Drug WarRant

The title of this post is probably truer than most of the other coverage of this bizarre incident that you’ll see elsewhere.

What you’re probably going to hear is that Iranian terrorists were paying a Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador, among other things.

The convoluted story is probably much different. As the New Yorker notes:

At least six countries are part of the story: allegedly, an American who also had an Iranian passport travelled to Mexico to meet with a member of a drug cartel (who turned out to be a confidential D.E.A. informant) to recruit a hitman to kill a Saudi Arabian and maybe also attack the Israeli embassy in Argentina. (A map with pins in it would help here.)

I sometimes wonder just how much crime we could eliminate if the DEA wasn’t so busy facilitating it.

Needless to say, some are always anxious to claim direct connections between drug trafficking and terrorism, and will imply that Mexican DTO’s are ready to participate in such activities.

Silvia Longmire is properly skeptical, noting somewhat tongue-in-cheek:

Maybe Los Zetas are crazy enough to do it, but for $1.5 million dollars? Add a couple of zeros to that figure, and maybe it’s a better possibility.

Update: Glenn Greenwald properly ridicules The “very scary” Iranian Terror plot

The most difficult challenge in writing about the Iranian Terror Plot unveiled yesterday is to take it seriously enough to analyze it. Iranian Muslims in the Quds Force sending marauding bands of Mexican drug cartel assassins onto sacred American soil to commit Terrorism — against Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel — is what Bill Kristol and John Bolton would feverishly dream up while dropping acid and madly cackling at the possibility that they could get someone to believe it. […]

To begin with, this episode continues the FBI’s record-setting undefeated streak of heroically saving us from the plots they enable. From all appearances, this is, at best, yet another spectacular “plot” hatched by some hapless loser with delusions of grandeur but without any means to put it into action except with the able assistance of the FBI, which yet again provided it through its own (paid, criminal) sources posing as Terrorist enablers. The Terrorist Mastermind at the center of the plot is a failed used car salesman in Texas with a history of pedestrian money problems. Dive under your bed. “For the entire operation, the government’s confidential sources were monitored and guided by federal law enforcement agents,” explained U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, and “no explosives were actually ever placed anywhere and no one was actually ever in any danger.’”

Working on researching a couple of things right now that may result in posts later. Talk amongst yourselves.

Query for discussion if you wish: With OWS and the Tea Party (and their likely overlapping interests), with government crackdowns on medical marijuana at the same time as Fast and Furious investigations, and much more, is there a potential general groundswell of unhappiness with the status quo that could result in a more powerful grass roots interest in drug policy reform? If so, how best to light that spark?

Wow – won’t this be fun…

The 3rd World Forum Against Drugs
Stockholm, Sweden – May 21-23, 2012

World Federation Against Drugs is rooted in the Swedish experience with the drug abuse epidemic and the resulting balanced and restrictive Swedish drug policy that enjoys broad support across the political spectrum in Sweden.

No, I won’t be attending.

Gil Kerlikowske will. It’s sad to see the U.S. practically tripping over itself to be connected with the oppressive Swedish drug policy regime.

Here’s the part that really pisses me off.

There will be three main themes:
» Human rights and the right of the child to be protected from illicit drugs
» Illicit drug use and trafficking problems of Latin America
» Primary prevention and its role in drug policy

Human rights and the right of the child to be protected from illicit drugs. Really? And what is it about restrictive drug policies that actually protects children from illicit drugs? Are criminals more likely to demand proof of age than legitimate businesses?

And what about the children killed in Mexico? Or those who die from heroin overdoses in this country? How have restrictive drug policies helped them? Or the millions who have lost their fathers to the criminal justice system? Or the teenagers being recruited into drug gangs?

And… human rights? Locking up people for using a plant is human rights? Busting down their doors and shooting their dogs? Frisking black men, maybe? Or pulling over hispanic drivers and ripping apart their cars while everyone driving by watches?

We’ve talked about Calderon and his suggestions of pursuing “market alternatives” before. And at the same time we’ve noted that he is a destructive drug warrior, certainly not on the “side” of legalizers.

I think the following exchange makes it crystal clear.

Is it true that you would like to see America legalize drugs?
I can hit the criminals, I can put them in jails, I can take control of their structures, I can rebuild the social fabric. But if Americans don’t reduce the demand or don’t reduce at least the profits coming from the black market for drugs, it will be impossible to solve this problem.

So the answer is yes?
I want to see a serious analysis of the alternatives, and one alternative is to explore the different legal regimes about drugs. Even in the U.S., you can see states in which marijuana is … if that is not legal, I don’t understand what legal means. No? Marijuana has some kind of “medical” use, for instance, no?

You’re putting air quotes around medical?
It’s like the “medical” use of tequila. You have a cold, you can drink one or two tequilas. If you don’t fix the cold, at least you forget the cold, no?

Would you ever consider legalizing drugs in Mexico?
For Mexico, it will be useless to do so, because the objective is to reduce the price and the price is determined by the American market.

This isn’t a guy who sees the value in drug use, or wants legalization, or cares a damn about whether drug users are jailed. He simply sees the economic reality that as long as drugs are desired and illegal in the U.S., people will die in Mexico.

This is a fact, regardless of your views about drugs, and yet it is forbidden to discuss among the “serious people” in the United States.

A must-read from one of the Advisory Council members of my Prohibition Isn’t Free Foundation (and one of the top political writers today).

Glenn Greenwald: Steve Jobs and drug policy

America’s harsh prohibitionist drug policies are grounded in the premise that the prohibited substances have little or no redeeming value and cannot be used without life-destroying consequences. Yet the evidence of its falsity is undeniable. Here is one of the most admired men in America, its greatest contemporary industrialist, hailing one of the most scorned of these substances as integral to his success and intellectual and personal growth.

There’s a whole lot going on right now in drug policy, so I’m going to give you some more links and reading.

Scalia Criticizes Scope of Federal Drug Laws

In an unusual hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the expansion of federal drugs laws, saying the large number of federal drug cases necessitated an expansion of the federal judiciary that had diluted its quality.

“It was a great mistake to put routine drug offenses into the federal courts,” he told the committee, adding that routine drug cases belong in state courts, where the vast majority of criminal cases are heard.

If you missed the excellent Prohibition series by Ken Burns, you can watch it online at PBS

While most of the media coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada decision to protect the status of Insite from the Harper government’s attempts to shut it down, there were a few ridiculous nay-sayers, such as the editorial board of the Toronto Sun: What Have Judges Been Smoking?

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to legalize shooting galleries for junkies, thereby making them exempt from laws covering the trafficking, possession, and use of illegal drugs, makes us wonder if these judges had been smoking the drapes.

It was not a rational decision.

It opens the door to legalized drug dens across the country, leaving Prime Minister Stephen Harper unable to even trigger the Notwithstanding Clause in the Charter to stop this insanity from advancing. […]

How the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, could be conned into believing the Insite project “saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area” should be absolutely mind boggling to the vast majority of Canadians. […]

Canada will rue this day.

Julio Montaner sets the record straight in this OpEd in the National PostThe science is in, Insite saves lives

A nice, introductory article to The Economics of Drug Prohibition

Not only does prohibition increase the marginal benefits of violence, but it also decreases the marginal cost of violence.

Some coverage of the recent federal crackdown

Federal crackdown on medical pot sales reflects a shift in policy (LA Times)

“They’re wasting money they don’t have,” [Sen. Mark] Leno said. “This is not the issue of the day. This doesn’t create jobs. This does not keep the security of the nation intact. It doesn’t clean the environment.”

U.S. targets pot suppliers who profit in state (SFGate)

Prosecutors target California’s marijuana trade

Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that marijuana legalization advocates had “misread the tea leaves” when they predicted that Obama would be friendly to their policies.

US: California pot crackdown targets large dispensaries (MSNBC)

As for using marijuana as medicine, Sabet said the proper path should be one where components of marijuana are studied and possibly approved by the Food & Drug Administration for use in pharmaceuticals.

Judge rules for pot dispensaries as feds threaten major crackdown

“This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office,” said Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president’s drug czar.

Kevin Sabet is everywhere. Clearly on a big recent push to get media coverage as part of his career development.

If you’re interested in more Kevin Sabet, he’s interviewed in a podcast by Sylvia Longmire at Mexico’s Drug War blog. I’ve just recently learned about Longmire and while I’d consider her far from being on the side of us “legalizers” (though she does support legalizing marijuana), I’ve found her to have an open mind and willingness to learn and be persuaded, so please keep that in mind if you choose to comment at her blog.

I received an interesting comment today back at the post for Book Review: ‘Eternal Battle Against Evil’ by Paul R. Chabot. It appears not to be from a regular reader of this site — likely got here because of Google… If you google Paul R Chabot, my book review is the very first item. If you Google Eternal Battle Against Evil, it’s the second (not bad in such a short time).

Here’s the comment:

objective

Guither’s review is less than objective and wonder what credentials he possesses to evaluate and comment on drug strategy and Chabot’s book. Chabot has been on the front lines and understands the issues regarding ilicit drugs their abuse. Secondly, I wonder how many books Guither has written himself. As far as I am concerned, his comments and three dollars will buy you a cup of Starbucks.

Thanks for stopping by, objective. Regarding my credentials to evaluate and comment on Chabot’s book… all I really needed was a working brain. It wasn’t hard, because Chabot didn’t have a logically working argument.

As far as the number of books I’ve written, if my review had been about the ease or difficulty of writing books, then that might have been relevant. It was not. I have, by the way, written over 4,700 blog posts about drug policy, which gives me a little bit of experience about writing and some expertise on drug policy.

As far as my comments and $3 buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks, you’re absolutely right. And in about 2 weeks, the same price will buy Chabot’s book on eBay.

Thanks for playing.

….

objective’s comment does remind me of a rather interesting point regarding “credentials.”

In a superficial way, on paper it appears that Paul Chabot has better “credentials” than me to discuss drug policy.

Chabot: Iraq war veteran, Experience with Office of Naval Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Commissioner to the State Parole Board, 15 years law enforcement experience, White House Senior Advisor for Law Enforcement, Justice and Drug Control Programs, Masters in public administration and a Ed.D in executive leadership…

Guither: Master of Fine Arts degree, performance artist and teacher of Arts Administration, who blogs about drug policy on the side.

You can see why a media outlet might be more interested in interviewing him than me.

And yet, I have far superior credentials for discussing drug policy. My knowledge is better than his, my understanding of the various factors, including economic, social, legal, etc. is far beyond his, and my analytical sills are far superior. He certainly knows more than I do about the organizational structure of the AF-DTO, but that’s about it.

Of course, part of the credentials having to do with working with the drug czar is really a negative. They’ll bring in just about any moron who has drunk the drug war cool-aid to work/advise/intern there (in fact, intelligence is usually a handicap). That’s why there are so many ridiculously stupid ex-ONDCP staffers out there commenting on every drug war story.

…

A surprise google tidbit was pointed out by one of my students this week… If you go to any standard google search bar and start to type something, a drop down of suggestions shows up. If you merely type “Pete” and then a space (to set it apart from “Peter”), my name is currently the sixth one to show up in that drop down list… after Sampras but before Townshend.

A sea change? Lake Zurich District 95 hears a big no on drug testing

A proposal to subject Lake Zurich High School students to random drug testing met with overwhelming public opposition at a forum Wednesday night.

One after another, audience members told Lake Zurich Unit 95 board members and administrators they object to the testing plan, which would be limited to students in extracurricular activities such as sports or clubs or teens who drive to school. […]

Other attendees said it infringed on parental responsibilities.

“A drug-free environment should be the school’s job,” Karen Abry said. “Drug-free students should be a parent’s job.”

Wow.

Remind me why we have forfeiture laws again?

The former Romulus police chief, his wife and five Romulus officers were charged today with running a scheme in which drug forfeiture money was used to pay for prostitutes, marijuana and alcohol.
The charges are the culmination of a nearly three-year investigation by Michigan State Police into what Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy called “a culture of corruption and greed at its core.”

Marijuana study of traumatized veterans stuck in regulatory limbo

In April, the Food and Drug Administration approved a first-of-its kind study to test whether marijuana can ease the nightmares, insomnia, anxiety and flashbacks common in combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

But now another branch of the federal government has stymied the study. The Health and Human Services Department is refusing to sell government-grown marijuana to the nonprofit group proposing the research

More on this from Paul Armentano

Another episode of “Kids Say the Darndest Things, College Edition.” A first-year at Columbia writes Smoking Ignorance

Columbia students need to be aware that the very drug habits they see as recreational fund a war.

Um, no. Columbia students need to get politically active to stop the war. It is drug policy that funds the war.

It’s like saying “Young people need to stop having sex so we can do something about STDs.”

Ah, yes, because drug-free zones have worked so well… Pr. George’s seeks to create ‘prostitution-free zones’

The Prince George’s County Council is considering legislation that would create “prostitution-free zones” in the county, an effort police say could help eradicate prostitution from the county entirely.

Councilwoman Andrea Harrison, D-Bladensburg, introduced the bill, which would create areas similar in effect to drug-free zones near schools and playgrounds, she said.

The law apparently adds penalties for being caught congregating in a prostitution-free zone with the intent of engaging in a sex act. So be careful where you go on dates.

American marijuana growers could beat this war on drugs – interesting OpEd by Douglas Haddow

Clandestine grow-ops sown by industrial Americans could damage drug cartels more effectively than the US military

Buy American!

Anti-Drug Tsar Says, ‘Plant Cannabis’ – in Russia, the drug czar is suggesting that the country re-start a major hemp industry.

One of our readers will be on radio today debating a police officer on cannabis legalization (at 11 pm PDT). The debate will be downloadable here for the next week. You’ll need to understand the Estonian language, however.

Quick quiz… do you know where Estonia is? And did you now that it’s ranked #1 in the State of World Liberty Index as the most free country in the world?

Some things already discussed in comments, but worth a mention here…

Gary Johnson: Marijuana smokers may be ‘largest untapped voting bloc in the country’ at The Hill.

Pizza Delivery Guy Calls Cops on Customer For Smoking Pot — you might not want to patronize Papa John’s. There are plenty of other pizza places.

Montana objects to federal gun ban for medical marijuana users

Sheriff Wants Station To Stop Broadcasting Pot Raid Warnings

They’re also certifiably crazy.

So with states passing medical marijuana laws, it makes sense to have good controls over those who sell marijuana to make sure things are on the up and up.

Of course, that’s nearly impossible with the feds breathing down the states’ backs and interfering with any system of checks and balances that a state might want to implement.

But let’s say an individual dispensary want to try to do the right thing. So they pay federal taxes on their marijuana sales just like any other business.

Oakland –  A leading Oakland marijuana dispensary was hit with a $2.5 million tax bill this week, which may force its closure, dispensary staff said Tuesday.

Harborside Health Center owes the Internal Revenue Service back taxes for 2007 and 2008, based on a federal law prohibiting marijuana dispensaries – unlike other businesses – from deducting payroll, insurance, rent, workers’ compensation and other operating costs from its revenues.

So, what message does that send to dispensaries that want to do the right thing and pay income taxes, but aren’t completely loony?

Item 2. Dispensaries have tried to be good players by keeping business accounts in banks, where the money can be tracked, and, if there was any wrong-doing, an investigation could occur.

Denver — On Friday, the last bank in Colorado to openly work with the medical-marijuana industry — Colorado Springs State Bank — officially closed down the accounts of dispensaries and others in the state’s legal marijuana business over concerns about working with companies that are, by definition, breaking federal law. […]

That’s where the really big safe comes in.

The owner of the Colorado Springs dispensary [interviewed by the Post] — who didn’t want his name or the name of his business used for fear of attracting thieves — said he will have to stick money in there instead of depositing it into a bank account. He’s also planning to take a class this weekend to get a concealed-weapons permit, for protection outside the store.

Our federal government likes black markets so much that it goes out of its way to create them.

Prohibition’s real lessons for drug policy

America’s notoriously “failed social experiment” to rid the country of alcohol — took center stage this week as PBS broadcast Ken Burns’ highly acclaimed series on the subject. And already, it has been seized on by drug legalization advocates, who say it proves that drug prohibition should be abandoned.

But a closer look at what resulted from alcohol prohibition and its relevance to today’s anti-drug effort reveals a far more nuanced picture than the legalization lobby might like to admit.

It’s the standard pro-prohibition claptrap that downplays the enormous harms of prohibition while tossing out silver linings, and tries to claim that drug prohibition is significantly different from alcohol prohibition so it can work.

I got a laugh out of one of the commenters who appears eager to both support Sabet and stop us from reacting…

substancescholar at 4:27 AM October 5, 2011
This article is well informed and grounded in the facts. Once again Kevin Sabet presents a balanced and thought-out argument. Of course, the legalizers won’t like it, and they will organize another smear campaign against it.

On the other hand, I got a real kick out of the tweet from Transform drugs this morning about Sabet’s article:

Prohibition’s real lessons for drug policy, LAtimes: anti-reform piece so bad it makes the case for legalisation dlvr.it/pQ1Nf

Remember we were having a contest to see where Sabet would end up after leaving the Drug Czar’s office? Well, according to this article, he “currently is a consultant and a fellow at the Center for Substance Abuse Solutions at the University of Pennsylvania.”

I don’t think anyone guessed that, but we shouldn’t be too quick to settle the contest. I’m betting that he’s still in flux. The Center for Substance Abuse Solutions doesn’t really exist at the University of Pennsylvania in any of their directories or search engines except as a project in the bio of A. Thomas McLellan (former Deputy Director of the ONDCP), and Sabet is not yet listed in the U. of Penn faculty/staff directory. It’s possible that Tom McLellan lent him a title to use for publishing OpEds.