Drug WarRant

Danny at Transform Drug Policy Foundation blog has a fascinating and illuminating post on “securitisation.” Note: he does give the post a “policy nerd warning,” but despite the academic language, the thrust is easy to follow and so completely explains the world-wide expansion of the drug war and its exemption from the need to prove its value or efficacy (the same principles can be used to explain at a more local level the way the drug war has progressed in the U.S.)

Securitisation is described as “the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics” (Buzan et al. 1998: 23). By declaring something a security issue, the speaker entitles himself to enforce and legitimise unusual and extreme measures to fight this threat. Referenced from here.

Rita Taureck of the University of Birmingham describes securitisation:

“The main argument of securitisation theory is that security is a speech act, that alone by uttering ‘security’ something is being done. “It is by labelling something a security issue that it becomes one.”(Wæver 2004a,) A securitising actor, by stating that a particular referent object is threatened in its existence, claims a right to extraordinary measures to ensure the referent objects survival. The issue is then moved out of the sphere of normal politics into the realm of emergency politics, where it can be dealt with swiftly and without the normal (democratic) rules and regulations of policy making. For the content of security this means that it has no longer any given meaning but that it can be anything a securitising actor says it is. Security – understood in this way – is a social construction, with the meaning of security dependent on what is done with it.” […]

The inherent nature of a securitisation is anti-democratic, in so far as it is “the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics”. That is why evidence is anathema and why the political rhetoric around drug policy is so irrational and populist in tone. Once an issue has been securitised, a system of propaganda must be maintained to hold it within that framework.

Which leads me to one last point. When a securitisation has been in place for as long as the one relating to the non-medical use of drugs, progressive reform in itself becomes a ‘threat’ – a ‘threat’ to a long standing mission and some very well resourced agencies, charged with fighting the drug war. Now we see that what is actually under threat is an inflexible world order. A world order, whose long standing international relations, and indeed, national domestic social policies are predicated on fighting a futile war on drugs, are fundamentally threatened by a reform process that undoes its foundations.

I think you’ll find the whole piece quite interesting.

The House is currently debating H.R. 1, which would fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year. As part of this debate, Representatives Jared Polis (D-CO) and Ron Paul (R-TX) are introducing an amendment to eliminate funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, commonly known as the Drug Czar’s office.

Apparently this is going on right now.

You can send a letter to your Rep:

Researchers are looking to give lithium to marijuana users in an effort to help them quit in a new trial at the Riverlands Drug and Alcohol Centre in Lismore.

“When I first heard about this, I was a bit concerned about using lithium One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and all that,” Dr Johnston admitted.

“But we will only be administering lithium in low doses for seven days it’s long term, high-dosage lithium use that can be problematic for some patients. And currently we have no medications for use in cannabis withdrawal management.

“We’re hoping to attract a large number of people to take part in this.”

In related news, researchers are exploring the use of leeches to rid the body of excessive happiness, and limb amputations to cure the broken heart.

Who kidnapped these Indiana State Senators and replaced them with humans?

Ind. Senate panel backs bills for study on marijuana legalization, track drugs used for meth

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – A state Senate committee on Tuesday backed having the state crime policy panel study whether Indiana should legalize marijuana after hearing a legislator with multiple sclerosis say he wished he could legally try the drug to relieve his pain.

The committee also approved a bill requiring computerized tracking of cold medications used in making methamphetamine rather than mandating prescriptions, as some law enforcement groups urged.

The Senate’s criminal law committee voted 5-3 to advance to the full Senate the bill directing the criminal law and sentencing study committee to examine Indiana’s marijuana laws next summer and make recommendations.

Bill sponsor Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, said she was concerned about the undetermined millions of dollars state and local governments were spending each year on police, prosecutors, courts and jails to enforce marijuana laws.

“We need to be able to say to the citizens of Indiana, `This is how much it’s costing us and is this where you want to spend your money and your tax dollars?'” Tallian said.

Update: Apparently some similar attack of the body-swappers has happened in Kentucky.

FRANKFORT — The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday night approved the most sweeping changes to Kentucky’s penal code in a generation in an effort to reduce prison and jail crowding. […]

The result of much negotiation and compromise, the bill would steer many drug addicts into treatment and community supervision rather than prison. It drew praise from prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and local leaders. The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce endorsed it, warning that the state’s incarceration costs are draining resources that could better be spent on education. […]

One-fourth of Kentucky’s nearly 21,000 prison inmates are serving time for drug offenses. The state is spending $460 million this year on its Corrections Department.

Among many changes, the bill would maintain existing penalties for people caught selling the largest amounts of drugs while reducing penalties for people caught selling lesser amounts. It would reduce penalties for drug possession — often to misdemeanors — and allow courts to send minor offenders to addiction treatment and place them on an appropriate level of community supervision.

Simply locking up everyone convicted for drug offenses hasn’t worked, House Judiciary Chairman John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville, told his colleagues. Since 2000, Kentucky’s prison rate has grown by 45 percent, compared to 13 percent for the national average, with no reduction in the number of repeat offenders.

Kentucky needs to rethink who needs to be behind bars and who can be handled differently, said Tilley, the bill’s sponsor. […]

Also, any state legislator who filed a bill to establish a new crime or strengthen the penalty for an existing crime would have to identify a source of funding and list the cost in terms of housing or monitoring criminals.

Press Release from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:

President Maintains Bush Administration Ratio Favoring Punishment Over Treatment

Just Weeks Ago, Obama Said We Need to “Shift Resources” But He Didn’t Do It

WASHINGTON, DC — A group of police officers, judges and prosecutors who have waged the so-called “war on drugs” is criticizing President Obama because his federal drug control budget, released today, doesn’t match up to his rhetoric on treating drug abuse as a health problem.

Obama’s federal drug control budget maintains a Bush-era disparity devoting nearly twice as many resources to punishment as it does for treatment and prevention, despite his saying less than three weeks ago that, “We have to think more about drugs as a public health problem,” which requires “shifting resources.” The president’s comments came during a January 27 YouTube interview, in response to a question from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition member MacKenzie Allen, a retired deputy sheriff. Video of that exchange is available at http://www.youtube.com/CopsSayLegalizeDrugs

“I don’t understand how the president can tell us with a straight face that he wants to treat drugs as a health issue but then turn around just a few weeks later and put out a budget that continues to emphasize punishment and interdiction,” said Neill Franklin, LEAP executive director and a former narcotics officer in Baltimore. “The president needs to put his money where his mouth is. Right now it looks like he’s simply all talk and no game.”

In releasing the drug control budget today, the administration did reverse a Bush-era accounting trick that hid some costs of the “war on drugs,” such as incarceration. But the drug control budget breakdown, available online at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/12budget/fy12Highlight.pdf, clearly shows that under both the new and old calculations, supply reduction receives far more resources than demand reduction does.

“The Obama administration does deserve credit for bringing to light some of the costs of the ‘war on drugs’ that the Bush administration tried to obscure from public scrutiny,” said Franklin. “But mere accounting changes aren’t going to reduce our prison population, improve our economy or put violent gangs and cartels out of business. Only real changes to drug policy, like legalizing and regulating drugs, can help us achieve those important goals.”

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, prison wardens, federal agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the “war on drugs” and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

Mexico Drug War Carnage: Nearly 40 Killed Over The Weekend

I haven’t mentioned drug war deaths in Mexico for a few weeks. It’s sad that this has become so… usual, that I find myself skipping over article after article with drug war death counts in a search to share something more… interesting.

Yet people keep dying.

In Guadalajara, Mexico’s second largest city, armed men opened fire and tossed grenades into a crowded nightclub early Saturday morning, killing six and wounding at least 37 people.

Also on Saturday, eight people died in a police shoot-out in the prosperous northern city of Monterrey. The city, which lies at the intersection of major drug smuggling routes, is the site of an ongoing turf war between the Gulf Cartel and its former allies, Los Zetas. Suspected drug hitmen kidnapped and killed a senior police chief there Sunday night, according to Reuters.

A drive-by shooting killed two women and six men on the outskirts of Mexico City Sunday. One of the women was found naked on a nearby street after she was shot in the head. A seventh man was severely wounded.

Eleven people were killed in separate incidents over the weekend in the deadly border city of Ciudad Juarez, just across from El Paso, Texas. Five more people were shot and killed on the highway between Juarez and Chihuahua City, the capital of Chihuahua state.

So what are we doing about it?

KERLIKOWSKE: In the Bush administration the Mérida Initiative focused — and rightly so — on reducing violence as much as they could and improving law enforcement and the technology and equipment.

This administration is moving beyond that initiative and saying it can’t be just about law enforcement and the quality of intelligence. It also has to be about building civil society, building trust and cooperation of Mexican citizens towards law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

And as Arturo Sarukhan, the ambassador to the U.S. will tell you, “Don’t think of Mexico as just a transit country. We’re also a consumer country.” They’re dealing with their own drug problems, also. And so we helped Mexico open up their first drug court in Monterrey. I think they’re going to open their second drug court in Tijuana. So I think that trying to use the same balanced approach the next couple of years will make sense.

That’s the title of this delightful read by Steven Kotler at Tru TV.

Nothing really that new to those of us who know the history of prohibition and the forces behind keeping it prohibited, but still nice to see someone else talking about it.

The Smart on Crime Coalition “is comprised of more than 40 organizations and individuals, who participated in developing policy recommendations across 16 broad issue areas. These organizations and individuals represent the leading voices in criminal justice policy.”

Well, this group has just released a report of recommendations for the Administration and Congress, and I like what I’m seeing.

The Summary of Recommendations has some wonderful suggestions. Of course, I’d go further in some areas, but getting any of this agenda passed would be a good thing.

Here are a few selected recommendations…
Continue reading →

Gary Johnson is one of the brightest possibilities in the Republican Presidential prospects regarding drug policy reform, and he’s not afraid to talk about it.

He hit it pretty hard in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Starting at 4:40 and going until about 6:50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cuexQ4EV7o

Nice to hear the cheers when he mentioned legalizing marijuana, although it must be noted that a lot of the social conservatives stayed home this year because they were afraid of getting teh gay.

I really hate to say it, but if Johnson is going to have any kind of serious shot at a nomination, someone’s going to have to step in and buy him a new suit that fits and style his hair. It’s a reality of modern politics.

The Disastrous War on Drugs Turns 40: How Do We Stop the Madness? by Ethan Nadelmann.

What better way to mark the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs than by breaking the taboos that have precluded frank assessment of the costs and failures of drug prohibition as well as its varied alternatives. Barely a single hearing, audit or analysis undertaken and commissioned by the government over the past forty years has dared to engage in this sort of assessment. The same cannot be said of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or almost any other domain of public policy. The war on drugs persists in good part because those who hold the purse strings focus their critical attentions only on the implementation of the strategy rather than the strategy itself.

The Bill Comes Later – editorial in the Ottawa Citizen.

You live on a seemingly peaceful street. But one day a security alarm salesman comes to the door warning about the dangers that lurk in the neighbourhood and offering to install the latest high-tech security system. The problem is, he won’t tell you the price.

It is a safe bet that most Canadians wouldn’t sign on without getting some answers to questions such as how much it would cost and whether the money spent would make them safer. Yet that is what taxpayers are being asked to do when it comes to the Conservative government’s expansive and expensive law-and-order agenda.

Fortunately, at least at this time, the effort has been derailed

With the Liberals announcing they will vote against S-10, Harper’s government doesn’t have the votes to pass it.

The bill would have enacted mandatory minimum sentences for growing as few as six pot plants. The Liberals took their stand against it after Conservatives refused to say how much it would cost.

“This bill isn’t tough on crime, it’s dumb on crime,” said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. “We’re all in favor of cracking down on serious criminals, but this bill doesn’t distinguish between massive grow-ops and a first-time offender with a small amount. What’s more, the Conservatives won’t tell us what the fiscal implications of this bill are. How many billions will it cost? How many mega-prisons will have to be built? For these reasons, we just can’t support it,” he said.

The bill had already passed the Senate, where the Conservatives hold a majority, but opposition had been growing as it headed for the House of Commons. Earlier this week, more than 550 health professionals signed an open letter opposing the bill.

Plan To Fund Legal Aid From Seized Property Not Going Far in the Vancouver Sun.

Police and Charities Who Now Benefit From the Sale of Assets or Cash Grabbed From Crooks Are Not About to Give Up That Windfall Without a Fight

No kidding.

Police Officers and Free Speech at Cop in the Hood

Deputy Probation Officer Joe Miller signed a letter in support of California’s Proposition 19 (marijuana legalization). A disclaimer made it clear that he did not represent the viewpoint of the Mohave County Probation Department.

Officer Miller was fired. Maybe you think a police officer should never have an opinion on anything. I can understand saying a police officer should not advocate breaking the law. But that is something else. All people, police included, should be able to express their personal opinion about public referendums without fear of retribution.

One can only wonder… actually, no: one doesn’t have to wonder at all. Nothing would would have happened to Officer Miller if he had signed a letter in support of less restrictive gun laws. Or even gay marriage, pro or con. But he thinks drugs laws should be (gasp) changed.

Whether or not you agree with Miller’s (or my) position, stand up for workers’ rights and free speech. Sign a petition in his support.

NYC Named “Marijuana Arrest Capital of the World” at the Village Voice

​The hippies at the Drug Policy Alliance announced in a press release yesterday that the New York City Police Department arrested 50,383 people for “low-level marijuana offenses” in 2010, based on a report from the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services. According to the group, that accounts for 15 percent of all local arrests, and the number one infraction in New York City. It continues, dramatically: “On average, nearly 140 people are arrested every day for marijuana possession in NYC, making the Big Apple the “Marijuana Arrest Capital of the World.'” But — would you believe it — it’s not because more people are smoking weed!

Daily Caller interview with the drug czar has some very revealing exchanges (Mike Riggs does a phenomenal job, but also lets him off the hook a few times).

Here’s a really bizarre and revealing statement:

THE DAILY CALLER: I want to start with something you’ve said in past interviews, which is that you don’t like the term “drug war.” You don’t like this term because it’s hard to define who the enemy is, and sometimes the enemy is American citizens.

Do you think that what’s happening on the ground — the use of no-knock raids and SWAT teams, people’s pets being shot, their homes being trashed — do those things complicate your efforts at redefining this as something other than a war?

KERLIKOWSKE: Well, it might, but I guess the difference that I see is the level of violence in the United States and the training that law enforcement goes through. Whether they’re dealing with an armed robbery or taking down a drug house, and given the number of officers who are shot and killed anymore, and the type of weaponry that is out on the streets, I don’t think there’s any way to approach it from a safety standpoint that wouldn’t involve this. […]

I do think we can change the angst that is caused by calling it a war on drugs, especially since to the minority community it feels like a war on them.

Wow. We’ll make people feel lest “angst” as their door is smashed in by not calling it a war.

Disappointing. Senator Jim Webb has led the charge for criminal justice reform, and although he has announced that he is retiring, he’s still trying to push that process through before he retires.

And yet, even a Senator Webb, criminal justice reformer, retiring with no need to placate donors, can’t resist the lure of easy drug war money.

Webb seeks federal aid

Senator Jim Webb, D-Va. has proposed to add 13 Southwest Virginia counties to the Appalachia High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, an initiative of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The HIDTA program provides additional federal resources to designated areas that exhibit serious drug trafficking problems to help eliminate and reduce the harmful consequences of illicit activity. It facilitates intelligence sharing and creates multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional law enforcement coordination, according to the agency’s website.

It’s all about the money.

Response from law enforcement officers in these areas has been overwhelmingly positive.

“We are pretty excited about it and hoping it helps with some funding,” said Kenneth Hill, Dickenson County Police Department investigator.

Lieutenant Greg Gillenwater of Scott County echoed those sentiments.

“If they can get it, it would be a wonderful thing. [It would] give us a chance to get all the drugs off the street that we can,” Gillenwater said.

This is an open thread.