Drug WarRant

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.

On the drug czar’s “blog” they talk about an “Above the Influence” workshop with the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), where youth engaged in a “tag-it” campaign.

In this workshop, they had pieces of paper with “I am above:” and participants added their own anti-drug message.

Continue reading →

One of the most pathetic elements to prop up prohibition is the uncertainty argument put forth by the so-called academic experts in drug policy in the United States.

“We can’t even talk about legalization,” they wail. “It’s too uncertain.”

They’re fully willing to admit that prohibition itself is destructive and that what we are doing in the United States isn’t working, but as policy-wonks — the very people who should be looking as closely as possible at every alternative to failed policy — they refuse to even seriously consider the one viable alternative.

“We don’t know what will happen,” they moan.

And no, we don’t know for 100% certainty what will happen, largely because the prohibition juggernaut has fought every step of the way to prevent a single fully functioning laboratory of legalization. But that doesn’t mean there’s no data.

We point out Portugal.

“That doesn’t really count,” they complain. “Portugal is a different country. It’s not the United States. Besides, it’s not legalization.”

OK, so how about legalizing marijuana in California? Let’s see what we can learn from that? There’s your lab – a perfect opportunity. “No,” they whine. “We don’t know what will happen and we’re not sure we like the details.”

So don’t worry, Latin America. We won’t be doing anything soon about your drug war problems, because we don’t really want to talk about it.

No reason to talk about drug legalization, expert says

WASHINGTON – Drug legalization in the United States “is not going to happen in our lifetime,” Peter Reuter assured a group of Latin American diplomats and journalists Thursday.

The founder and director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center from 1989-1993, said it was a “seductive idea” but it will not happen due to the huge uncertainty on the effects such a measure would have on society.

“No one has taken it seriously enough to look for a blueprint of what that would look like,” he said.

Really? Really?

So who should be the one to take it seriously enough to, oh, I don’t know, come up with a blueprint of what that would look like? You’d think maybe a think tank with academic policy researchers might consider doing such a thing.

In fact, they have (though not in the U.S.). They’re called Transform and their serious research paper is even called a “blueprint.” After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation It’s even a free download.

That’s what happens when you have researchers who actually research.

But don’t we have think tanks with researchers here who study drug policy in the U.S.?

Let’s take a look at what we have passing for research. RAND produced (co-authored by Peter Reuter) An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy in 2005.

Nor do we explore the merits and demerits of legalizing drugs, even though legalization is perhaps the most prominent and hotly debated topic in drug policy. Our analysis takes current policy as its starting point, and the idea of repealing the nation’s drug laws has no serious support within either the Democratic or Republican party. Moreover, because legalization is untested, any prediction of its effects would be highly speculative.

Nothing to see here. Move along. No point talking about it. All you people dying in the drug war? Families broken up by our prison system? People overdosing on bad drugs? Sorry. You’re on your own. We’ve got uncertainty problems here. You couldn’t possibly know what that’s like.

Reuter: I am really struck by the lack of suggestions as to what the Mexican government should do other than just give up. I don’t have any good ideas, and nobody else does, either.

…

I have this mental image of some old sci-fi movie where a massive mechanical monster lays waste to entire cities. The Joint Chiefs are in an underground bunker watching the destruction continue as they futilely try one thing after another to stop the juggernaut. They send in the army to shoot it, but it has no effect. They dig ditches, try fire, and they drop massive bombs, but it only seems to make the monster stronger.

At some point, they realize that they’ve used everything that they have in their arsenal with no positive result and that the destruction of earth is inevitable.

From the back of the room, a janitor who was mopping up some spilled coffee hesitantly speaks up, and says: “I noticed on the monitors that there’s a switch on the side of the monster. Why don’t we just turn it off?”

The government scientist whirls in his chair and yells “My God, man. Are you insane? We have no idea what that would do!”

Another poll:

THIS week’s Economist-YouGov poll contains some exciting news for devotees of the weed. A huge majority of Americans, more than two to one once don’t knows have been excluded, support the legalisation and taxation of marijuana. Even without excluding the don’t knows, a clear majority favours treating the drug equivalently to tobacco and alcohol.

The data (see chart) reveal some interesting patterns. In every age group, more people favour than oppose legalisation. Predictably enough, the young are very strongly in favour, but babyboomers are almost as strongly so; and even those over 65 are narrowly in favour as well. Breaking the poll down by party, one finds that Republicans as well as Democrats are in favour, though the former much more narrowly so.

If our poll is right, then it can only be a matter of time before laws start to change, at least in the more liberal states.

Pretty.

… and I’m not talking about the people who use it.

Teen’s medical marijuana fight escalates as school says he cannot come back to class after going home for medicine

The saga of a Colorado Springs teenager struggling with a rare neurological condition best controlled with medical marijuana lozenges became a little more surreal when Harrison School District 2 informed the student’s father that the child cannot return to school on any day that he consumes medical marijuana.

“They say if he takes his medicine he cannot come back to school,” the teenager’s father told The Colorado Independent. The boy attends Sierra High School.

The child missed most of the last school year when he was diagnosed with diaphragmatic and axial myoclonus, which causes seizures that can last for 24 hours or more. He spent extensive periods of time hospitalized and used morphine and other narcotics to control the seizures until doctors discovered that THC works better than any other medication.

He was able to return to school in January but as the district would not allow him to possess or consume his prescribed medicine on campus, he transferred to a school closer to home so that he could walk home as needed to take his medicine.

After the district’s latest salvo was delivered, the teen’s father said he spoke with both the district superintendent and the district attorney and that neither were receptive to his arguments that his son needs the medicine to function, does not get high and does not smell like marijuana.

The district has refused to comment to us, other than for a spokesperson to say that the district intends to follow the letter of the law, which is that no student may possess or consume medical marijuana on school grounds.

Here’s a kid where a sane school district should be bending over backwards to help make it possible for him to attend, and a student who really wants to learn. But no, they make him stay home.

The school, by the way, has clarified that the teen can come to school after taking vicodin, but not THC.

Hopefully, this will change.

Best reaction:

Senator Greg Brophy, R-Wray, reached by email, said this: “Tragic. Zero tolerance policies are for people with zero intelligence.”