Drug WarRant

No matter what you do to try to stop the supply of drugs, people will find a way to get around it, over it, under it, or through it.

Why? Because it’s so unbelievably profitable.

Here’s yet another drug smuggling submarine that was found in Colombia.

Just over 100 feet long and made out of fiberglass, capable of traveling 9 feet below the surface undetected. Authorities estimated that it may have cost $2 million to build.

Think about that for a moment. A criminal enterprise so lucrative that you’ll spend $2 million on a tool for committing the crime.

Here’s a nice spot over at the Economist to get a sense of some of the commenting of Malcolm Kyle, one of our regulars here. Malcolm really does a great job challenging the readers in comments sections at all sorts of media outlets.

It’s not just Obama that fails the question test. Check out this excellent piece at UKCIA News Blog: David Cameron shows his ignorance about cannabis

Democracy is a great idea, but the problem is it gives us politicians who can be the most dishonest peddlers of misinformation on the planet. David Cameron showed just how badly politicians can mislead when he answered a question about cannabis law reform this week.

When asked: “Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them? Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?”

He answered:

“Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems. But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer. I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.”

The article does a nice job of fisking that.

For those of you who may have missed it…

Jury nullification is an important tool for dealing with bad criminal laws that lawmakers (for whatever reason) don’t want to change. Judges and prosecutors are hostile to it and would prefer that jurors not know their rights and responsibilities in this area.

Is Advocacy of Jury Nullification a Crime?

Now someone has been arrested specifically for passing out information about jury nullification. This will be a case to watch since it is about silencing opposition.

Meanwhile, in our drug war next door…

28 in Mexico Killed in Attacks

It’s so routine it hardly seems worth reporting. Sigh.

An interesting legislative stunt in Minnesota…

Legislators want medical marijuana farming in Minnesota

A bill introduced in the Minnesota Legislature on Thursday would make it legal for farmers to grow medical marijuana and sell it to dispensaries in states where marijuana can be legally used for medicinal purposes. The Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act would direct the state government to develop a strict licensing plan for the potential grower and cites a positive economic benefit for the state’s agricultural sector.

It appears to me to be some kind of protest bill, because I can’t imagine it ever actually happening (at least until marijuana is legalized nationally). You can imagine that the feds would go ballistic over the idea of exporting medical marijuana across state lines, and the mental image of Minnesota shipping medical marijuana to California is pretty hilarious.

I always thought that Montanans had quite the independent streak. They thumbed their noses at the Feds when it came to speed limits. They considered themselves kind of frontiersmen who didn’t need the government telling them everything. Their conservatism was really more closely related to a form of libertarianism, I thought.

That may be true of the population, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be true of their GOP leadership.

I don’t know if you’ve been following this, but the GOP has apparently found the most pressing thing they need to do in Montana state government is to repeal the state’s medical marijuana law which was passed by the people 62 percent to 38 percent!

HELENA – Republican legislative leaders strongly condemned Montana’s medical marijuana program Thursday, as they spoke to reporters at the midsession break, while Democratic leaders denounced repeal attempts as another GOP effort to defy the will of voters.

At a Capitol news conference, House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, talked about his bill to repeal the law, and Senate President Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, spoke strongly against medical marijuana, although he stopped short of saying it should be repealed. […]

Milburn’s House Bill 161 would repeal that law. The bill has cleared the House on a mostly party-line vote and now faces action in the Senate.

As usual, out of control scare tactics are being used. Note, though, the subtle dig by the Missoulian reporter:

At the GOP news conference, Peterson asked if Montanans want one-third of high school kids with medical-marijuana cards.

Official state statistics show that 51 people under age 18 have been issued medical marijuana cards as of Feb. 1, or 0.18 percent of the 28,362 people with cards.

If they’re unhappy with the number of medical marijuana cards in the adult population, then the discussion that the Montana GOP should be having is to get government out of the business of running a drug war, and just legalize marijuana. They can then set an age limit of 18 if they wish. Save the kids, reduce government, promote individual responsibility, thumb your noses at the feds. Isn’t that what you really want, Montana?

Link

Thousands of U.S. agents and local police officers arrested and interrogated suspected associates of Mexican drug cartels across the United States on Thursday in response to the killing of a U.S. anti-narcotics agent in Mexico last week. […]

DEA officials said the sweep netted more than 100 suspects – most of them low-level – in Atlanta, Oakland, St. Louis, Denver, Detroit, San Antonio, San Diego, Chicago and New Jersey, as well as in Colombia, Brazil and Central America. […]

The DEA action, widely reported Thursday in Mexico, is intended to send a strong message to Mexican mafias that U.S. agents are off-limits, officials said.

“We’re doing what we always do. But a message was sent.”

Really?

So, these “cartels” who haven’t been deterred by the entire might of the Mexican army, who hire and dispose of mules and foot-soldiers with no regard to their lives, who slaughter rivals and innocents with a sadistic glee… What, they’re now going to quake in their boots because the DEA rousted a bunch of Americans with Mexican-sounding names… and questioned them?

“We’re sending a strong message.” >>translation>> “Uh, I got nuthin.”

Last week I talked about the powerful and well-written editorial in the Seattle Times…

MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington.

So what was the reaction to that editorial? Yesterday, the Times editorial page editor commented on that reaction.

It is rare we publish an editorial on a hot topic and receive near universal praise. But that is what happened last week when we came out in support of Washington state legalizing cannabis.

The fact that a lot of people support the drug being legal is not surprising. Most people I know have long supported legalization of marijuana.

Knowing people who support it and public opinion about a newspaper supporting it are different things.

When people take the time to e-mail or call me about an editorial, it is usually because they do not agree with the editorial page. This editorial was different. The compliments rolled in, the discussion in the comments section of the editorial is nearing 600 and is interesting and thoughtful — which is not always the case — and so far the editorial has been recommended by about 3,000 people on Facebook.

Those numbers are nice to see, but only a minor part of the story. What the editorial has shown is that a broad cross-section of Washingtonians supports legalizing cannabis, or at least are ready to discuss the issue seriously.

Editorial boards across the country, sit up and take note.

It is possible, however, that there was someone who wasn’t as pleased with the editorial.

The Stranger has learned that immediately after the Seattle Times ran an editorial last week supporting a bill to tax and regulate marijuana, the newspaper got a phone call from Washington, D.C. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske wanted to fly to Seattle to speak personally with the paper’s full editorial board.

The meeting is scheduled for next Friday, an apparent attempt by the federal government to pressure the state’s largest newspaper to oppose marijuana legalization. Or at least turn down the volume on its new-found bullhorn to legalize pot.

Bruce Ramsey, the Seattle Times editorial writer who wrote the unbylined piece, says the White House called right “right after our editorial ran, so I drew the obvious conclusion… he didn’t like our editorial.”

Yep. I’d love to be in that room. What could Kerlikowske possibly have to say to that editorial board that has clearly researched the issue in depth, made a considered decision to run the editorial, and received near-universal acclaim for running it?

I’m not the only one who’d like to be in that room.

The Marijuana Policy Project is asking the Seattle Times to live-stream the meeting.

A follow-up to the Michael Dearman piece at SMU, where he argued that drug users should note that they have blood on their hands (a useless argument since that can’t lead to practical change, whereas working toward legalization can).

Dearman has published a response piece to some of the criticism, saying that he was misunderstood. In fact, he just muddles it up even more, by bizarrely agreeing with us disagreeably.

What one cannot do, which reader Thomas asserted, is state that the “blood is on the hands of the politicians who…implement the failed prohibitionist model of criminalizing what free people put into their own bodies.” One must not forget that it is the constituents that elect these officials to office in the first place.

If there is a tinge of guilt in the moral conscience of America because of our culture which promotes the use of marijuana, then America has a responsibility to put politicians in to office that will begin the process of the legalization of marijuana to curb the black market created by the illegality of the drugs themselves.

I’m pretty sure that’s what we were saying. And that by creating a distraction through blaming drug users, he was not contributing to a real solution of legalization.

A colleague of his, Adriana Martinez, from Mexico, jumped into the fray as well with No easy answer: Legalization of marijuana is not the solution to Mexican “War on Drugs” She attempts to defend Dearman’s first piece, which he pretty much negates with his second.

The overwhelming response from readers was simple – legalize marijuana. Much like during the prohibition era in the U.S., legalizing the substance will reduce illegal activity and eradicate a black market.

While I agree that this worked historically in the U.S., I do not believe that it is the solution for Mexico’s woes. As a citizen of the latter, I am neither commenting on the feasibility of marijuana legalization in the United States, nor am I making a normative claim about this policy. Instead, I argue that legalizing marijuana is not the solution to the violence south of the U.S. border.

The drug war in Mexico spiked to the extraordinary levels that we see today when the violence between the cartels escalated in recent years. Though attributable to various factors, it is probable that the shrink in the U.S. cocaine market was influential. If this is the case, then the legalization of marijuana in the United States or the increased growth thereof domestically would only result in increased violence as well. The drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) would struggle violently to gain control of the diminishing market.

The DTOs might also presumably turn to other black market activities to attempt economic hegemony there. Perhaps the sales of pirated movies and music, or maybe the illegal crossing of migrants, or sex trafficking. There is no shortage of options.

The control of these illegal, but influential sectors would only augment the cartels’ power and social dominance. Corruption is not new to the DTOs, and there would be no decrease in this, despite the legalization of marijuana.

Furthermore, what has been referred to as a “grey market” could also likely emerge. As the state taxes marijuana, the cartels can continue to dominate the market by selling marijuana more cheaply.

This is a truly bizarre (yet too common) line of arguments. Sure, we all know that the criminal traffickers will not evaporate (poof!) just like that with legalization. But if you cut off their major flood of income, you diminish their power so that you can actually go after them successfully. Pirated DVD sales? Please. Grey market marijuana? Tell me another. These are tiny pale money pots compared to the drug war profits. Without the same level of dollars, they can’t hire as many foot soldiers, bribe as many police and judges, or pacify entire towns. They become vulnerable.

And without the lure of huge money, there’s less pressure for new criminal enterprises to spring up and replace the ones you dismantle.

That’s how it starts. Our View: Agents should carry weapons for protection Las Cruces Sun-News.

It’s official that we have agents from ICE, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration embedded and working with Mexico against the drug cartels. Should they not be allowed to carry weapons for self defense?

And when does that become indistinguishable from having troops?

Good read: Why This Cop Asked the President About Legalizing Drugs by MacKenzie Allen

Another good read (from last week): Washington Post Editorial: New law on crack cocaine penalties should be made retroactive

The commission is preparing to forward to Congress amendments to the guidelines to reflect the changes in the Fair Sentencing Act. The commission should make the new guidelines retroactive.

Some 13,000 prisoners – 85 percent of whom are black – would be eligible for retroactive sentencing reductions, according to the commission’s analysis. The average prisoner would receive a sentence reduction of about three years. The releases would extend over 30 years, with potentially 3,000 to 4,500 prisoners being released during the first year after the sentence reductions are made retroactive. But release is not automatic: Prisoners would have to petition a federal court for the sentence reduction, and prosecutors would be able to lodge objections, including those based on public safety concerns.

Remember when the first reduction in sentencing occurred? It was two years ago when Attorney General Michael Mukasey warned us that the early release of these offenders would unleash “violent criminals” onto our streets and pose “significant public safety risks.”

Hmmm…. what happened to all that crack-head street violence?

But they’re keeping the prisons open! State will end all drug treatment funds

Expensive, counter-productive, and Unconstitutional: Lawmakers in Ten States Mull Drug Testing of Public Aid Recipients

At least two bills would require legislators to be drug-tested as well.

The Mind of a Police Dog – another must-read from Radley Balko.

This is an open thread.

I’m not big on going to meetings. I’d often prefer to skip them and get some work done. Here’s one I’d like to attend.

U.S. President Barack Obama will meet his Mexican counterpart Felipe Calderon next week at the White House, with talks expected to focus on Mexico’s ongoing drug war efforts, the White House said on Wednesday.

“The president is deeply committed to the strong partnership that the United States has with Mexico. I think that is the reason for the meeting,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in response to a query about the upcoming meeting.

“We admire the commitment and sacrifices of the Mexican people as they confront the criminal organizations that have brought so much violence to Mexico, specifically on those issues which I know have been in the news,” he said.

Since taking office in December 2006, Calderon has boosted efforts to fight drug traffickers by mobilizing troops and police. Official figures show some 32,000 people have died since in the drug war.

I figure I’d just sit back for the first half of the meeting, letting them flail about ineffectively, grasping at the same tired straws that have failed them again and again. And then I’d take over and solve it for them.

I’ve got a fairly busy week next week, but I think I could get away for a day, if they’d like to pencil me in on the calendar.

The science has been clear on this for quite some time: needle exchange programs save lives, reduce the spread of HIV, and don’t cause any increase in drug use. It’s a real no-brainer, and it’s been bizarre that it’s taken the U.S. government so long to get on board, but they finally are.

White House moves to fund needle exchanges as drug treatment

The Obama administration has designated intravenous needle exchanges as a drug treatment program, allowing federal money set aside to treat addictions to be used to distribute syringes to narcotics users. […]

The new position, determined by the surgeon general, is that the states can receive federal funding for programs that hand out the syringes as a treatment. […]

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Regina M. Benjamin told The Washington Examiner that needle exchange programs can serve as a gateway to treatment for drug addiction, HIV and other diseases.

“This determination, based on years of scientific research, will permit states and territories to use Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds for what had formerly been termed ‘needle exchange,’ ” Benjamin said.

Well that’s pretty clear. And uncontroversial. After all, who would object to a program that saves lives, doesn’t increase drug use and helps move hard core addicts to treatment?

Oh.

“It doesn’t pass any serious test of rationality,” said John P. Walters, the former drug czar under President George W. Bush. “It’s like the surgeon general deciding that handing out lighters is a good way to help people to stop smoking. It’s at least that absurd, and the consequences are even greater given the risks involved in IV drug use.”

The risks involved in IV drug use are precisely why this program is so important. And if cigarette lighters on the street were infected with the ebola virus, then yes, it would make sense health-wise to hand out lighters to smokers.

But Dr. Scott Teitelbaum, director of the University of Florida-run Florida Recovery Center, said, “Putting a needle in your arm is not recovery.” Teitelbaum said he opposed taking money from legitimate treatment programs to pay for needle exchange.

Translation: “I resent that you might take federal money away from me to fund something that actually works.”

Dr. Robert L. DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior and Health in Rockville, said it’s possible that addicts will seek treatment after getting clean syringes, but there are more cost-effective ways of getting drug users to seek treatment.

“If someone proposed giving free drinks to treat alcoholism, they’d be laughed out of the building,” DuPont said. “But in the drug world, that’s considered good science.”

A more effective way is to spend the money to go into the shelters and communities hit hard by addictions and bring the addicts into treatment, said DuPont and other drug treatment experts.

Yeah, we can follow the Thailand example. Rounding up addicts into forced treatment? Really? That’s your solution? Are there perhaps some good reasons why that isn’t being done now? Like, oh, I don’t know, the U.S. Constitution?

Critics say the new policy is a step toward European-style treatment where the government provides the drugs and a clean room to inject them.

Oh, you mean the European programs where they’ve demonstrated an 88% reduction in crime, improved health, and a dramatic raising of the average age of addicts (because of addicts living longer and fewer young initiates)?

Yeah, we sure wouldn’t want anything like that to interfere with the jollies of our sadomoralists.

Drug addicts in Thailand will be treated next week

The Ministry of Interior has picked next week to get all drug addicts across Thailand clean. Deputy Permanent Secretary for Interior Mr Surapong Pongtadsirikul has disclosed that there are approximately 30,000 drug addicts who have not been treated so far since the 3rd phase of the drugs eradication program has begun.

During 20-27 February, 2011, drug abusers in Bangkok will be brought to the rehabilitation centers to get clean. There will be those who are encouraged to receive treatment on their freewill and those who will be forced against their will. A rehabilitation camp will be open for addicts elsewhere in Thailand where a rehab center is scarce.

This, remember, is a country with a history of abusing and killing its citizens in its internal drug wars.

The International Harm Reduction Association and other NGO’s have responded:

A coalition of international and Thai health and human rights organisations have voiced their fears that the Thai government’s planned round up of people it suspects are using drugs will trample on human rights and potentially rekindle widespread abuses of vulnerable people.

The organisations responded to an official announcement that the Ministry of the Interior intends to force thousands of people suspected of using drugs into detention centres and keep their names on official registries for future monitoring.

In a letter to the Thai government, the organisations wrote, “These plans for mass detention and forced treatment raise considerable human rights concerns, especially given Thailand’s history of nationwide punitive and ineffective anti-drug campaigns…there is no way for the Government to implement a campaign to forcibly ‘treat’ tens of thousands of people who use drugs without widespread human rights abuses taking place.”

So, where is Yury Fedotov and the UNODC? Why aren’t they jumping in to stop this abuse? Do human rights not matter?

And where is the U.S. State Department? They’ve got no problem jumping in to object to Bolivia’s innocuous amendment about coca. Where’s their objection to this?