Drug WarRant

Count the Costs has a new briefing out today: The War on Drugs: Creating crime, enriching criminals

This briefing summarises the crime-related costs stemming from the war on drugs, which include:

• Organised crime arising from the illicit drug trade, and its knock-on effects in terms of money laundering, corruption and violence

• Street-level crime committed by drug gangs and by
dependent drug users attempting to support their habits

• The criminalisation of users, excessive levels of
incarceration, and crimes committed by governments
under the banner of the drug war

• The economic costs of drug war-related crime, and the
criminal justice response to it

Prohibition Isn’t Free, folks.

Malaysia

The government needs more voluntary workers to complement its effort to fight drug abuse, said Sibu Municipal Council chairman Datuk Tiong Thai King.

Tiong said this would enable the nation to achieve its target of a drug-free society by year 2015 as envisioned by former prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Good luck with that. Unless your plan includes the forced emigration of 28 million people, it ain’t gonna work.

Maia Szalavitz in Time:

The latest update to the annual Monitoring the Future survey of drug use in American youth bears mainly good news, at least if your interest is in reducing drug-related harm: both teen drinking and cigarette smoking are at historic lows; in fact, past-month marijuana use is now more commonly reported by high school seniors than smoking cigarettes.

Rafael Lemaitre and Gil Kerlikowske

Glenn Greenwald has a very strong piece: The growing menace of domestic drones

Whatever else is true, the growing use of drones for an increasing range of uses on U.S. soil is incredibly consequential and potentially dangerous, for the reasons I outlined last week, and yet it is receiving very little Congressional, media or public attention. It’s just a creeping, under-the-radar change. Even former Congresswoman Harman […] has serious concerns about this development: ”There is no question that this could become something that people will regret,” she told the LA Times. The revelation that a Predator drone has been used on U.S. soil this way warrants additional focus on this issue.

There is always a large segment of the population that reflexively supports the use of greater government and police power — it’s usually the same segment that has little objection to Endless War — and it’s grounded in a mix of standard authoritarianism (I side with authority over those they accused of being Bad and want authorities increasingly empowered to stop the Bad people) along with naiveté (I don’t really worry that new weapons and powers will be abused by those in power, especially when — like now — those in power are Good). This mindset manifests in the domestic drone context specifically by dismissing their use as nothing more than the functional equivalent of police helicopters. This is a view grounded in pure ignorance.

Glenn is one of the true voices sounding the alarm of authoritarianism, and understanding the mindset of those who would assume that power.

It’s beyond obvious that policy planners and law enforcement officials expect serious social unrest. Why wouldn’t they: when has sustained, severe economic suffering and anxiety of the sort we are now seeing — along with pervasive, deep anger at the political class and its institutions — not produced that type of unrest? Drones are the ultimate tool for invasive, sustained surveillance and control, and one would have to be historically ignorant and pathologically naive not to understand its capacity for abuse.

So where do we go from here?

No matter one’s views, the escalating addition of drones — weaponized or even just surveillance — to the vast arsenal of domestic weapons that already exist is a serious, consequential development. The fact that it has happened with almost no debate and no real legal authorization is itself highly significant. One thing is for certain: this is a development that is going to continue and increase rapidly. It needs far more attention than it has thus far received.

Update: One answer:

Australia: Sniffer dogs get it wrong four out of five times

A RECORD 80 per cent of sniffer dog searches for drugs resulted in ”false positives” this year, figures show.

The figures obtained from the state government in response to parliamentary questions on notice show 14,102 searches were conducted after a dog sat next to a person, indicating they might be carrying drugs. But, in 11,248 cases, no drugs were found.

Hmmm… it’s conceivable that 20% of the population had drugs, in which case the dog sniff is actually no better than random. Regardless, any system that violates individual rights and has an 80% chance of being wrong, is, well… wrong.

How could anyone justify this? Surely nobody would conceivably stand behind such a horrible policy that subjects thousands of innocent people to humiliating searches. You’d have to be an absolute moron to justify continuing this policy, wouldn’t you?

But police strongly defend the use of the dogs, saying they are reliable and can detect remaining traces of drugs on people, even after they have been disposed of.

Inspector Chris Condon of the NSW Police dog unit said the detection dogs were extremely accurate, adding that more than ”80 per cent of indications by the dogs result in either drugs being located or the person admitting recent contact with illegal drugs.

”Any suggestion otherwise is incorrect,” Inspector Condon said. ”Drug-detection dogs are an important facet of the overall harm-minimisation strategy of the NSW Police Force. Drug-detection dogs are an extremely effective deterrent to persons transporting drugs for the purpose of supply.”

The NSW Police Association supports the dogs’ use. Its president, Scott Weber, has said they have been valuable deterrents at events such as The Big Day Out.

A spokesman for the NSW Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, said the government fully supported the use of dogs because police had found them effective.

Don Weatherburn, the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, has said the high number of searches relative to detections is not an indication of failure. ”The question is how many people would carry drugs if not for sniffer dogs,” Dr Weatherburn said.

Ah.

Why bother with the dogs? Just randomly search people. Or randomly search houses. That’ll deter people and you don’t have to pay for dog food.

Oh, random searches aren’t allowed. You mean you need some reason… or at least the appearance of a reason… like a dog.

… and the drug war makes that practically impossible.

Just saw another of many international stories of how drug users and addicts are treated: Pakistan drug rehab kept addicts in chains

Pakistani police say they have discovered drug addicts held in chains at an Islamic seminary in Karachi that offered rehabilitation services.

Police officer Akram Naeem said Tuesday that the parents of the 60 young men held at the seminary paid it to cure their children, or simply to take them off their hands.

Sound familiar? We had our own experience with torturing children in the name of fixing their drug problems with programs like Straight.

This is a continuing problem all over the world.

For years, Human Rights Watch has noted the problems of conditions in Vietnam drug detention centers.

We uncovered strong evidence that these facilities force detainees to produce goods for local Vietnamese companies, some of which supply multinational companies, under dangerous and degrading conditions for little or no compensation.

This past week, it seemed that maybe we were going to do something about this, with tweets from Rafael Lemaitre of the ONDCP (“ONDCP and NIDA Voice Concerns over #Vietnam’s Approach to Drug Treatment…”) and Kevin Sabet (“ONDCP/NIDA condemn inhumane drug treatment conditions in Vietnam. Good stuff…”), pointing to the White House blog: ONDCP and NIDA Voice Concerns over Vietnam’s Approach to Drug Treatment. The indication was that a letter had been sent.

Ah, a letter.

If a foreign country doesn’t jump in and fight the drug war to the satisfaction of the U.S., it can face decertification and severe sanctions.

But lock drug users up and use them for forced labor, and you get a letter. Maybe. As Transform asked “Have they made similar statements about the similar HRW reports re China and Cambodia?”

Here’s the real kicker, though.

I assumed when glancing at the blog that ONDCP and NIDA had sent a letter to Vietnam protesting their human rights abuses. Weak, perhaps, but at least something.

No, they sent a letter to Human Rights Watch.

In the blog post they noted that “The United States does not in any way condone the forced labor or inhumane conditions described in Human Rights Watch’s report on drug rehabilitation facilities in Vietnam.”

But the real reason for the letter to HRW was to defend themselves against accusations that Vietnam was justifying their actions based on NIDA principles.

NIDA’s Principles of Effective Drug Addiction Treatment includes: “Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.” This statement is apparently being used as a justification by other countries.

So the bulk of the ONDCP/NIDA letter to HRW about the Vietnam situation was to explain that they really don’t mean it that way.

“We were also concerned to hear that the research-based guidelines enumerated in NIDA’s Principles of Effective Drug Addiction Treatment were being misinterpreted to justify practices that do not appear to be primarily focused on providing addicted individuals with the best available treatments. Far from providing a justification for violent of punitive coercion, the principle stating that “Treatment does not have to be voluntary to be effective” is based on evidence that treatment entered as a result of a criminal justice mandate to avoid imprisonment, or even within a criminal justice setting, can be successful.”

Why tell this to Human Rights Watch? Tell Vietnam to stop it!

You’re the government of the most powerful country on earth. You control the international drug war and have your own drug war offices in 62 countries.

If you really care about human rights, you could do something about it.

We lost the war on drugs by Suzanne Wills, Austin Statesman.

Mhy Mother-in-Law’s One High Day by Marie Myung-OK Lee in the New York Times

Video: Narco-Mania! – the Beatles, Yoko Ono, and the drug war in Mexico. In Spanish. Quite entertaining, even though I don’t understand it. Anyone want to give a quick re-cap? (Via Anthony Papa)

Update: Anthony Papa sent me this English subtitled version

Presidential Proclamation

The human race reflects a myriad of vibrant cultures and unique identities, yet we are united by the innate liberties that are our common birthright. The rights to assemble peacefully, to speak and worship as we please, and to determine our own destinies know no borders. All people should live free from the threat of extrajudicial killing, torture, oppression, and discrimination, regardless of gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.

Dictators seek to constrain these liberties through repressive laws and blunt force, but hope cannot be imprisoned and aspirations cannot be killed. […]

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 10, 2011, as Human Rights Day and the week beginning December 10, 2011, as Human Rights Week. I call upon the people of the United States to mark these observances with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Some people have wondered at why I’m using up political capital in the “losing” issue of countering the government’s drugged driving campaign. “You’re never going to be able to convince the public that stoned driving is safe, so you should drop it.”

Even though I’m not trying to convince the public that stoned driving is safe — merely not the level of danger being touted by the feds in context — I understand the argument (people often don’t deal well with nuance). However…

Here’s one reason why I never will drop it.

An Aurora woman who was reaching for her sunglasses when she set off a chain reaction crash that killed a St. Charles couple riding a motorcycle pleaded guilty Friday to aggravated DUI.

Alia Bernard, 27, admitted having marijuana in her system on May 29, 2009, when she rear-ended a stopped car on Illinois Route 47 in Kane County between Sugar Grove and Elburn.

The car Bernard struck hit another car waiting to make a left turn as a line of motorcyclists came by in the oncoming lane. The force of the collision pushed the lead car into the path of motorcyclists Wade and Denise Thomas, of St. Charles, who struck the car and were killed, authorities said.

Although tests showed Bernard had marijuana in her system, she hadn’t used the drug in the three or four days before the crash and wasn’t impaired, said her lawyer, Bruce Brandwein.

“It was sunny and the sun was bouncing off the chrome of the motorcycles and she went to get her sunglasses and when she looked up, there was a car stopped in the road,” he said.

Illinois has a per se law for marijuana and driving (what the Drug Czar is pushing for the entire country). This means that any amount in the blood counts as driving impaired for enhanced sentencing.

She could get as much as 28 years.

Now this was a tragedy. It was also an accident. If you want to charge people with an aggravated felony for reaching for sunglasses without being properly stopped, then do so, but don’t charge someone for something they did days before and pretend that you care about highway safety.

Nobody would add a charge in a fatal accident because the driver had been seen drinking in a bar two days before.

This isn’t at all about highway safety or reducing traffic deaths.

This law is about not liking the kind of people who use marijuana, and finding another way to punish them for being that kind of people. Period.

It’s an ugly law and an affront to justice. It’s also based on unscientific demagoguery by the Drug Czar and his minions like Kevin Sabet.

Federal Interference In State Medical Marijuana Laws Is A Low Priority, Attorney General Affirms

Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated his absolute, one-hundred-percent, firm commitment to the administration’s vague support of law-abiding medical marijuana operations in states with medical marijuana laws, firmly promising not to assign any specific priority to medical marijuana arrests, thereby showing the compassionate approach of an administration which isn’t interested in getting sidetracked by minor details of any actual raids that may or may not be occurring.