Drug WarRant

… but what it can do is get out of the way and let the states experiment if they choose.

But the entire federal government with its President and all his federal agencies and armed forces, along with the entire House of Representatives and Senate, even if they all worked together for the first time in history to use all the power at their command… they could not legalize marijuana.

And yet, I continue to hear people call HR 2306 (Barney Frank’s bill: the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011) a bill that would legalize marijuana. Even people in Congress. (After the jump I’ve included the rather convoluted letter I got from my Representative Adam Kinzinger.)

So people like my Representative say they’re opposed to HR 2306 because they oppose legalization. But that’s not true, since HR 2306 cannot, by itself, legalize marijuana.

What these people actually oppose is the ability of free citizens in other places to use their Constitutional power to have their state government reflect their interests.
Continue reading →

It is not hard to see how critics of the war on drugs got the impression that Barack Obama was sympathetic to their cause.

Jacob Sullum does a fine job of analyzing Barack Obama’s record so far regarding drug policy, both candidate Obama and President Obama.

Barack Obama turns out to be just another drug warrior.

Kerlikowske’s earnest insistence that you can end the war on drugs if you stop calling it that gives you a sense of the chasm between rhetoric and reality in Obama’s drug policies, which by and large have been remarkably similar to his predecessor’s.

The jury is no longer out. The verdict is clear.

“I initially had high hopes,” says Marsha Rosenbaum, “but now believe Obama has abdicated drug policy to the DEA.”

It would be going too far to say that Obama has been faking it all these years, that he does not really care about the injustices perpetrated in the name of protecting Americans from the drugs they want. But he clearly does not care enough to change the course of the life-wrecking, havoc-wreaking war on drugs.

Sullum ends with a powerful punch:

A misdemeanor marijuana conviction could have been a life-changing event for Obama, interrupting his education, impairing his job prospects, and derailing his political career before it began. It would not have been fair, but it would have spared us the sorry spectacle of a president who champions a policy he once called “an utter failure” and who literally laughs at supporters whose objections to that doomed, disastrous crusade he once claimed to share.

This one’s from last week, but I couldn’t resist passing it on…

A Las Cruces woman has been charged $1,122 by a local hospital for a forcible body cavity search ordered by the Metro Narcotics Agency that did not turn up any illegal substances.

That has to be one of the most surreal sentences ever written.

The Drug Czar has a new website. It appears to be an effort to coordinate all the White House websites, and even all the White House blogs. It looks pretty, but unfortunately is based on the same old propaganda.

If anyone can figure out the new RSS feed for the Drug Czar’s “blog,” let me know. I can’t seem to find it.

A Decade After 9/11, Police Departments Are Increasingly Militarized – Radley Balko with a must-read piece in the Huffington Post.

The problem with this mingling of domestic policing with military operations is that the two institutions have starkly different missions. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. Cops are charged with keeping the peace, and with protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens and residents. It’s dangerous to conflate the two. As former Reagan administration official Lawrence Korb once put it, “Soldiers are trained to vaporize, not Mirandize.” That distinction is why the U.S. passed the Posse Comitatus Act more than 130 years ago, a law that explicitly forbids the use of military troops in domestic policing.

Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military.

Viewpoint: Why Tough-Love Rehab Won’t Die by Maia Szalavitz at Time.

On Wednesday, TIME.com reported on the phenomenon of “blood cashews,” nuts produced for export in Vietnamese drug-rehabilitation programs where addicts are forced to perform “labor therapy,” such as sewing clothes, making bricks or, most commonly, shelling cashews.

Last Sunday, the New York Times described Russia’s harsh new treatment camps, where addicts are locked up for as long as a month in “quarantine rooms” to endure withdrawal.

And last week a lawsuit was refiled against a Utah-based school for teens with drug or behavioral problems, with 350 former students alleging that the school engaged in abusive disciplinary tactics like locking students in outdoor dog cages overnight.
Yet, to date, there has been no evidence that the use of forced labor, public humiliation or generally brutal confrontation has ever been effective in rehabilitating people with drug problems — or any other kind of problem, for that matter. What’s more, when tough-love approaches are compared directly with kinder treatment alternatives for addiction, the studies find that compassionate strategies win by a large margin.

So why does the whip-’em-into-shape approach continue to get re-invented around the world?

Interview with Dr. Alex Wodak

We start recognizing that drug users are our brothers and sisters, our daughters and sons, our mothers and fathers, whether we know they are using or not. For that reason in the Netherlands the term they often use for drug users is ‘Dutch citizens who use drugs’ which is a pertinent reminder of the fact that they are still Dutch citizens. This term is used in policy statements. The Dutch are pragmatists and realize that it is always better to regulate the practice that the majority may not like but cannot stamp out. Whether it be gambling, prostitution etc. – if you can’t eradicate it then let it happen but with regulation.

[…]

A study was done comparing South Australia, which had just decriminalized cannabis, to Western Australia, where there were draconian penalties. The WA group were much more likely to have lost a job, accommodation or relationship. They were alienated and very angry. The SA group was much less likely to be in this position. The WA police were horrified and a WA Labor government then altered their policy. The current Barnett government has just gone back to Draconian penalties, even though cannabis use has been in decline.

It is also important to remember that money spent on prosecuting cannabis offenders is money that’s not available for prosecuting rapists, murders and perpetrators of violent crime. My view is that the police have an important role to play and I’d much rather they were solving violent crimes than doing a job in which they can never succeed, regarding illegal drugs.

In a free society it is critical to make sure that law enforcement is properly situated within the organizational structure and that it has strong and transparent systems of control.

In order to combat crime, we cede extraordinary powers to law enforcement which, if abused, could lead to the destruction of our society. That makes it essential that systems exist to insure law enforcement entities are responsive to the people they serve.

Asset forfeiture (particularly as it has expanded under the drug war) undermines the essential structure of a free society by weakening the fiscal authority of the employers (the people).

We’ve already seen how this happens with police agencies shifting their allegiance to the federal government in order to bypass state law and get a big chunk of federal forfeiture dollars that they can control.

Americans for Forfeiture Reform point out how bizarre this has come: What’s wrong with thes story?

Precinct 3 Commissioner John Roth […] asked Sheriff Larry Fowler to use some of his forfeiture funds — from the seizure of cash and property — to rescue the fiscal year 2011-12 general fund, where commissioners seek $2 million in cuts.

“You know we’re in a tough spot,” he said as he confronted the sheriff. “I’m asking you to see how much money could go into the [general fund] budget. How much do you need to keep in reserves?”

[Sheriff] Fowler had told the court he wanted to use the funds — which he estimated at about $350,000 — to augment the low salaries of dispatchers and clerical personnel over the next two years.

“Basically, I have the money to do this,” he said

Wow.

As Americans for Forfeiture Reform note:

The fact that this council has to negotiate with armed men over how public money is spent makes a mockery of America’s founding principles.

I’ve talked often here about the destruction caused by the conflation of the drug war and the war on terrorism post-9/11. Today, I thought I’d share with you a post I made elsewhere about this 10th anniversary commemoration. It’s not specifically drug-war-related, yet in a larger sense it certainly is relevant, since it has to do with the disfunction of our problem-solving abilities as a nation. Feel free to post your own 9/11 thoughts.

…

It is appropriate to mark the 10th anniversary of a major event with remembrances. And yet part of me feels like we’ve been so busy remembering 9/11 for the past decade that we’re in danger of forgetting 9/10.

9/11 is important. Close to 3,000 people died in that attack. That’s a powerful and tragic number. And yet, in the ten years since then, over 150,000 Americans have died violently who weren’t involved in wars or terrorist actions. We rarely hear about them. We don’t build monuments to them, and their deaths didn’t “change” us like 9/11.

Over 6,000 U.S. servicemen have died in the wars we fought to respond to the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people. And roughly one million people total (by some accounts) have been killed in these wars for which we probably have spent $4.4 trillion to pursue. How many deaths and dollars should we spend per 9/11 death? Unlimited?

The firemen who were killed in the World Trade Center were true heroes and should be honored. And yet… What about Josh Burch and Brett Fulton, firefighters who died on the job fighting a Florida wildfire earlier this year? Or San Francisco firefighters Anthony Valerio and Vincent Perez, who died fighting a home fire in June? Will there be television features about them?

Why do we fixate so intensely on that one event?

Remembering is valuable. Learning is critical. Obsessing is unhealthy. Letting it cause you to be afraid is downright dangerous.

People who think nothing of getting in cars (which kill more people each day around the world than the 9/11 attacks) strangely get so afraid because of that one day in history that they’re willing to sacrifice their principles, their freedom, their honor, and their morality.

So I will not be taking part in any 9/11 observances today. I will not be calling upon God to Bless America’s efforts to drop bombs as a solution to the terrorist threat, for I understand that, like the Hatfields and McCoys, such action only serves to fuel a never-ending cycle of extremist violence.

I am asking people to remember 9/10. Remember who we were (much of the time) before 9/11. That America is still there, deep down, as long as we don’t abandon it. We’re people who believe in freedom and who won’t let any terrorist or politician take it away from us, let alone give it up willingly for the perception of safety. We’re the people who don’t torture. We’re the people who believe that the rule of law is important and that everyone deserves a fair trial. We’re the people who aren’t afraid to face up to thugs, who would rather take risks with our lives than cower in a corner. We’re the ones who believe in human rights and want the rest of the world to follow our lead.

We can be that America again. The America of 9/10. If we don’t believe that, then we’ve lost.

The ACLU reports the story quite well

This week, a college in Missouri broke the law and violated the Fourth Amendment rights of its students. Linn State Technical College became the first public institution of higher learning to implement mandatory drug testing of all new students, as well as those returning from extended leaves of absence.

What a way to welcome back the student body.

Keep in mind that we are talking about college students who have done nothing to arouse suspicion of drug use. In fact, the only thing they are guilty of is enrolling at Linn State. The ironic part is that the school has stated that they don’t believe they have a higher rate of drug use than students at any other college.

This is a very clear violation of the 4th Amendment, and it’s so incredibly wrong.

Here’s where it gets surreal and, in some ways, quite scary…

Linn State argues that their drug screening program serves as a way to prepare students for the real world of employee drug testing.

We’ve talked before about the fact that one of the dangers of extra-curricular drug testing in public schools is that it builds in young people the sense that providing pee to the government (proving your innocence) is a normal part of being a citizen in this free society.

Now, Linn State takes that a bizarre step further by educating its students that employee drug testing is so natural, that you should… practice it.

Sexual harassment is, unfortunately, also quite common in the workplace. Will Linn State next require all its students to pay to be sexually harassed?

Good to see the ACLU taking this on.

Veteran, ACLU Challenge Florida Welfare Drug Test Law [FEATURE]

The lawsuit, Lebron v. Wilkins, names a Central Florida man, Luis Lebron, as the lead plaintiff. Lebron, a Navy veteran, single father, and University of Central Florida student who is looking for work, was denied TANF benefits after refusing to submit to a drug test. Lebron, who also cares for his disabled mother, did accounting and payroll work in the Navy and in the private sector before returning to college. He is expected to graduate with an accounting degree in December.

“Florida’s new law assumes everyone who seeks public assistance has a drug problem,” said Lebron. “They don’t know that I’m in school right now so I can get a good job to provide for my son and mother, and it feels like they don’t care. I have to prove to them that I’m not breaking the law. It makes me sick and angry that for no reason at all and no suspicion, I have to prove I’m not using drugs. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and it says no searches without probable cause.”

The pivotal question, Lebron said, is whether the searches are reasonable. “Searches must be based on individualized suspicion,” he noted. “In the Navy, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Now, I’m asking for the Constitution to defend me.”

That’s it, exactly.

Who’ll be the first to identify the significance of this chart that’s gotten some play in the past couple of days?
Continue reading →