Drug WarRant

I’ll be traveling to spend the holidays with my parents. For all those who are traveling, drive safely – don’t take any chances, and if you get tired, pull over and take a nap. Tired driving is probably the worst impairment for driving out there.

With the holidays, the roads will also be heavily patrolled. If you do get stopped and the officer wants to look through your car, just say “I don’t consent to searches.” Remember that consenting to a search is extremely un-American.

Consenting to a search shows your disregard for the Constitution and your willingness to undermine important principles within it. When you consent, you are saying that you want to suspend the Constitution for a bit. That’s unacceptable.

Consenting to a search also wastes taxpayer dollars in a period of budget crisis by taking up the time of an employee who should be working on protecting and serving rather than digging through your trunk.

Consenting to a search is also stupid on a practical level. Officers are generally not required to fix anything they break while searching your car, and if you’ve ever given a ride to someone else and something fell out of their pocket into the seat cushion, the officers are probably not going to believe that you didn’t know anything about it.

For more useful tips on your rights, get 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, which is advertised on the lower right side of this page.

Happy and safe holidays to you all!

Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No is an extremely important OpEd by Paul Butler in the New York Times (and that makes it additionally important because of the reach).

This is something that we’ve talked about for years, here, but it’s really nice to see a well-written compelling piece on jury nullification in the Times.

I was struck by some of the comments. First, it was amazing how many people simply weren’t aware of the notion of jury nullification and that it was their right (and responsibility), despite what many judges and prosecutors would have you believe.

Second, I was somewhat shocked by the strong reaction against it by some (usually without much logic or understanding of the law).

Some were bizarre:

Cassandra: This is dangerous stuff. What if a juror in a death penalty case decides that the evidence is not legally sufficient to justify a death sentence, but chooses to override the instructions given and sentence the defendant to death “as a matter of conscience”. That leaves the juror feeling fine, and morally justified, but leaves the defendant improperly sentenced to die.

or

Peter Lynn As wonderful as it sounds, jury nullification is a very dangerous, bad idea. It allows twelve people to overthrow the law of the land. There is already a mechanism in place to change laws; campaign against them, get elected, convince a majority, pass a different law.

The idea that a small number of citizens should be able to modify the law arbitrarily is, on the face of it, silly. If I could find eleven people who agree with me that I should be able to take some of Mayor Bloomberg’s money (he would hardly miss a million or two), does that mean that I should be able to walk into his bank and walk out with his money? Not really.

Some didn’t understand the responsibility of citizenship:

Horst…The second reason I disagree is it places undue burden on the juror. It’s not a light task to determine the fate of another human being. I found it much easier when told that our only job was to determine whether the defendant was guilty of the laws as they are written, without regard to the punishment. If you introduce the idea that the juror is responsible for punishment, rather than the legal system, you’re putting an undue burden on a small group of people.

Of course, this was also the person who said, “… that was my only exposure to the law other than ‘Law and Order’.” Unfortunately, way too many Americans have been “trained” in law by that show.

There were also, fortunately, a ton of positive comments. I think that the notion of jury nullification, particularly in non-violent drug cases, is starting to spread as a reaction to the intransigence of the government in reforming this issue (and that’s exactly the purpose of jury nullification).

Here was one comment with a historical reference that I particularly enjoyed:

I couldn’t find the reference, but in school we were told that a very poor man whose family was starving stole a pig from a rich man. The jury said, ‘Not guilty if he returns the pig.’ The judge refused to accept that verdict, so the jury reconvened and returned with, ‘Not guilty and he can keep the pig.’

Latest breathless headline from the Telegraph (UK): Cocaine found in nine out of ten baby changing units

Wow! That’s the mother load for tabloid journalism: children (babies!), drugs, and statistics.

The article goes on to discuss all sorts of completely irrelevant stuff related to drugs and Amy Winehouse along with the obligatory anecdotal story of a former addict:

“Coke came first, my child came second.”

So, what’s with the baby changing tables? Cocaine traces were found on 92 of 100 of these in a particular area including ones in “shopping centres, hospitals, police stations, courts and churches.”

Hmmm, seems a little odd to me (unless you’ve got some thrill-seeking coke user who is bent on hitting every baby-changing table in the region). Who were the scientists doing this study?

The team of Real Radio journalists who carried out the study… The tests, carried out by using specialist wipes…

Oh.

Bet you five bucks that there’s a common element like baby powder that causes false positives with those “specialist wipes.” In fact, a little googling will show that baby wipes have been found to cause false positives in certain drug testing devices.

But that’s not as interesting a story, is it?

I haven’t talked too much about the political candidates out there lately, but it’s been a pretty good year for us — having both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the race (even though Johnson has been excluded from most of the debates) has meant that drug policy reform and legalization has hit the news as part of a Presidential campaign more often than usual.

Now it appears that Gary Johnson will be seeking the Libertarian Party nomination (to be announced next week), and Ron Paul is now the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses.

Ron Paul’s climb has been something to watch, despite the attempts by both the media and the GOP to discount him. In years past, it was easier for them to marginalize him as “the crazy one” or by re-airing things like the newsletter he published back in the 80s (something that’s now re-surfacing for the umpteenth time as Obama supporters get nervous). But this year, the rest of the GOP field is so completely wacked-out certifiably nuts that someone with an actual brain is seen as a refreshing change. And whether or not you agree with all his policies or past practices, there’s no doubt that Paul is smart and consistent, with a solid track record. You know what you’re getting.

Gary Johnson has lacked the established grass-roots machine that Ron Paul has – something that was absolutely necessary to get past the marginalization efforts of the establishment parties who are completely opposed to any kind of actual (as opposed to professed) limited government candidates.

As the Libertarian candidate, he’ll have another opportunity to get his message across. It’s a shame that he’s been left out so much. I have a number of Republican friends – sane ones – usually fiscally conservative, but socially open-minded – and when they’ve been introduced to Gary Johnson, they’ve immediately embraced his views and usually said, “Why isn’t he running for President?” Sigh.

I have absolutely no idea how this will all play out, but love the notion of two Presidential candidates seriously talking about drug policy reform.

Howard Meitiner, President and CEO of Phoenix House, has an OpEd in the Huffington Post: The Argument Against Marijuana

His thesis is a variation on “Think of the children!…”

with the unspoken, but obvious subtext:

“… without whose exploitation we’d lose most of our $100,000,000 budget.”

Jack Marshall has a site called “Ethics Alarms” and has posted Distracted Driving, Pot, and “The Great Debate” — a reaction to the Barney Frank, George Will, et al debate.

First, he takes up the issue of federal regulations against distracted driving.

Talking on a cell phone, texting, reading a Facebook update and other forms of distracted driving do endanger others, and making laws that punish fools who think keeping up with the Kardashians is worth risking the lives of my family is an easy call, ethically speaking. So a driver has to pull off the road and park before answering a call or reading a text…big deal. George needs to get out more: if he was behind the wheel with any frequency, he would know that the number of inattentive drivers weaving in and out of traffic, shifting speeds and missing lights and signals because of the Blackberry in their hands is frighteningly high.

Ethically, the trade-off is minor inconvenience—-in most cases, minor to the point of irrelevance—versus human lives saved.

He then demonstrates his scientific/ethical/analytical bona fides by stating:

Ethics, in the end, are determined by rational conclusions, based on observation, experience and analysis, about what kind of conduct and standards most benefit individuals, society and civilization. Doctrinaire elevations of minor infringements of principle to priority over undeniable risks to human life are not ethical. Ideological purity divorced from reality is no friend of ethics.

This is to show that he’s taking a rational calculus to determine the proper balance of risks and inconvenience (not sure who gets to set the scales, though).

However, this is also where his arguments turn as dumb as a box of rocks.

Let’s say he was able to show that all the various items discussed (texting, cell phone use, checking email, etc., while driving) are actually dangerous to lives, and we, for the moment, won’t bother with little technicalities like differences between people, technical solutions, etc.

In that case, I’d be perfectly happy to agree that not doing those things is worth the inconvenience.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with a federal law.

Acting ethically is not equal to passing a law requiring people to do so. Marshall acts as though it is.

To play on his own words: laws should be determined by rational conclusions, based on observation, experience and analysis, about what kind of impact that they’ll have on the risky action, what other separate impact they’ll have, unintended consequences, and whether the risky action can be addressed in another way (such as reducing tobacco use without criminalizing it).

Unfortunately, most risk-prevention laws have no rational analysis, and this kind of idiocy is far too common. A law against doing something is actually seen as equivalent to not doing something. It is never considered that the law may have costs of its own, that it might not work, or that something other than a law might work better.

It may be that an education campaign is a better approach – getting people to choose not to ride with distracted drivers, or expressing disapproval (friends don’t let friends drive distracted). It may be that the law is unenforceable in any fair way (how will police tell the difference between GPS use and texting, etc.) or that new technology can play a part.

But saying “I’ve seen people weaving around, therefore we need a federal law” is not only irresponsible, it’s as dumb as a box of rocks.

This whole rant is just to set up the real stupidity of the piece. Next, he talks about marijuana, and it really gets surreal.

I’ll let you guys in comments have first crack at that. I may play around with it later. There’s way too much fun here to leave alone.

Some of these have already been discussed in comments, but are too good to pass up…

Priceless. Barney Frank Goes After George Will Over Marijuana Legalization On This Week

In quite a surreal moment, Barney Frank asked George Will his position on marijuana and if it should be legalized.

Will admitted that he was a supporter of the internet gambling legalization bill Frank has fought for in Congress, but admitted that regarding marijuana, he would need to learn more about its effects on the human body and how government would regulate it. Frank responded to the notion of marijuana being a gateway drug by saying “anything is a gateway to anything.” Will argued his position was a “quest for information,” and Frank asked how long it would take because marijuana has been around for a long time already.

Later…

Frank [interjected] to say that if Ryan and Will were arguing that big government is wrong, they should be intellectually consistent by not taking the position that government should prohibit people from doing what they wish to their bodies or telling people who they can marry or not.

I’m going to miss him in Congress.

There’s a really badly headlined article at the Washington Post (as noted by Malcolm) Latin American leaders fault U.S. drug users (the web page title is a bit better: “Latin American leaders assail U.S. drug ‘market’)

But the article points out some important things.

With transit countries facing some of the highest homicide rates in the world, so great is the frustration that the leaders are demanding that the United States and Europe consider steps toward legalization if they do not curb their appetite for drugs.

At a regional summit this month in Mexico, attended by the leaders of 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries, officials declared that “the authorities in consumer countries should explore all possible alternatives to eliminate exorbitant profits of criminals, including regulatory or market options.”

“Market options” is diplomatic code for decriminalization.

The complaints are not exactly new but are remarkable for being nearly unanimous. The critique comes from sitting presidents left to right, from persistent U.S. antagonists such as President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and from close U.S. allies such as President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia, which has received almost $9 billion in aid to fight the cartels.

Naturally, the usual U.S. government officials say not to worry, we’re winning the war on drugs.

Nice piece by Bill Varble: Legalize pot: It’ll dry up drug cartels’ market, save forests

Of course, there is a sure-fire way to end the reach of drug gangs into Oregon’s forests: End pot prohibition. Just declare defeat in the pot theater of the War on Drugs and move on.

This has been clear to a growing number people for a long time, but now it’s truly an idea whose time has come.

Neal Pierce in the Seattle Times: President Obama’s puzzling silence on marijuana policy

Obama’s Drug Policy Office claims the drug war is over, replaced by a focus on shrinking demand, “innovative, compassionate and evidence-based drug policies.” But Obama has not once singled out marijuana — a substance arguably far less harmful to the human body than alcohol — for special consideration. Nor has he spoken to the harm to youth caused by 800,000 yearly arrests. Or moved to stem the billions of dollars a year spent on marijuana-related arrests.

This is clearly not the “change” Obama’s enthusiastic supporters of 2008 expected. And it’s deeply ironic. Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance notes that if local police departments had been enforcing marijuana laws as harshly in the early 1980s as many do today, “there’s a good chance a young Columbia student named Barack Obama could have been picked up — and not be in the White House today.”

Kevin Sabet continues to embarrass himself. In a letter to the New York Times, he complains about advocates attempting to bypass the government’s drug approval processes and using referenda for marijuana. He then agrees that the federal government is partially at fault:

The federal government could certainly speed up research into marijuana’s components by giving incentives to scientists who study the drug and loosening marijuana’s strict research requirements.

So who should we blame for that? We keep reading and at the end of the letter we see: “The writer was an adviser on drug policy in the Obama, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.”

So he was the federal government. Ah, I guess his message is that we should be patient because now that he’s left, the government will become competent.

Breaking: Congress Votes to Kill People

Shocking headline, but true, as Congress votes to restore the ban on funding for needle exchange programs.

Congress’s action this week means misery and death for large numbers of people. As the eight federal reviews of the research on this issue demonstrate, needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV without increasing the use of drugs. According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, needle sharing by injection drug users accounts for 8,000 new cases of HIV and 15,000 new cases of Hepatitis C each year. Of course the diseases spread from them to other people on occasion, including people who have no involvement in illegal drug use. As HRC points out, New York City has seen a 75% reduction in new HIV cases as a result of instituting such programs, according to a 2005 study.

Must read: Clean Needles Saved My Life. Now Congress Wants to Ban Funding for Needle Exchange by Maia Szalavitz

Christian Science Monitor: Government isn’t lying loudly enough to young people.

Government needs to send a clear, loud message about marijuana’s dangers.

Legalizing marijuana: Police officers speak out

This has been discussed a bit in comments… fascinating column in Police One – a site not known for its tolerance for legalization.

I’ll be heading up to Chicago tomorrow to play piano for a burlesque show, and then I’ve got lots of final projects to grade this weekend.

Sometime, I’ve got to find time to do a little Christmas shopping. I was hoping to get some of this panettone as gifts, but apparently it’s only available in parts of Bolivia.

Sometimes even major media outlets let a few silly typos slip by now and then, and you have to correct them. Take this New York Daily News article, which needed some fixing. I’m pretty sure they must have heard the feds wrong – maybe a garbled phone connection – so I’ve taken the liberty of fixing…

U.S. cocaine habit failed drug policy funding Mideast terror via Mexican drug gangs: Feds

WASHINGTON — America’s cocaine habit destructive drug war not only funds drug violence in the West, it also supports Iranian-backed terror and wars waged against Israel, prosecutors charge. […]

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who filed the suit, said it “puts into stark relief the nexus between narcotics trafficking bad government policy and terrorism.”

Joking aside, this is an ugly and scary thing, as the U.S. continues to suspend human rights and Constitutional rights merely upon the arbitrary invoking of the “terror” word, for the duration of a by-definition infinite “war.”

…

Regarding media mistakes, Washington Post writer Courtland Milloy had an interesting article about the benefits of pot for athletes: For pro athletes, the risks of smoking pot are high — but so are the benefits.

One downside of the article was the casual mention: “The health risks cited are already pretty well known, including an increased risk of lung cancer and accidents and the potential for abuse and addiction.”

I wrote Mr. Milloy and pointed out the Washington Post’s own coverage of the study proving no lung cancer from marijuana use.

He was nice enough to write back:

Thanks for sharing this, Pete. I have recieved quite a few emails to that effect and may write another column exploring how a substance that chemists say has all of these carcinogens gets such a clean bill of heath regarding lung cancer. Courtland

I hope he does.

This does, of course, point out the perniciousness of the lies from the Drug Czar and NIDA. They know that they can’t say that marijuana causes lung cancer, so they regularly point out that marijuana smoke contains carcinogens (so do many commonly used substances including Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Talcum Powder, Tide Laundry Detergent, Lysol, Oscar Meyer beef hot dogs, and whole milk). Then they let other people make the non-existent marijuana-lung cancer link for them.

And yes, they are deliberate lies by the Drug Czar and NIDA as they are intended to deceive.