Drug WarRant

CU Boulder history instructor baffled and offended by pro-pot protest

On my way to class I passed through the quad and saw several thousand students (as well as many homeless folks and others who didn’t seem to belong there). They were all in small circles of four to five people, and every circle was passing around marijuana cigarettes. I almost felt high myself as I tried to make it across the quad to my class. Half the class never showed up; they were enjoying the activity out on the lawn.

My lecture that day was Calvinism, Puritanism and the Protestant Ethic, how these values made America great, but that we were now unfortunately losing them here in America. How appropriate! As I spoke of living a responsible and sober life, studying hard to be a success, becoming an upstanding member of the community, and of one day becoming a good spouse and parent, my students automatically juxtaposed the activities outside our classroom where the other half of the class was spending their time. I told them that I felt I was preaching to the choir, but promised them all extra credit for their faithful attendance, choosing to learn about responsibility, instead of blowing smoke in the quad.

Wow.

AG Eric Holder Outlines DOJ ‘s Planned Priorities – TalkLeft notes that Holder still is just talk.

President Obama’s 2012 proposed budget is overly heavy on law enforcement and too light on prevention. The words by Holder are nice, but as the Justice Policy Project points out, they are not borne out by the numbers.

A Drug that Kills

A student editorial that says the right thing: “Ultimately, ensuring that kind of safety means legalizing marijuana.” But does it really badly.

President Obama speaks on Manning and the rule of law – Glenn Greenwald.

Pretty sad when our commander-in-chief is unclear on the meaning of the law. And don’t for a moment think that this doesn’t have a drug policy connection.

This release from the Women’s Marijuana Movement makes a very powerful statement.

Women and Students Say Alcohol-Related Sexual Assaults are Being Fueled by Marijuana Prohibition

Victims, parents, and advocates to speak out against laws and policies that steer people toward using ALCOHOL — the “#1 Date Rape Drug” — instead of MARIJUANA, a substance NOT linked to date rape and sexual assault

Day of action coincides with Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Alcohol Awareness Month — group calls on government agency to examine whether allowing marijuana as a safer alternative to alcohol could reduce incidents of sexual violence

DENVER — This Tuesday, April 26th, women, college students, and advocates around the nation are speaking out against laws and policies they believe fuel sexual violence by steering people toward using alcohol — a major contributor to incidents of sexual assault and date rape — and away from using marijuana, a substance never linked to sexual violence.

“I honestly believe I would not have been sexually assaulted if we had been using marijuana instead of alcohol at that college party” said Stephanie Morphet, a student at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. “Yet my friends and I have been told our whole lives that alcohol is more acceptable, and that we’d face harsher punishments for marijuana.”

Victims of alcohol-related sexual assaults, parents of college students, and supporters of marijuana reform around the country are calling on the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to examine whether allowing marijuana as a safer alternative to alcohol could reduce levels of sexual violence. The Women’s Marijuana Movement (WMM) is coordinating the nationwide day of action in recognition of April being Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Alcohol Awareness Month. In Colorado, it also marks the beginning of the group’s educational efforts in support of a 2012 statewide ballot initiative to end marijuana prohibition in Colorado.

“If our government is serious about preventing sexual violence, it’s time to start considering the possibility that marijuana prohibition is driving people to drink and fueling incidents of sexual assault and date rape,” said Toni Fox, spokesperson for the WMM and mother of a daughter who attends Metro State College of Denver. “Our laws and policies virtually incentivize the use of alcohol over marijuana with the threat of harsh punishments those who make the safer choice. It’s bad public policy, and at the very least it’s time we took a long hard look at it.”

Virtually every organization and government agency dedicated to preventing sexual violence has acknowledged the significant role alcohol plays in the prevalence of sexual assault and date rape, whereas marijuana has never been found to be a contributing factor. It is reportedly involved in about 50% of all sexual assaults and in about 90% of the 100,000-plus sexual assaults that occur among the college-aged population each year. It is frequently referred to as the “#1 Date Rape Drug,” by rape awareness and prevention organizations, whereas marijuana is virtually never mentioned.

# # #

Of course, I would never recommend that alcohol be made illegal, but it’s pure insanity to continue to favor and promote alcohol over marijuana as a society.

You want to reduce violence (at soccer games or on campus)? Give them pot.

Illinois

Although a piece of legislation that would legalize medical marijuana in Illinois failed by a slim margin last December, a Republican leader in the House has shifted his support, raising the chances that the bill could pass. Tom Cross, the House Minority Leader, announced last week that he would support legalization. His change of heart, he said, was because he spoke with some people who use medical marijuana, including a disabled veteran. […]

It’s also telling that Cross changed his mind after speaking with the people who are actually affected by the legislation – something that perhaps more politicians should try.

Now, in fact, there’s been more than enough opportunity for Cross to have learned the truth about marijuana before now. He must have lived in a propaganda cocoon that prevented him from even hearing reform messages. But I respect him for finally being open to learning new things and changing his mind based on that knowledge.

On the other hand…

Rhode Island/Connecticut

The minority leader of the Rhode Island House, who recently dismissed debate over the decriminalization of marijuana as not worthy of legislators’ time, is facing pot-possession charges in Connecticut.

Robert Watson, a Republican from East Greenwich, was stopped at a police checkpoint Friday and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and driving under the influence, East Haven police said.

Watson drew fire in February when he gave a speech to the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce in which he said facetiously that lawmakers had their priorities right “if you are a Guatemalan gay man who likes to gamble and smokes marijuana.”

In many ways, this politician is lower than the sado-moralist true believers of the prohibition world. He considers himself above the law, and, while clearly not believing marijuana use to be wrong or harmful, is willing to send others to prison for what he does — even going so far as to ridicule reform attempts — all to maintain some cheap political stance.

I don’t really understand the depths of depravity of such a person. Perhaps that’s why I could never be in politics (which in itself is a sad commentary on our political class). I wouldn’t have the ability to publicly push for what I knew was wrong.

Oh, I could compromise. I could vote for a bill that included X (something I considered evil) because it’s the only way to get Y (something serving a greater good). It would hurt, and I would complain bitterly about it publicly, but in the right situation, I could do it.

What I could not do is tell people that X is good for them and important to have, even though I knew it was wrong.

Why is that such a rare trait to find in our political leaders?

Update: Commenter Benjamin notes that I may have been too hasty on the extent of my condemnation of Watson based solely on what was reported in the article. I hope that’s true.

The latest entry in our series is not from a High School or College newspaper, but rather from the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. Whereas our college writers came about their ignorance honestly, you have to wonder whether Ashley Mosteller (although her writing itself is good) got some help from Heritage.

Even the title of the OpEd sends off alarm bells: Losing the Mexico Drug War: One Protest at a Time

Does she really mean that protesting the drug war is the problem in Mexico?

Yep.

Ashley’s concern is that protests, like that of Mexican poet and intellectual Javier Sicilia who lost his son, are aimed at the government instead of the criminals, and that such protests are undermining the efforts of the government and aiding the criminals.

First of all, what possible good could you accomplish by protesting the criminals? You’re not going to convince them to end the drug war. Javier Sicilia realizes that the people directly to blame for the death of his son are the criminals. He also realizes that it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the drug war.

Ashley several times expresses concern that the criminals and the government are being unfairly seen as morally equivalent.

This, in a nutshell, is one of the huge blind spots of the Heritage Foundation folks. Because they see “the other” as morally bad (criminals, terrorists, etc.), and anything that we do as morally good, they can’t accept (or even see) the fact that the actions of the “morally good” can actually be the proximate cause of criminal or terrorist violence.

So when terrorists object to our military presence with terror attacks, we respond with increased military presence and pressure, creating new terrorists with each action we take. This doesn’t make the terrorists right, but it also doesn’t make our response smart. But to the bright-line-moralist Heritage types, even attempting to explain the cause is an unacceptable attack on America, let alone considering crafting a non-retributive-based solution.

Same with the drug war. With each increased level of enforcement, we cause the increased violence by the criminals (that’s established fact) with no long-term benefit. It doesn’t make the criminals right, but it doesn’t make us smart, either.

Javier Sicilia lost his son. He doesn’t care about assigning moral equivalencies. He wants the drug war ended so no more sons are killed.

The Heritage Foundation type doesn’t care how many sons are killed as long as they can claim moral superiority and show off their dicks (ironically enough, military superiority and moral superiority are closely aligned in their minds – now there’s a fascinating Easter message).

Ashley has a couple of other ignorant moments in her OpEd.

[The administration] must balance a “stay the course” approach with disturbing signs that President Calderon is losing control of the narrative and the support of the Mexican people. All of this, of course, is to the delight of Mexico’s criminal organizations, whose goal is to disseminate fear and uncertainty on both sides of the border.

Really? Is that their goal? I thought it was to make money selling drugs. Fear is one of their tactics, not a goal.

Finally, Ashley lost all credibility with using Michele Leonhart as a citation to back up her points:

“It may seem contradictory, but the unfortunate level of violence is a sign of success in the fight against drugs,” said U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration chief Michele Leonhart.”

Imagine a news story that went in detail about levels of radioactivity suddenly showing up in produce in certain areas of Japan, and also affecting the waters. The story mentions a number of Japanese people hospitalized with severe radiation poisoning. Add a paragraph about radioactive fallout being detected in California.

Now, imagine that this story neglects to even mention the Fukushima reactors or the earthquake and tsunami.

Such a story would be absurd, and would immediately make an editor rush to correct it.

And yet, on Page A-1 of the San Francisco Chronicle you have Pot wars: Private land new frontier in California written by Robert Townsend of California Watch – an investigative reporting organization that claims to provide “bold, new journalism.”

It’s a detailed story about how marijuana grows are showing up on private land in California, complete with booby traps, environmental damage, and retribution when owners try to eradicate.

Good investigation, but not once in the story do they mention the equivalent of the Fukushima reactors (the illegal status of marijuana) or the earthquake and tsunami (supply-side prohibition efforts).

The commenters caught it immediately. Why can’t Robert Townsend, the bold investigative reporting of California Watch, or the San Francisco Chronicle see the nuclear reactor in the room?

In a depressing opinion this week, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that someone with absolutely no drugs in their blood and the almost completely undetectable trace (that took three tests to discover) of drugs in the urine, and in which case everyone (including the court) agreed that the defendant was not under the influence of the drugs at the time, nevertheless was properly sentenced to six years for the aggravated offense of of driving under the influence in an accident where people died.

The case is The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Aaron L. MARTIN, Appellee

Here’s the part that really gets to me.

One part of the law states:

Section 11–501 provides:

“(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:

(1) the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11–501.2 [625 ILCS 5/11–501.2];

(2) under the influence of alcohol;

(3) under the influence of any intoxicating compound or combination of intoxicating compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of driving safely;

(4) under the influence of any other drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving;

(5) under the combined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving; or

(6) there is any amount of a drug, substance, or compound in the person’s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of cannabis listed in the Cannabis Control Act [720 ILCS 550/1 et seq.], a controlled substance listed in the Illinois Controlled Substances Act [720 ILCS 570/100 et seq.], an intoxicating compound listed in the Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act [720 ILCS 690/0.01 et seq.], or methamphetamine as listed in the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act [720 ILCS 646/1 et seq.].

So item six is the key here. That “any amount” in “breath, blood, or urine” clause is ridiculous. But note that this is just a law saying that people shall not drive under these situations. The penalty is a misdemeanor.

Then later, the law specifies aggravated driving under the influence as follows:

(d) Aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof.

(1) Every person convicted of committing a violation of this Section shall be guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof if: …

(F) the person, in committing a violation of subsection (a), was involved in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft accident that resulted in the death of another person, when the violation of subsection (a) was a proximate cause of the death.” 625 ILCS 5/11–501 (West 2008).

The plain reading of this clause clearly means that the felony enhancement only occurs if the infraction in (a) above was a proximate cause.

So what is “proximate cause”? From West’s Encyclopedia of American Law:

An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred.

Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury. Proximate cause produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the intervention of any independent or unforeseeable cause. It is also known as legal cause.

To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the “but for” or “sine qua non” rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant’s act establishes that the particular act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish liability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions.

Some jurisdictions apply the “substantial factor” formula to determine proximate cause. This rule considers whether the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm. If the act was a substantial factor in bringing about the damage, then the defendant will be held liable unless she can raise a sufficient defense to rebut the claims.

Is there any way in that definition that the presence of an almost undetectable amount of drugs in the urine and none in the blood could possibly be interpreted as “proximate cause”? No.

However, the Illinois Supreme Court manages to find a way. After their analysis of the law in the opinion they continue for some time in an extremely convoluted way to argue that it is proximate cause, not because it is “proximate cause” under the definition of “proximate cause,” but because the Illinois State Legislature has placed it in that position, and therefore by the legislature’s definition it must be proximate cause even though it isn’t.

This destruction of the English language by courts and the legislature is particularly offensive to me (and, I assume, other people who love what “the law” and language should be). It’s like the federal government defining by legislation that marijuana has no medical use, regardless of whether it actually has medical use. It doesn’t have medical use because they have defined it as not having medical use.

It’s like defining someone as 3/5 of a person. It’s offensive to law, reason, and the language.

At one point in the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision, they defended their decision to play these definition games with the idea that we have to throw everyone in the same pot (regardless of the level of impairment or whether there was any impairment at all), because otherwise it would make the prosecutor’s job too hard.

Which, of course, brings up another point not directly related to the decision: What asshole of a prosecutor pushes for aggravated penalties based on this evidence?

This is why “per se” drugged driving laws must be fought and repealed. I don’t know why the defendant crashed into the other car. Maybe he fell asleep. These kind of crashes are tragic (although declining due to advanced highway safety measures such as rumble strips, median fences, etc.), and someone responsible for such a crash should be held accountable. But if you have two individuals who committed the same tragic act, and one of them is sentenced to a number of additional years in prison for something that had absolutely no connection to the event, then it is a direct attack on the rule of law and adds to the destruction of our judicial system.

Ironically, the court notes that they’re following an earlier case (People v. Fate) where they stated: “There is no dispute that the statute is intended to keep drug-impaired drivers off of the road.” And yet, by making no distinction between drug-impaired drivers and those who have a miniscule trace in their urine, they do the opposite.

The court has just established that if you’re going to do illicit drugs at all, then there’s absolutely no legal incentive to avoid using drugs right before driving.

There’s a lot we don’t know about drugs and impairment. We can always use more research (particularly research that is actually interested in determining impairment and not justifying a back-door way to criminalize internal possession), and we need to educate lawmakers better on the actual research that does exist.

And we need to get rid of these completely nonsensical per se laws.

Better yet, let’s legalize drugs and make the laws irrelevant.

Earlier this week, I saw this OpEd at Brown University by Sofia Ortiz Hinojosa: 4/20 and the drug war

It’s another one of those pleas for people to stop smoking marijuana because it’s killing people in Mexico, done with sickening emotional appeal.

With 4/20 coming up, I am concerned that many students fail to see the connection between the purchase and consumption of illegal drugs on college campuses and the violence and chaos in many parts of the world. […]

But the price we pay is much steeper. Swallow this figure if you can — in Mexico, over 10,000 people died in drug-war-related incidents between January 2007 and June 2009. By the end of 2010, this number had risen to over 30,000 casualties. Let me say that again — over 30,000 people have died in drug-related violence since I first stepped onto campus as a first-year in 2007. This semester alone, another 5,000 have been added to the death toll, making this figure a heart-wrenching 35,000. Every time I go home, I have to hear another story about a mass grave or a bus hijacking. I cannot help but connect it to what I see happening daily on my own beloved college campus, and it breaks my heart.

I’ve responded to this kind of nonsense before, so I didn’t bother with it, but now I see someone else at Brown has stepped up to the plate.

Hunter Fast writes In the drug war, keep your eyes on the real killer

It is readily apparent that Ortiz-Hinojosa does not understand that governments that ban drugs hand a monopoly on their sale to people who are already willing to break the law. In addition, prohibition takes away the courts as a means for drug vendors to settle disputes peacefully. In lieu of a legal framework in which to operate, they terrorize the Mexican citizenry in their needlessly bloody quest for market dominance.

Furthermore, it is naive to assume that one can compel all drug users in the U.S. to quit simply through emotional appeal.

Hunter doesn’t stop with just shooting down Ortiz-Hinojosa’s bad arguments, but goes a step further.

Ortiz-Hinojosa is therefore effectively arguing that all Americans should obey bad laws — ones that infringe on fundamental rights to privacy, free enterprise and self-determination — so that the violence and the deaths ultimately arising from those laws just might end. Let me be unequivocal myself — our freedoms are too important to be held hostage this way.

In a free society like ours, individuals should have the liberty to use whatever substances they see fit in their own homes, pursuant of their rights to privacy and property. After all, in 2003, the Supreme Court established in the case Lawrence v. Texas that the government has no right to ban private sexual conduct between consenting adults. Given that sex and drug use both have associated risks, why should drug use be treated differently?

While Ortiz-Hinojosa feels entitled to a sense of outrage at the sight of someone publicly using marijuana, it instills in me a gratitude to live in a place where someone can commit an act of public civil disobedience against the unjust prohibition of drugs without facing legal repercussions. If more people expressed disdain for the modern prohibition — either in the public discourse or through civil disobedience — the result would not be the bloodbath that Ortiz-Hinojosa describes, but a greater impetus for the end of the drug war…

Nice.

Massachusetts High Court Limits Police Searches in Small Marijuana Cases

Reason and justice prevailed this week in Massachusetts, where the Commonwealth’s highest court ruled by a 5-1 margin in Commonwealth v. Cruz that police can no longer search or seize someone they suspect of possessing a small amount of marijuana. The basis for this ACLU victory was the Massachusetts ballot measure known as Question 2, which made possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a civil infraction instead of a crime. Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved Question 2 with 65 percent of the vote in November 2008. […]

First, and most obviously, it’s an important step forward for marijuana decriminalization. The justices took seriously the notion that when Massachusetts voters said they didn’t want police harassing marijuana users or using limited law enforcement resources to combat minor drug use, they meant it. In the words of the court:

By mandating that possession of such a small quantity of marijuana become a civil violation, not a crime, the voters intended to treat offenders who possess one ounce or less of marijuana differently from perpetrators of drug crimes. . .The statute does away with traditional criminal consequences, including the long-term and embarrassing effect that a criminal record has on employment or applying for school loans, demonstrating the intent of the voters to change the societal impact of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana.

The court understood that Question 2 wasn’t just about lowering the penalty for personal-use possession to $100; it was about changing the Commonwealth’s whole attitude about marijuana. Criminalizing marijuana makes criminals out of ordinary people and wastes police resources to do so. The people of Massachusetts have had enough of this. Even if police haven’t gotten the message yet, the court did.

I’m sure someone will claim that this is an example of an “activist court.” Yet I’ve never understood the use of that term when the court stood up for the rights of citizens. Isn’t that what the court’s supposed to do? Act as a check on the executive and judicial branches to make sure they don’t take more power unto themselves than the people or the Constitution have given them?

This is a great decision. It provides a check on law enforcement run amuck.

Gary Johnson officially announced his bid for the Presidency today. Regardless of how that campaign goes, my hope is that it will spark additional debate regarding the drug war. Of all the candidates, his is the candidacy that is most likely to do so.

Welcome new readers from Illinois State University where I talked briefly at Hempfest yesterday. It was a good group that showed up despite inclement weather and bravely stood up to my challenge to take and wear a button saying “Legalize Drugs: Ask Me Why” (based on the successful LEAP campaign).

Thanks to Shaleen for sending me this data from a recent CNN poll.

Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana?

	White	Non-White
Favor	43%	36%
Oppose	54%	62%

Incredible? Perhaps.

And yet, not really.

For us, it’s hard to imagine that minorities would support the drug war. After all, we know that it’s the single most racist public policy since slavery. We’ve seen the figures of use versus arrest versus incarceration. We seen the numbers that South Africa under Apartheid incarcerated 851 black males per 100,000 population while we incarcerate 4,919 black males per 100,000 population.

We’ve seen how Hispanics are targeted by law enforcement in the drug war, including the incredible statistic in the Chicago area that 73% of Hispanics whose cars were searched because a dog sniff “detected” drugs actually had no drugs (the result of the dog’s handler believing they had to be there).

With all of this, there can be a natural tendency for people in drug policy reform to throw up their hands in exasperation at the lack of interest in drug policy reform in many minority communities.

However, we know these things because we study them. The average person does not (at least not until we do a better job of telling them). The average person knows what the government has told them, or what their church has told them, or what has been passed down as “common knowledge.”

One of the few “successes” (and I’m speaking ironically here) of the drug war has been to convince people that the negative effects of prohibition are actually the negative effects of drugs.

People see violence on the street and say “that’s because of drugs” when, in fact, it’s because of the drug war. And so they call for more enforcement even though (as we know) that won’t help the problem but rather make it worse.

And, quite frankly, this issue is much more visible out on the streets in poor/minority neighborhoods than in affluent neighborhoods where the drug trafficking takes place discretely in the country club locker room.

I know. I live in one of those poor/minority neighborhoods. I talked to a neighbor once who told me “I think the next door neighbors are selling pot. I hope the police come and bust them and take away their kids.” I was flabbergasted. But she saw the problem in the community as drugs, rather than as the by-product of the drug war.

This, in my mind, is what drives the fact that minorities lag behind in understanding the need for drug policy reform.

The fact is that we still have not done a good enough job of educating the public regarding the damage done by the drug war. Because of that, we often end up with the strangely incongruous image of a mostly white population of drug policy reformers carrying the banner for ending the most racist policy since slavery.