Drug WarRant

We’ve followed Peter Hitchens’ anti-marijuana screeds in the past. This one, for example was a real classic.

Well, apparently the discussion has been continuing and now Peter answers his critics in Resting My Case. It’s a doozy.

I believe myself to be descended from some of the Puritans who were Cromwell’s Ironsides, and I’m proud of that. When I listen to the excuses made for the culture of self-stupefaction, I can feel the scorn of those sober old Psalm-singers in my blood, and I’m with them. They looked the world full in the face, fought against what they thought was wrong, and also knew what they fought for and loved what they knew.

This country would not be what it is, if it fell into the hands of people who lay down, shrugged and giggled, rather than people who rose up and fought. I cannot make people care about this who don’t, especially those who have already altered their brains by taking such drugs. But I hope there are enough of the old sort to see that changing your perception rather than reforming reality is the road to slavery.

How sad that the only thing about modern Britain that makes the cannabis lobby angry is the continued existence a few individuals like me, who wish to deny them their dope.

And yes, he has a plan to “deny them their dope.”

Most cannabis users don’t find it such a marvellous experience that they’d be prepared to risk six months at hard labour for a second offence of possession (my suggested minimum penalty, the first offence being dealt with by a genuine ‘caution’, whose condition would be that the cautioned person never subsequently committed the same offence). Permitting premises to be used for its use would also be treated in the same way. This ( as with the smoking ban) has the effect of turning every householder or owner of commercial premises into an ally of the law.

After a brief flurry of convictions and imprisonment, during which the actual unyielding severity of the new law would be demonstrated, use would fall with amazing rapidity. My opponents know this. They know they would be too scared to carry on possessing under those circumstances. That is why they get so cross with me. Because my plan would work, and deprive them of their pleasure.

I have no doubt that, among dope-smokers as in the rest of society, there would be quite enough informers willing to earn money or favours from the police to ensure that all users had a lively fear of being caught and prosecuted.

Of course, in addition to being dead wrong about pretty much everything he says, he has no power. He’s become anachronistic, somewhat amusing, and, really, sad.

Some good comments in response, including this one from “Responsible Choice,” although there are also some Peter Hitchens supporters, of course.

Although I am essentially pro-cannabis, specifically in terms of harm minimisation when compared to alcohol, I would NEVER, EVER think for a second that I have the right to deny or dictate what another human should or should not put in their bodies. As far as I’m concerned it is a fundamental human right. This is not to say that I am blind to the fact that many things people put into their bodies have repercussions for them individually and those around them, rather I see this area as being one that belongs strictly within the jurisdiction of health professionals.

Even suggesting that six months hard labour is an appropriate consequence, completely punitive at that, highlights the fact that your concern lies solely in proving that what you think is right is in fact right, and that in your mind a belligerent and aggressive law enforcement approach can forcibly stamp out what you consider to be wrong. Fortunately what others choose to do with their own bodies has absolutely nothing to do with what you think they should be doing, or not doing in this case. However it still remains concerning that your professed method of dealing with people who use a substance that has been classified illicit, whilst a legal equivalent reaps a death toll of around 5% of the world’s population each year, is extreme incarceration. It reveals a distinct lack of empathy, compassion and understanding of the nature of substance use throughout history, and in the present day.

Your views, whilst you are free to express and hold them, as they rightly should be, are cruel, simplistic and violent in my view. Prohibition has failed miserably, your novel spin on an archaic, although admittedly puritanical law, is nothing but that, a rehash of views from the past, that have been thoroughly proven to be flawed, and extremely damaging to all societies of the world. Do I think my fellow man should be punished for seeking release and/or pleasure from substance use? NO, I don’t. Do I believe people should toughen up and follow a stricter doctrine of pure living based on historical religious ideals? Who cares if I do, it’s beside the point, and has little bearing on the way people will freely choose to live their lives, and it should not be any other way.

The comparison of cannabis with Thalidomide was the only memorable part of your whole article, and only because of the extreme ignorance it portrays. That is the only thing I will take away of any value from what you have stated above, in the sense that it grants me a glimpse inside of the world of a closed minded and misinformed individual. My thanks for that.

Good comment.

It’s baffling to read someone like Peter Hitchens. He’s an anomaly – a true believer who is fully convinced his opponents have been addled in the head, thereby allowing him to dismiss criticisms quite easily.

He’s convinced (likely through a “moral” argument) that all marijuana users are automatically damaged (as opposed to casual alcohol users), that their damage ends up making them less productive to society, so that society is therefore damaged as well by marijuana use, and that he is bound to attempt to protect civilization from that damage.

It doesn’t matter that his premises, conclusions and moral judgements are completely wrong. He’ll adjust his absorption of information to fit his worldview.

(Note: remember that Peter Hitchens and Christopher Hitchens are brothers, but have distinctly different views.)

Drunk Cop Crashes Truck Pulling DARE Trailer

NAACP Joins Coalition to End the War on Drugs – E.D. Kain at Forbes does a nice job on the NAACP story.

Really bad advice to parents from police on drugs

Use the Law. The legal system can provide external accountability and motivation. It supersedes (or often supports) a parent’s rules. A slightly blemished legal record is a trivial threat to your child’s future. A legacy of addiction, on the other hand, is a sure-fire failure. […]

In all cases, law enforcement should be viewed as a resource. From intelligence and guidance, to sanction and recovery. Their role is a critical one and may provide your best hope of thoroughly addressing this daunting challenge.

(Yes, I’m aware my headline of this item needs punctuation or re-wording, but I kind of like it this way.)

Kids from grow-op homes healthy, drug-free: study

When it comes to children being raised in homes where their parents produced drugs, medically speaking, in most cases the kids are all right, suggests a Canadian study. […]

Additionally, the study said there were fewer health problems among the children examined than those in the general Canadian population.

“We clearly found ourselves that the kids are doing well,” study author Dr. Gideon Koren told The Canadian Press on Tuesday. “Which brings the question, is it healthy to separate them from parents?”

Bolivia’s President Says He Fears U.S. Plot

Bolivian leader Evo Morales says he’s worried that U.S. authorities will plant something on his presidential plane to link him with drug trafficking when he attends Wednesday’s United Nations General Assembly meeting.

Somewhere, a DEA department head is saying “Damn! All right, scrub operation Flying High.”

Obama Says Drug Users Must Be Treated as Criminals – Scott Morgan’s latest piece at Huffington Post.

Jury nullification is a topic that’s of strong interest to those of us in the drug policy reform movement. A jury of peers is supposed to be the ultimate check on government and has the power to judge both the facts and the law, not be a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. Judges and prosecutors may not like that, but they can’t prevent jury nullification… except by attempting to keep jurors in the dark about their rights and responsibilities.

That’s what Judge Belvin Perry tried to do when he sentenced Mark Schmidter to 292 days and $500 for being guilty of “indirect criminal contempt” for passing out jury nullification flyers outside the courthouse.

I had to look up “indirect criminal contempt” because it’s such a Kafkaesque-sounding charge. Sure enough, it exists, although in proper legal framework, indirect criminal contempt defendants are treated as other criminal defendants and allowed jury trial, etc. Florida, for some strange reason, doesn’t allow that by bizarrely defining criminal contempt as not actually being a crime, and gives all the power to the judge.

So here we have a judge who decided he didn’t like Mark Schmidter’s speech, banned it, complained about it, had him arrested, tried him, convicted him, and sentenced him all on his own. That’s not the justice system in which I believe, nor are the judge’s actions allowed by the Constitution I uphold.

So no, I guess I don’t have indirect criminal contempt for Judge Perry. My contempt is a lot more direct.

Ever wondered what a well-tended 300-acre cannabis plantation looks like? Time has photos.

The DEA is trumpeting its latest triumphs in its “Dateline DEA: Biweekly E-mail Informant,” which I get regularly from them. The big item in this issue has to do with some major successful international operations.

Let’s take a look at one of them.

The DEA arrested Taza Gul Alizai in the Republic of the Maldives and is extraditing him to stand trial in the U.S. So, how did this all come about?

Well, Gul may very well be a very bad man. I don’t know. The DEA (through the use of “confidential sources”) actually approached Gul in Afghanistan and wanted to buy some heroin and some guns. I’m sure you could find a lot of people there who would be happy to do that for you.

Here’s the trick. During the course of the transaction, the DEA told Gul that the heroin was eventually going to be smuggled into the U.S. and that the guns were going to be given to the Taliban. See where this is leading?

So now, the DEA gets to charge him for:

• distributing one kilogram or more of heroin, knowing or intending that the heroin would be imported into the United States
• conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, knowing or intending that the heroin would be imported into the United States
• engaging in narco‑terrorism
• conspiracy to engage in narco‑terrorism

Cute, huh?

No, no guns were shipped to the Taliban and no heroin was smuggled into the U.S. The only ones interested in doing those things were the DEA agents in order to arrest a foreigner in another country for doing something solely because the DEA asked him to and bring him to the U.S. so we could spend money putting him on trial and keeping him in prison for decades.

How much impact do you suppose that this operation had on the availability of drugs, guns, or people to sell them, in Afghanistan?

The DEA gets credit for a major bust. We get the bill.

There were three other men arrested under similar situations around the same time. For the four men that we’re paying to put in prison, here’s some of what the operation involved:

The charges, arrests, and transfers of these four defendants were the result of the close cooperative efforts of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the Special Operations Division of the DEA, and the DEA Country Offices in: Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Copenhagen, New Delhi, Athens, Cyprus, and Kabul.

Mr. Bharara expressed his gratitude to the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative Regional Center for Combating Trans-Border Crime, the Romanian National Police, the Turkish National Police, the Malaysian National Police, the Greek Hellenic Police, the Cyprus National Police, the Estonian authorities, and the Maldives Police Service. He also thanked the U.S. Department of Justice Office of International Affairs, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division, the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol and Interpol Headquarters in Lyon, France, the U.S. Embassy in Sri Lanka, and the U.S. Department of State for their assistance.

These two cases are being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Benjamin Naftalis, Adam S. Hickey, and Edward Kim are in charge of the prosecutions.

Your tax dollars at work.

Federal Judge Rules Florida’s Drug Laws Unconstitutional

Hold on. Don’t get too excited. Drugs aren’t suddenly legal in Florida.

A federal judge in Orlando has declared Florida’s strict-liability controlled substances act unconstitutional on the ground that the law could convict an innocent person of drug distribution who unknowingly possessed, transported or delivered a controlled substance. The laws’ fatal flaw is the lack of a criminal intent requirement, which the legislature purposely removed from the statutes in 2002.

U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven found that Florida stands alone among the states in its express elimination of mens rea – the common-law “guilty mind” requirement – as an element of a drug offense.

This is important because it serves to put a little bit of a brake on out-of-control legislatures and prosecutors who are so eager to jail drug offenders that they ignore basic common-law protections.

The petitioner, Mackle Vincent Shelton, was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and traffic charges. The jury was instructed that “to prove the crime of delivery of cocaine, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that Mackle Vincent Shelton delivered a certain substance; and, that the substance was cocaine.” The state did not have to prove that he knew he was carrying or distributing cocaine or any controlled substance at all.

In granting Mr. Shelton’s petition for habeas corpus, the court found that Florida’s drug distribution law violates due process because it “regulates inherently innocent conduct.” Indeed, with no intent requirement, a Federal Express delivery person who unknowingly delivers a parcel containing a controlled substance, would be presumed a felon under Florida’s drug law.

This is a good decision.

So… it was eight years ago today that I dipped my toe in the waters of blogging with my first post at DrugWarRant.com.

I really wasn’t sure about this whole “blogging” thing at the time, but I wanted another way to express my concerns about the drug war beyond what the 200-words-every-30-day policy of the local newspaper allowed.

I thought that maybe I’d post something every week or so — not sure if anyone would actually read it.

8 years and 4,672 posts later…

I’ve learned a lot. And I’ve been fortunate enough to be able share some of that knowledge with millions of visitors.

This is, to my knowledge, the only full-time drug policy blog that has been around that whole time. But today, there are a lot more voices out there. And, my God, the army of informed citizens hitting every newspaper commenting section around the world today is staggering.

Yes, it’s been a tough road. The drug warriors have all the money, the propaganda machines, the criminal justice system, the political structures and the government. All we have is the truth.

But in the long haul (because that’s what we’re in it for), the truth is all we need. That, and the willingness to keep informing the people and motivating them to speak truth to power.

I’d like to hang up Drug WarRant. Eight years is a very long time. I’d like to put up a simple graphic with fireworks, confetti, and exploding champagne corks saying “The War is Over! We Can Go Home Now.”

But it’s not. We’ve made tremendous strides in these past eight years, but we can’t stop. So I’ll be back here tomorrow or Thursday with some new outrage, or a link to a piece of powerful and insightful writing that someone has ventured to speak. And I’ll be pissed off and hopeful.

I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the readers of this blog. It is the fact that you keep coming back and commenting (or silently lurking) that keeps me going. And when I see a reader who learned something or became motivated at DrugWarRant take that knowledge/motivation and use it elsewhere… wow! That makes it all worthwhile.

Thanks for a great and productive eight years. Next step: critical mass.

Wow!

Daily Caller

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) passed a resolution Tuesday calling for an end to the “War on Drugs” during their 102th NAACP Annual Convention in Los Angeles, CA.

“Today the NAACP has taken a major step towards equity, justice and effective law enforcement,” said NAACP president and CEO Benjamin Jealous. “These flawed drug policies that have been mostly enforced in African American communities must be stopped and replaced with evidenced-based practices that address the root causes of drug use and abuse in America.”

The resolution, titled “A Call to End the War on Drugs, Allocate Funding to Investigate Substance Abuse Treatment, Education, and Opportunities in Communities of Color for A Better Tomorrow” highlighted the fact that the United States spends $40 billion each year fighting the drug war and that African-Americans are 13 times more likely to end up in jail for drug-related crimes than their white counterparts. […]

The NAACP is now calling for drug treatment rather than jail time for offenders. […]

Once the NAACP board of directors ratifies the resolution in October, the NAACP and its chapters will mobilize to begin campaigning and fighting against the “War on Drugs.”

Update: Via Jacob Sullum

Rooks says the full text of the resolution will be available after the NAACP’s national board approves it in October. He says the resolution supports needle exchange programs, condemns mandatory minimum sentences, and criticizes Byrne law enforcement grants, a program supported by President Obama that has fueled the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders and funded the regional anti-drug task forces behind racially tinged law enforcement scandals in places such as Tulia, Texas. But in general, Rooks says, the resolution “is not a policy document”; instead it outlines “principles and ideas” that should guide “our units” in adopting specific positions. Among those principles: “that those who are arrested for drug offenses not be sent to prison—that’s explicit.” Rooks says the resolution does not distinguish between users and suppliers in that respect, but neither does it call for legalization. “In terms of decriminalization or legalization,” he says, “we did not get into those discussions.”

I’m quite happy with an NAACP resolution that explicitly states that those arrested for drug offenses should not be sent to prison. That’s a huge step.

Director Gil Kerlikowske

Today, I was pleased to join my colleagues from throughout the Administration to announce the first U.S. strategy on transnational organized crime (TOC) in fifteen years. The Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime provides a comprehensive plan that will, in part, help us build on our progress to further reduce drug use in the United States and disrupt drug trafficking and its facilitation of other transnational threats.

Remember, this is the guy that declared an end to the War on Drugs, saying that we have to focus on treatment, yet who just hired a military general for Deputy Director of Supply Reduction.

And now the Office of National Drug Control Policy is getting heavily involved in major new expanded efforts to “Combat Transnational Organized Crime.” Really?

Not that he has a clue as to what’s going on there…

“You can read the full strategy (pdf) and a fact sheet on the strategy (pdf).”

Um, no. Those are links to the International Strategy for Cyberspace. Interesting, but has nothing to do with the ONDCP or transnational organized crime.

The actual strategy is available here, and it’s a doozy. A real ratcheting up of the international war on drugs and, following the UNODC lead, tying drug control to all international crime.

The vagueness of the language and the way drugs and crime and terrorism are conflated is quite frightening.

Along emerging trafficking routes, such as the transit route through West Africa to Europe, criminal networks are spreading corruption and undermining fledgling democratic institutions. Due to the enormous profits associated with drug trafficking, the illegal trade is also a way to finance other transnational criminal and terrorist activities.

To diminish these threats, we will continue ongoing efforts to identify and disrupt the leadership, production, intelligence gathering, transportation, and financial infrastructure of major TOC networks. By targeting the human, technology, travel, and communications aspects of these networks, we will be able to monitor and gather intelligence to identify the full scope of the TOC networks, their members, financial assets, and criminal activities. We will continue ongoing efforts to enhance collaboration among domestic law enforcement agencies and our foreign counterparts in order to strengthen our ability to coordinate investigations and share intelligence to combat drug trafficking and TOC. Continued use of economic sanctions under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) to pursue transnational drug organizations will enhance our ability to disrupt and dismantle TOC networks. The Kingpin Act also may be used to prosecute persons involved in illegal activities linked to drug trafficking, such as arms trafficking, bulk cash smuggling, or gang activity. Enhanced intelligence sharing and coordination among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the military, and our diplomatic community will enable the interagency community to develop aggressive, multi-jurisdictional approaches to dismantle TOC networks involved in drug trafficking. […]

By disrupting and dismantling the world’s major TOC networks involved in drug trafficking, we will be able to reduce the availability of illicit drugs, inhibit terrorist funding, improve national and international security, and bring TOC networks to justice.

Yep. Just wrap the entire crime, terrorism and drug issues into one major international war, with no understanding of the underlying causes or economic factors.

There’s also a reference to the administration looking to increase its asset seizure efforts, both abroad and at home. Not good.