Drug WarRant

Thought I’d share with you a post I made on Facebook.

…

It would be a mistake to assume that the Voting Rights Act in any way ensured that all African Americans were able to vote. The biggest factor in suppressing minority vote is not even addressed by the Voting Rights Act — felony disenfranchisement.

5.8 million Americans are unable to vote because of our obsession with over-incarceration and the drug war, and it hits minorities hardest by a long shot. 1 in 13 African-Americans nationally are unable to vote. Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote (source: Sentencing Project).

Drug war incarceration has been referred to as the “New Jim Crow,” and built right into our drug laws are enforcement incentives that make racist outcomes certain.

Despite the fact that blacks and whites use drugs at roughly the same rate, in our enlightened northern state of Illinois, blacks are 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites (see ACLU report released this month). Federally, blacks now make up 82% of crack defendants, up from 79% in 2009. In every aspect of the drug war you find similar results, with African Americans (and Hispanics) bearing a dramatically disproportionate share.

So go ahead and mourn the death of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which provided some useful election oversight in certain states and counties determined 40 years ago. Howl at the injustice of the Justices.

But if you really care about making sure all Americans are enfranchised, then you might be better off working to end this racist drug war.

The DEA just can’t contain itself. I’ve gotten multiple press releases from them about a special press conference today, where they’re going to get to show off their latest big bust. Must be a doozy, because they’re milking it (and teasing it) for all the publicity they can get.

DEA PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY ON MAJOR ENFORCEMENT OPERATION

The DEA and other federal law-enforcement partners will hold a press conference TODAY, Wednesday June 26th, to present the results of a significant law enforcement operation taking place throughout the United States and abroad. Because of the sensitivities and timing of these enforcement actions, details of this operation will not be available until the press conference.

When: Wednesday, June 26th, 2013 at 3 p.m. Eastern time

Please arrive early to allow time to be processed through security, particularly television crews. Only credentialed media may attend.

The World Drug Report for 2013 was released this morning by the UNODC. This is actually a useful report in terms of all the international information it contains, but of course it is also a product of the UNODC, and so any commentary within tends to hew to the standard pro-drug-war rhetoric.

In the preface by Yury Fedotov, I found this paragraph absolutely stunning:

We have to admit that, globally, the demand for drugs has not been substantially reduced and that some challenges exist in the implementation of the drug control system, in the violence generated by trafficking in illicit drugs, in the fast evolving nature of new psychoactive substances, and in those national legislative measures which may result in a violation of human rights. The real issue is not to amend the Conventions, but to implement them according to their underlying spirit.

Read that again and realize the enormity of what he is saying.

In essence, he is admitting that the UNODC’s drug war regime has absolutely failed to accomplish anything, that it is unworkable, that it causes enormous violence, leads to development of unsafe drugs, and results in human rights abuses. However, that doesn’t mean we need to change anything about it — we’ve just got to figure out how to implement it better.

Wow.

For an alternative World Drug Report that deals with the costs of the drug war, go to Count The Costs

As you may have heard by now, the US Conference of Mayors unanimously passed a resolution on Monday urging radical change of federal involvement in marijuana laws. The resolution includes:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors reaffirms its support of fair and effective criminal justice and drug policies and reiterates its previous call for the reclassification of marijuana under federal law; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors recognizes that its members have differing views on how to treat marijuana in their cities, and believes that states and localities should be able to set whatever marijuana policies work best to improve the public safety and health of their communities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors believes that federal laws, including the Controlled Substance Act, should be amended to explicitly allow states to set their own marijuana policies without federal interference; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that until such time as federal law is changed, the United States Conference of Mayors urges the President of the United States to reexamine the priorities of federal agencies to prevent the expenditure of resources on actions that undermine the duly enacted marijuana laws of states.

Powerful stuff and a pretty strong indictment of the federal government and this administration.

So… what was the ONDCP’s response?

Twitter:

Thank you, @USmayors, for unanimously supporting the Administration’s approach to #DrugPolicyReform. More: http://t.co/QihhsHmQvR #uscm2013

As Dan Riffle noted: “It takes a special brand of cynicism to operate the ONDCP twitter feed.”

Update: It appears that the Mayors also somewhat contradictorily unanimously endorsed the drug czar’s overall drug policy statement. That could be explained by the fact that the administration’s drug policy document is full of good-sounding things that have little to do with actual drug policy.

BuzzFeed has a hilarious/horrifying piece: The 14 Most Ridiculous Things Police Bought With Asset Forfeiture

Just of few of them…

Michael McDougal, then district attorney for Montgomery County, Texas, spent over $400 on tequila, rum, and kegs and $139 on a margarita machine. The DA’s office even won first place at a county fair for best margarita. […]

A sheriff in Virginia was convicted for bribing two police officers with $420 in asset forfeiture proceeds. […]

Sheriff Bill Smith in Camden County, Georgia, spent $90,000 on a Dodge Viper for the county’s Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE) program. […]

[the same] Sheriff Bill Smith spent over $35,000 in forfeiture funds to pay prison inmates, including building a “very nice party house” for the sheriff.

Getting ready to open a show in Chicago Saturday, which has kept me busy and on the road, and the NSA leaks story has been getting a lot of my attention, so I don’t have much today.

Should Pot Be Legal in Barrons.

Whether Congress realizes it or not, a good number of citizens want the problem fixed. The same Pew study that found a majority of people favoring legalization also found that 60% of Americans think the federal government should not enforce its prohibition in states that permit marijuana use. And 72% agreed with the proposition that federal enforcement of marijuana laws is not worth the cost.

Rep. Rohrabacher’s plan is as good a fix as any. It’s straightforward and sensible: The federal government can help enforce antipot laws in states that want them, but it must mind its own business in states that don’t want marijuana to be criminal.

Eventually, the federal government may repeal all of its laws against pot use, pot production, and pot dealing.

They could be replaced by laws no tougher than those that apply to liquor. Just as it was with the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, Congress could allow states to continue pot prohibition by local option, or to draft their own regulatory systems.

Given the unwillingness of many in Congress to even talk about marijuana, the day of full repeal is probably far off. But tending to the clumsy conflicts between state and federal governments is something that can and should be addressed right now.

We’ve been talking about Patrick Kennedy. Here’s another article about him.

Recovering drug addict Patrick Kennedy now leads fight against legalizing marijuana

By year’s end, Project SAM expects to be operating in 13 states, said Kevin Sabet, the group’s executive director and a former White House drug policy adviser. It already has affiliates in North Carolina, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont and Rhode Island.

Kennedy’s trips will take him to two big pro-marijuana states: In 1996, California became the first of 18 to legalize medical marijuana, and in November Washington joined Colorado as the first to approve marijuana for recreational use. Kennedy will announce new affiliates July 1 in San Diego and July 10 in Seattle. After that, Sabet said, more affiliates will follow in Missouri, New York, Oregon, New Hampshire, Indiana and Maine.

I sure am curious to know where their funding comes from.

Patrick Kennedy and Kevin Sabet sink to a new low in their letter in the New York Times responding to the Times editorial about the racial disparity that exists nationwide in marijuana arrests, which is all out of proportion to how marijuana is used in the population.

Kennedy/Sabet:

Second, legalization would exacerbate, not reduce, racial disparities in both our criminal justice and health care systems.

We can expect the legal marijuana industry to target minorities in the same way the alcohol and tobacco industries do today. There are eight times as many liquor stores in poor communities of color versus upper-class white areas. Additionally, even though they use drugs at roughly the same rate as whites, African-Americans are more likely to need treatment because of reduced access to health care and social supports. Communities of color will bear the brunt of marijuana legalization.

This is what it sounds like they’re saying (are they channeling Anslinger a bit?):

You don’t understand… if we legalize marijuana, those black people won’t be able to resist Big Marijuana and they’ll just go crazy smoking that reefer. And it’ll make them commit crimes and it’ll make them sick with nobody to help them. It’s just the… humane… thing to do — arresting black people. For their own good, you know.

Stay classy, guys.

It certainly seems that a tipping point has been reached regarding marijuana and prohibition, although it’s way too early to relax as the opposition has a lot at stake in the game and will not give up easily.

However, it’s important to remind ourselves that our destructive drug war is damaging to society and people regardless of the drugs being prohibited.

Tony Newman: Beyond Marijuana: Gearing Up For the Battle to Decriminalize All Drugs

But what about the other drugs? My colleagues and I at the Drug Policy Alliance are committed to ensuring the decriminalization of all drug use becomes a political priority.

Criminalization is not only failing to effectively control drug use, it’s a barrier to protecting individual and public health. As long as drug use is a crime, people are going to be afraid to get help.

John Stossel: The War on Drugs is Worse Than NSA Spying

It’s true that some Americans destroy their lives and their families’ lives by using drugs. Others struggle with addiction. But if illegal drugs are as horrible and addictive as we’ve been told, how come the government’s own statistics say millions try those drugs but only a small percentage continue using?

Ninety-five percent of those who have tried what we think of as “hard drugs” report not using the substances in the past month. […]

“The data simply shows that the vast majority of people who use these drugs don’t go on to become addicted,” he said on my show. “In fact, some of these people go on to become president.” […]

In fact, Hart says, the drug war is worse than [alcohol] Prohibition. It costs more, has lasted longer and doesn’t just kill people in the U.S.: From Afghanistan to Colombia, American helicopters try to destroy drug crops. Foreigners gain one more reason to hate Yankees.

Arrogant and ignorant politicians do more harm than the social problems themselves.

The DEA is back to pushing against the bill to legalize hemp farming with a set of talking points, which mostly boils down to, as we’ve said here before, that law enforcement is too stupid to figure out the difference.

Ryan Grim reports: DEA Wages Hemp War Behind The Scenes In House

The Drug Enforcement Administration has kicked its lobbying against legalizing industrial hemp into high gear, hoping to block an amendment in the House that would decriminalize the crop for research purposes.[…]

The Huffington Post has obtained a copy of talking points the DEA is circulating among members of Congress to press them to oppose the amendment — raising the seemingly incongruous specter of the government using its resources to lobby itself.

The talking points, paradoxically, represent a step forward in the debate. In the Senate, hemp advocates were left only to counter vague “law enforcement concerns” that senators told HuffPost were a factor in their willingness to support reform. By laying out those specific reforms, hemp backers will attempt to rebut them point by point.

Broadly, the DEA’s case focuses on the supposed inability to easily distinguish between hemp and its cousin, marijuana. The similarity, the DEA argues, would allow pot growers to shield their plants behind rows of hemp plants. But the DEA appears not to have gotten the talk about the birds and the bees. […]

The DEA also says that there’s already a system in place for growing industrial hemp…

The CSA permits the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes, provided the grower has obtained a DEA registration to do so.

Yeah, good luck getting one of those.

Update: Amendment #37 passed the House 225 to 200!

Further update: However, the farm bill itself didn’t pass. Good news is that when it does, better odds that this amendment will be able to ride with it.

By the way, in response to several commenters, my understanding is that this amendment actually bypasses the DEA approval process for university research purposes (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

We haven’t talked much directly here about the ongoing NSA/FISA and related scandals in the news. After all, one could say, it’s not directly about drug policy. And yet, it seems pretty obvious to me which “side” the vast majority of my readers is likely to find themselves.

This article helps to articulate it. NSA scandal separates liberty lovers from poseurs

Most Americans who pay any attention to politics believe the nation’s great chasm is between “Red State” Republicans and “Blue State” Democrats. While the nation’s two major parties have their differences, the real divide is and always has been between those who reflexively trust the authorities and those who recognize that their own government poses the gravest threat to their liberties.

The latest scandal, in which a whistleblower revealed two National Security Agency programs that gather the phone and computer records of Americans in a fishing expedition designed to find links to terrorists, has jump-started this debate. As the Associated Press reported, this has “reinvigorated an odd-couple political alliance of the far left and right. A number of Democratic civil liberties activists, along with libertarian-leaning Republicans, say the government actions are too broad and don’t adequately protect citizens’ privacy.”

And that’s correct. Drug policy reform has a lot less to do with red vs. green than between authoritarians and those who value liberty.

For those who have seen the destruction of the drug war, who could possibly trust the government to be responsible with our communications while operating in total secrecy? Being concerned with these revelations is a no-brainer.

The real disturbing part of the story is the large number of sheep who are willing to give up their freedom for some vaguely imagined undefined benefit, and who strangely trust government officials to not abuse power.

Finally, I’m a huge fan of the incredible journalistic work done by Glenn Greenwald, who has always been more concerned with performing critically important government watchdog functions than propping up some political party. There are a lot of people in power trying hard to tear him down right now. I hope he gets through this unscathed.

Update: See also Diane Goldstein on this topic. The Surveillance State: How The War On Drugs And The War On Terror Go Hand In Hand