization

We here in America make up 5% of the world’s population, but we make up 25% of jailed prisoners…

Every time the liberals pass a bill — I don’t care what it involves — they stick criminal sanctions on it. They don’t feel there is any way people are going to keep a law unless they can put them in jail.

I became sort of a hero of the hippie culture, I guess, when I said I think we ought to decriminalize the possession of marijuana.
I just think it’s shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hardcore criminals because they had a possession of a very small amount of controlled substance. The whole thing is crazy.

You can sign a petition to “Support Guatemalan president’s call for drug legalization.”

It doesn’t matter what Biden says. He obediently trotted over to Latin America because they demanded a discussion about legalization. And he had no choice – if he didn’t do it now, Obama would have to face the discussion himself when he visits. Nothing can now change the fact that the Vice President of the United States has flown to Mexico and Central America to discuss legalization of drugs.

In Mexico, Biden shoots down talk of drug legalization

Despite Biden’s emphatic rejection of moves toward legalization, analysts of counter-drug policy say policymakers in Washington may no longer be able to halt demand for broader discussions.

“What’s clear is that for the U.S. to continue to say, ‘There is no debate and discussion to be had. It’s a settled matter’ — that won’t fly anymore,” said John Walsh, drug policy program coordinator at the Washington Office on Latin America, a social justice and human rights advocacy group.

Demands to address failures in U.S.-designed counter-drug policies have been stimulated, ironically, by the posture of Washington’s closest ally in the region — President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, who said last fall that he would welcome discussion about legalization but would be “crucified” if he led the charge.

So, yes, while Biden shot down legalization, he added legitimacy to it.

Biden, on a two-day swing to Mexico and Central America, said a sour mood over violence from powerful narcotics mafias has led to a desire in some corners of Latin America to debate legalization.

“It warrants a discussion. It’s totally legitimate for this to be raised,” Biden said, adding that he’d spent “thousands of hours” at Senate hearings over the issue.

Wait. What?

He’s spent thousands of hours at Senate hearings over legalization? Right. I’d be willing to bet he’s spent thousands of hours at Senate hearing figuring out more ways to incarcerate people for drug crimes, but probably the only discussions related to legalization involved asking if there’s a way to jail people who advocate legalization.

Check this out at Huffington Post: Rep. Jared Polis burns Colorado’s new DEA Chief Barbra Roach over strict anti-marijuana stance

We’ve had a number of discussions recently regarding Drug WarRant’s position on legalization and the definition of legalization so I thought it was a good time to re-cap the official stance of this site (individual readers’ mileage may vary).

Drug WarRant supports and fights for the legalization of all recreational drugs.

Ah, but what does that mean? Here are our definitions.

Legalization: A status where responsible adults may legally acquire, possess, and use a particular drug, although there may be restrictions on time, place and manner.

Legal does not mean unregulated. In fact, when it comes to drugs, most supporters of legalization call for some regulation and control.

Consider gasoline. It is an extremely dangerous substance — it can cause severe health problems or death if inhaled, can be fashioned into an explosive and can cause damaging fires. It is a legal substance (responsible adults may acquire, possess, and use it), but it is subject to control and regulation. It can only be sold by licensed dealers, and there are regulations as to how it may be used, in what kind of containers it may be stored, and so forth.

Legalization of drugs is fully compatible with regulatory efforts restricting access to children, forbidding use while driving or while working in safety-sensitive jobs, banning use in certain locations or situations, controlling the means for manufacture and distribution (including taxation and labeling), and creating standards for purity and potency.

Criminalization: A status where the manufacture, distribution, and/or possession of a particular drug is likely to result in criminal penalties if caught (ie, felony or misdemeanor charges, jail, fines, probation, criminal record), regardless of time, place, or manner.

Prohibition: The combined efforts by government entities and others to enforce and promote criminalization.

Decriminalization: American Heritage dictionary defines it as “to reduce or abolish criminal penalties for.” Theoretically, decriminalization could mean legalization (and is preferred by some drug policy reformers), except for the “reduce” option. Decriminalization is sometimes used to describe contradictory legal situations where marijuana, for example, is legal to possess and use, but not to acquire — this is a partial legalization that leaves intact certain destructive aspects of prohibition’s side-effects. Because of these confusions, for the purpose of this site, we tend to prefer the terms criminalized and legalized.

The default status of any substance is legal.

Obviously, this means that legalization is a huge field. There is everything from completely unrestricted to extremely heavily regulated within the realm of legalization. While we certainly have opinions as to what the proper set of policies may be for any particular drug, the one certain thing is that we must start with a position of “legal.”

Drug WarRant supports and fights for a legal regime that dramatically reduces the destructive effects of prohibition.

While we have opinions as to the ideal set of regulations for any particular drug, the most important thing is to reduce the many harms of prohibition. A legalized regime is only proper if it makes the black market largely unprofitable. This doesn’t mean that we have to eliminate the black (or grey) market altogether, but regulations must not be so strict (or taxes so high) as to be, from a market perspective, indistinguishable from prohibition.

Even ridiculous taxation on cigarettes by some states has largely managed to avoid a black market explosion. Most people prefer to buy legally and are willing to pay a premium to do so, and the black market has costs that the legal market does not.

This leaves a fairly large set of options open regarding taxation and regulation without returning to the violent black market fueled by prohibition. We look forward to the day when we can have the inevitable discussions (and arguments) about what the appropriate amount of regulation is for each drug.

But first, legalization.

Eric Sterling has a good piece at Forbes: The War On Drugs Hurts Businesses and Investors

This is something that we need to be getting on the radar more — the fact that the drug war actually hurts business, damages the labor pool, reduces productivity and buying power within the legitimate economy.

Every now and then we hear the government talk about the billions in “lost productivity” due to drugs, when in fact it is lost productivity due to drug policy.

It’s time for business to start grumbling about the unfair burden that the drug war puts on their ability to recruit trained employees, and increase productivity and profits, and how the violence and corruption of the drug war poisons the market.

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is a rogue organization loosely connected to the UNODC, with essentially no oversight and operating in secrecy. It’s on the list of organizations that I will designate as terrorist organizations when I become President.

As many of you know, Bolivia recently withdrew from the Single Convention because they were going to be required to outlaw non-cocaine uses of coca leaves in contradiction of Bolivian heritage and Constitution. They intend to re-ratify the convention with an exception for traditional coca usage.

Well, the INCB recently made a bunch of noise about how Bolivia is essentially wrecking drug policy for the rest of the world (even though all Bolivia wants to do is live up to their cultural commitments to aboriginal rights, etc.).

This prompted this rather strongly worded letter from Bolivia to the INCB.

The fact that, according to your note, the purpose of the mission was to analyze “the grave consequences for international drug control” of our political decision makes it clear that the mission apparently arrived in our country already prejudiced. This is the same prejudice which was publicly expressed by the INCB in its press statement of 6 July 2011, where it is mentioned that “such approach would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system”. Your letter simply repeats the position that the President of the INCB had already embraced, without examining in a serious manner the arguments which have been explained to you in great detail during your visit. […]

The Plurinational State of Bolivia regrets that the Board has failed to understand and reflect the firm will of the Bolivian government to continue to be part of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. This is why it feels forced to express its utmost rejection of the disqualifications expressed in your note, which fail to ponder on the conclusive and unprecedented results of the Bolivian commitment to control the surplus coca cultivation and the illicit drugs trade. […]

We categorically reject the claims and erroneous opinions expressed in your note in the sense that the Plurinational State of Bolivia has the intention of undermining the integrity of the international drug control system, as it has been wrongly interpreted. […]

Moreover, I am obligated to categorically object to the erroneous inference on the part of the Board when confusing the unilateral accession-with-reservation procedure with a supposed intentionality regarding the reclassification of the coca leaf in List I of the Convention of 1961. In this manner, the INCB seeks to discredit and convolute the intention of the Plurinational State of Bolivia that is well aware of the legal dispositions established in the Conventions for this purpose and the difference between these, and the process begun in June with the denunciation.

This may sound like complex and dry, but it really is quite blistering in foreign-policy-speak.

With Latin America speaking up almost in one voice in favor of talks about legalization, forcing the U.S. to send Joe Biden down there in some futile attempt to quash a rebellion of ideas.

Danny Kushlick, who heads the London-based Transform Drug Policy Foundation, said the region is “on the verge of a tipping point that will begin when the Latin Americans raise the issue within earshot and in full view of the Americans. Ultimately this is about allowing democratic conversations to take place without being leaned upon by the U.S.”

Latin America is feeling bolder, and Bolivia has no reason to act subservient to the INCB.

The U.S. hold on the drug war is noticeably slipping. It still holds the high ground in power, but has definitely lost the moral high ground that it once appeared to have, and the grumbling is getting louder (and it won’t be completely silenced by Joe Biden and the checkbook he’ll be bringing).

I’ve noticed that Biden’s been almost invisible so far in the Obama Presidency, and so has stayed out of trouble. This little trip to Latin America would be an interesting time for one of his trademark gaffes.

A very interesting debate in four parts between Sean Dunagan (former DEA analyst and LEAP member) and Kevin Sabet (former ONDCP staffer and prohibitionist).

Has Obama Challenged the ‘War On Drugs’ Assumptions’?

One of the nice things about this particular video debate is that they also have the transcripts available, in case you prefer to read than listen/watch (usually my preference).

In the four parts, they cover a fair amount of ground. Parts 1-3 are the most predictable. Sean Dunagan does a good job getting the important points out there. Kevin is his usual self – often agreeing with his opponent at points to seem reasonable and then countering with a list of fallacious arguments a mile long.

One fallacy he likes to use is the Perfect Solution Fallacy, where he denigrates a proposed solution because it won’t solve all the problems.

Here’s one of the most extreme and obvious examples, where the host asks him a question of balancing costs:

JAY: Let me ask a question. Let’s for the sake of argument say that if there was decriminalization or legalization of some form, use would go up. So what? And what I mean by so what: is it worth—even if it has negative consequences (and I would say it would), is the consequences of, for example, the destruction of so many inner cities through gang culture based on drug control, the destruction of Mexico, what’s happening in Central America—like, if you’re balancing a complex problem here, is the war on drugs worth it?

SABET: Yeah, so there are two issues with that. One is that you just made an assumption that all that will go away if drugs were legalized.

What??? No, he didn’t.

SABET:…They’re making money from multiple things. To think with that assumption that you just made that they’re going to go away if only drugs were legal, because it would be like alcohol and tobacco, is to totally not understand and see what the economic impact and how these organizations are in our society.

That’s a really obvious disconnect from the question in a pretty offensive way.

Later on, he does it again

But one of the things, even if you end up taxing it, as have been many of the proposals, the idea that this underground market is necessarily going to go away is ridiculous. The profits they’re making are so big, they’ll lower their price to match—it’s worth it for them to lower their price to match or even go slightly below the government

The argument is not that the underground market will go away entirely, but it certainly is going to be radically diminished, and that’s a huge, huge benefit. But Sabet throws in the Perfect Solution Fallacy to avoid getting in a balancing the costs discussion.

There’s more…

The idea that we’re going to be able to legalize drugs and solve Mexico’s problem right now—which is, I would say we both agree, a huge issue—the idea that that’s going to happen under legalization is totally, again, missing the point. It’s simplistic in that it doesn’t get to the core issues of corruption and the core issues of what’s happening in Mexico.

Or his answer to serious questions about heroin maintenance programs and inner city problems…

I think we can do better than giving heroin to people in controlled settings and assume that their misery’s going to go away in a place like Baltimore.

He uses that several times more.

Unfortunately, Kevin’s use of these fallacies in arguments serves him well, because it often keeps the debate from getting to the real issues. I think Sean Dunagan actually should have avoided getting into the long discussion about numbers of use because that’s a distraction (I’m not blaming Sean, it would have been extremely hard not to get sucked into it) — it’s a distraction from the real balancing-the-costs issue and it ignores the fact that use is a rather meaningless factor when discussing harm.

Part 4 of the debate got into some interesting territory by bringing in Megan Sherman, who grew up on the streets of Baltimore, discussing the larger problem of policing in the inner city. Megan sees the destructive policing issue to be the important one to be solved prior to discussing legalization, but I think she fails to understand the degree to which drug policy allows and encourages bad policing practice.

One minor point from earlier in the debate. I got a real chuckle out of Kevin’s attempt to paint RAND as a completely independent source with “nothing to do with government.”

First of all, the RAND Corporation, which is a nonprofit, independent organization that has nothing to do with government, did a major study on the impact of legalization and what would happen in California when they were going for legalization of marijuana, and found that there would be a significant increase in use because of prices would fall. So, I mean, economics 101, drug policy 101: drug prices under legalization fall and use goes up. Youth are especially sensitive to price. So that—you know, and they who do not have a stake in the political or policy game said that that would happen.

Right. And the Heritage Foundation is bipartisan.