Drug WarRant

An important decision by the Supremes today in United States v. Jones.

Lyle Denniston at ScotusBlog has the details:

The Court flatly rejected the government’s argument that it was simply not a search, in the constitutional sense, to physically — and secretly — attach a small GPS tracker on the underside of the car used by a man, Antoine Jones, who was a principal target of an investigation into a drug-running operation in Washington, D.C., and its suburbs. […]

Given the complexity of the voting pattern, and what the votes actually supported or failed to support, it nonetheless was clear that the Court was unanimous in one respect. It upheld the result — but no more than the result — of a D.C. Circuit Court ruling that Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.

So that part was very clear, but where it goes from there is a lot murkier.

The choice Monday was between a minimalist approach, one in the middle, and an expansive view of Fourth Amendment privacy. Each had support among the Justices, but counting the votes was a bit tricky.

The most sweeping argument about constitutional protection against government monitoring with sophisticated new devices came in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, but that represented — at least for now — only her views. The narrowest view (which Sotomayor said she also supported, at least this time) came in the opinion for the Court by Justice Antonin Scalia, and that is the five-vote result that clearly put police and federal agents on notice that it would be smart to get a warrant before they attach a monitoring device to a vehicle during a criminal investigation. Approximately in the middle was the view of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., which attracted perhaps four and a half votes — the half-vote being that of Sotomayor, who would have gone further.

So, the Fourth Amendment does actually mean something in the Supreme Court — it’s just that all of them have differing views of just what it means.

Ezra Klein in the Washington Post:

On Saturday’s edition of “Up With Chris Hayes,” Gary Johnson brought up an old Newt Gingrich idea I hadn’t heard before: Putting individuals who brought more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States to death. That sounded extreme, even for Gingrich. So I looked it up. And sure enough, there it is: “The Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996.” What makes the bill even more amazing is that Gingrich himself is a confessed pot smoker.

Yep. Of course, we know that about ol’ Newt, but it’s good to get more of the populace aware of how ridiculously dangerous he is.

Some interesting reactions to this story: Va. lawmaker wants to legalize marijuana to sell in ABC stores

For those who aren’t aware, ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) stores are state-run stores to sell alcohol, a system that exists in certain states as opposed to licensing private alcohol stores.

Radley Balko tweets: “I genuinely don’t know how I feel about this.”

I understand. As a libertarian, he can’t be thrilled with turning it all over to the government, while at the same time he’d be happy to get it out of criminal prohibition.

I would prefer that marijuana not be restricted to government distribution only, but have no problem with almost any half-way measure (including this one) if it actually moves us away from prohibition.

The most ridiculously self-serving comment goes to:

Wayne Frith, of Substance Abuse Free Environment (SAFE), is opposed to the idea. He said marijuana comes with dangerous health ramifications.

“The simple truth is the health implications and public safety implications are horrible with this drug. Somehow we’ve created this myth that marijuana is a harmless play drug and it’s not. It needs to be controlled. To equate it with alcohol and put it o the general public, I mean what’s next? Selling it at Wal-Mart and having young people steal it? That’s the wrong track to go down,” said Frith.

Beyond his Reefer Madness hysteria, I found it ironic that Frith wants marijuana “to be controlled” and thus opposes putting it the ABC system (yes, the C stands for “Control”). Instead, he prefers that it be sold completely without control by criminals.

Most ignorant response comes from pttownnative in the comments to the article:

Anyone who smokes marijuana is a criminal and your comments does not matter anyways. This politican who states that members of society use marijuana should be placed under oath and made to release those names. If your life sucks so bad that you have to get high just to make through your miserable existance, no one cares about thier comments either. We need to stop or regulate the government handouts to bring our economy up not wasting time with this stupid topic.

More anecdotal evidence of the link between prohibition and brain dysfunction.

It’s been suggested in comments that we have an annual Prohibitionist of the year award. I think it’s a great idea.

Perhaps, in addition to the big award, we could have a few sub categories, such as Most Outrageous Single Prohibition Action (OpEd, quote, etc.), Prohibition Apologist of the Year, etc.

What other categories would you suggest? And when should we give the award?

This is an incredibly self-righteous and contradictory OpEd by Yoni Goldstein in the Huffington Post: I Smoke Pot, But Don’t Make it Legal

I don’t have time to do it justice right now, but check it out and do your thing.

I love this…

First, he says that legalization is bad because it’ll make it available to kids

The most important reason is kids. Children are the least likely of us to have access to pot or pot dealers.

Of course, that’s just nonsense. Read the facts and you’ll realize that kids have an easier time finding pot than just about anything. And, of course, under legalization, you can have age regulations, which you don’t have under criminalization.

But now he says that if pot is legal, the kids will suddenly be able to find the drug dealers.

If pot becomes legal, drug dealers won’t sell it anymore, obviously. Which means they’ll be peddling harder stuff (or pot laced with harder stuff) like cocaine. So when kids go looking for something illegal to do, as they are wont to do, they’ll no longer have the relatively mild pot as a rebellion option.

So with marijuana illegal, kids don’t get exposed to pot. With marijuana legal, kids will no longer be able to get pot and so will buy cocaine… Surely his head should explode just from writing that.

Without even beginning to think through the entire problem, Yoni opines:

Pot rules are perfectly fine the way they are right now. It’s illegal enough to make kids think twice before smoking and keep our cities clean and active, but not illegal enough to stop sensible people from enjoying a nice toke in private. Makes perfect sense to me.

Sure, he doesn’t see all the destruction of prohibition in his nice little privileged cocoon now does he?

Just goes to show that in any group – even potheads – you can find someone who is a complete moron.

White House, today

Today, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy, released the Obama Administration’s first-ever National Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy. The Strategy outlines new actions that seek to reduce the two-way flow of illicit drugs between the United States and Canada […]

“Disrupting the flow of illegal drugs across our borders is critical to our nation’s safety and security,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. […]

Some key strategic objectives outlined in the Strategy include: […]

• Increasing the amount seized of illicit narcotics and drug proceeds crossing the Northern border by bolstering security at and between ports of entry.
• Enhancing air and maritime domain awareness and response capabilities along the Northern Border.
• Developing resources and providing training opportunities to tribal law enforcement agencies.
• Targeting the financial infrastructure of Transnational Criminal Organizations.

Of course, just like with Mexico, this is being done with the full cooperation of the Canadian government. I’m sure the families of the 50,000 dead Mexicans will be happy to reassure Canadians that they have nothing to worry about.

Right now on C-Span

Speaking to Sheriffs’ Association. According to his office: “Will call for reforming criminal justice system to address addiction as treatable disease”

Sheriff introducing him couldn’t pronounce his name.

Update: Kerlikowske lied again about the NHTSA study.

Jim Todd has an OpEd in the Tennessean: Fairness demands a new look at Drug Free School Zone Act

Call it political suicide, but the state Legislature needs to re-examine the Drug Free School Zone Act.

It’s ridiculous (but not a surprise) that such a thing might be considered political suicide, particularly when you read a description like this:

Consequently, a person who drives through a school zone with cocaine on their way to a sale outside of the school zone, during summer on a Sunday night, will still receive 15 years in prison, the same as a person convicted of raping a child or second-degree murder.

Shows how little the law actually cares about children, despite its apparent intent.

I think everybody here know the high esteem I have for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Groups like that are extremely important for turning the tide in the war against drugs. Most law enforcement LEAP members are former police officers, etc. There are very few active-duty members because of the very real risk of losing their job.

LEAP now has the first in a series of posts from an active-duty officer posting anonymously. He’s not proud of his public silence, but believes it necessary for now to keep from losing his job.

As we’ve heard from other LEAP members, there is the sense that the views of LEAP are much more widely held within active-duty law enforcement than one might expect:

Despite my current silence, I believe a paradigm shift regarding the drug war is quietly occurring in every law enforcement agency in this country, thanks in large part to the efforts of LEAP. This paradigm shift is palpable— I can see it, feel it, and on occasion I hear it slip out from fellow officers and even supervisors once in a blue moon. I firmly believe things are about to change in this country, and when they do, those within law enforcement will be jumping off this drug war rat ship like it was on fire. And the jumpers will proclaim that they knew the drug war was wrong the whole time. But alas, I am not here to judge or point fingers at those wearing badges—I wear one too. I too am riding on that drug war rat ship. Gladly, I will be jumping off that rat ship with everyone else. In the meantime, I can point no fingers, except at myself.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that there aren’t true blue drug war believers — there are plenty — but that with the right amount of critical mass, those will be the minority.

Every now and then this ridiculous argument shows up in some serious-sounding piece about legalization and it’s important that a stake be put through its heart before it breeds more stupidity. This time, it showed up in Mamon McKinnon’s Drug Legalization Chic, which I mentioned a few days ago.

“…If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose…”

This is, certainly, nonsense of the most outrageous kind, and it takes a special kind of dementia to see any logic therein.

Of course, the glib sarcastic response is “If you don’t know the difference between marijuana and rape, you won’t get invited to any of the good parties.”

In comments, Old Soldier took a stab at setting people straight:

Rape has a victim. Smoking hemp doesn’t.

In the true sense of the meaning, absolutely right. But unfortunately, this argument gets us nowhere, because there’s always some git like David W who moronically replies:

Tell that to the children? In Dallas Police were called to an apartment. It was full of pot smoke, and there were little children in there. One woman who was smoking was holding her toddler in her arms. What kind of life does that child have to look forward to, even if they some how remain healthy?? How about the organization I belonged to that had it bank account wiped out because our treasurer was a “recovering” addict and stole the money to finance her habit? Or my uncle who abandoned his family (granted, he started on pot when young but had graduated to heroin when he abandoned his wife and two children). No victims my foot.

Completely sidetracked. Mention victimless “crimes” and you’ll always get someone who thinks that secondary victimization is the same thing. And we’ve completely moved away from the topic of legalization. Dave W’s pathetic stories have nothing to do with drug legalization. In fact, they all apparently happened under criminalization. No value to the discussion at hand in any way.

Fact is, the real difference between marijuana and rape (when it comes to the discussion of eliminating criminal penalties) is… economics. Supply and demand.

As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be a supply. Putting people in jail for selling drugs doesn’t do any good at all, because there’s still a demand, so someone else will step right up and fill the vacancy. That’s why criminal drug laws are always failures, as are interdiction and all other supply-side efforts.

There is no demand for rape.

Whey you arrest and incarcerate a rapist, you take a rapist off the street and make the place safer. Nobody steps up to take their place. There’s no lucrative job opening as rapist to handle the non-existent demand from all the people out there wanting to be raped.

Marijuana and rape are different.

The failure to understand such basic economic principles is just one of the things that makes our legislative output so utterly mindbogglingly stupid.