It Pays To Be A Mexican Drug Lord

Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman comes in at #41 on Frobes Most Powerful list.

Obviously being on this list means shit; but the power that Guzman wields across the border is very real -- and I imagine -- very frightening for the people who live in his territory. It's estimated that his cartel is responsible for hundreds of killings a month in Mexico, by way of turf battles and retribution killings. El Chapo runs what's arguably the largest, and most powerful drug cartel in the world, the Sinaloa cartel. The guy's something of a legend, having been arrested and jailed by Mexican authorities in the late 90's only to escape in 2001 via a laundry cart.

Here's a very good profile on the man from the WSJ that was published this past summer. Recently The Atlantic also ran a piece on the failed drug war in Mexico. Here's a breakdown of cartel controlled areas in Mexico via the BBC.

Police Professionalism and All That...

I'm sure this is just one lonely, isolated case over at the Baltimore Police Department. Hardly ever happens, right?

A city police officer has been arrested following a sting operation conducted by internal affairs acting on complaints that the officer was shaking down drug dealers.

Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Officer Michael Sylvester, 29, was arrested Thursday morning after he stole $70 from an internal affairs officer posing as a drug dealer in the 3900 block of Carlisle Ave. Three Ziploc bags containing suspected cocaine were also found in his locker at the Northwest District station, Guglielmi said.

Baltimore or Mexico? Which place would you rather run into cops with a small amount of drugs on you?

Drug Policy Momentum?

There's been some talk of late around the drug blogosphere, and with drug policy non-profits, that we're reaching some sort of potential tipping point for drug policy reform. I tend to agree. You could say I'm cautiously optimistic. One major reason? This bill put forward in California to regulate and tax marijuana has recieved so much media attention (I can only speak for print, I don't watch too much TV news), that there clearly is an appetite for -- if nothing else -- a healthy discussion about drug policy. And it's not just pot either. Mandatory minimum laws have gotten a hard look at recently, with the best example being a possible end to New York's Rockefeller laws.

This isn't to say that we will see any kind of major change in the next couple years, or even the next decade; but for the last year it would seem that the discussion is becoming more mainstream. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

$872 Million

The size of Baltimore's "informal economy". Plus, some other really fascinating stuff in this City Paper article that connects some dots for Baltimore's drug markets. Read the whole thing but here are some of the more interesting tidbits pulled from the piece (direct quotes):

• The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2002 "accommodation and food service sales" in Baltimore were worth about $1 billion.
  
  In other words, the drug trade generates a revenue stream comparable to the city's hotels and restaurants, an industry so important politically that the city government pledged $305 million in revenue bonds to build a downtown hotel that opened last year.
  
  
• For years Baltimore Police and city officials have contended that loosely grouped street-corner crews drive to New York City to buy drugs for resale here. Yet recent federal court cases have tied Baltimore defendants to drug trafficking organizations stretching to Florida, Texas, California, and Mexico, suggesting that a few well-connected Baltimoreans orchestrate shipments of pot, cocaine, and heroin purchased from Mexican middlemen who work for (or are part of) international drug cartels.
  
  
• The DEA's Heroin Domestic Monitor Program reports that Baltimore heroin is, on average, about 45 percent pure. High purity suggests Baltimore is a distribution hub for the drug, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the nation's primary keeper of illegal drug statistics.
  
  
• Charitable foundations and the federal government spend $1 million per week in Baltimore on drug treatment programs, creating hundreds of additional jobs--many of them for recovering addicts--which depend on an amorphous, uncountable addict population. City police draw overtime and seize millions of dollars worth of cars, real estate, and cash every year, leaching wealth from the city's drug economy but never really wounding it.
  
  From an economic perspective, Baltimore's relationship to its shadow economy at first appears schizophrenic: politicians dress the "informal economy" in bows and present it in reports like the DrillDown as evidence of "strong markets," then wrap it in rags for presentation to the federal government in applications for aid. But Baltimore's informal economy exists, like underworlds everywhere, in symbiosis with official institutions.
  

It's a magnificent piece of journalism and does much to connect the scattered (not meant in a pejorative way) reporting that the City Paper has done on the local drug trade in recent years. There's a lot to digest in the article, and even more when you include previous pieces, but even if you don't care about the implications of drug prohibition on place like Baltimore the reporting (esp this piece) that the City Paper has done on the matter makes for a great read.

Hopefully this piece makes it around the web.

Disclaimer: Despite my gushing I know no one (that comes to mind) that works at the City Paper.

Decriminalization Bill Defeated

The New Hampshire Senate says no to decriminalization.

The proposal would have made the possession of up to 1.25 ounces of marijuana a violation that carries a $200 fine, instead of a misdemeanor that can result in up to a year in jail and fines up to $2,500.

The House had approved the bill.

The Hardest Partying Legislature Ever

That would be the Peruvian Congress, where lawmakers use cocaine -- well, the raw ingredient for cocaine -- right at their desks. As Reuters explains:

LIMA (Reuters) - Lawmakers defiantly chewed coca in Peru's Congress on Thursday while criticizing a U.N. recommendation to criminalize traditional uses of the plant.

The coca leaf, the raw ingredient of cocaine, is used by millions of people to stave off hunger and fight altitude sickness. It is also used in teas, in cooking and by fortune tellers.

"The coca leaf has existed for thousands and thousands of years. It's part of our agriculture, our food and our medicine. It's sacred," Congresswoman Hilaria Supa told Reuters before the start of Thursday's session.

"The United Nations doesn't know our culture. It doesn't understand our values," she said.

Supa and Congresswoman Maria Sumire offered coca to their colleagues on the Congress floor from small hats. Dozens of politicians took handfuls and chewed the leaf during a raucous session with boos and hisses.

The First Taste Is Always Free

The feds are cracking down on a new candy. Is it because it is any less healthy than any of the other sugar-packed treats out there? No, it is because of the way the candy, a beverage additive, is packaged.

The folks at the invaluable website Thesmokinggun.com have all of the details:

FEBRUARY 27--The manufacturers of a powdered energy drink mix called "Blow" are violating federal drug guidelines, according to the Food and Drug Administration, which notes that products peddled as an "alternative to illicit street drugs pose a potential threat to the public health." FDA officials contend that "Blow" is an unapproved drug that is being marketed online at iloveblow.com in a way to draw comparisons to cocaine. In a warning letter, Alonza Cruse, director of the FDA's Los Angeles office, charged that the white powdery mix is packaged "in a vial suggestive of street drug paraphernalia" and that photos of the product make it appear that the mix has been cut into "very fine particles to increase the efficiency of nasal absorption prior to insufflation, i.e., snorting." The January 31 FDA letter, a copy of which you'll find below, advises that unless the manufacturer of "Blow" quickly cures its violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the company risks legal action and seizure of its product. A call to Logan Gola, who runs the company selling "Blow" was not returned at press time. Since its introduction last year, the energy drink mix has been criticized by law enforcement officers and drug prevention specialists, who have claimed that "Blow" glamorizes drug use and is marketed to children.

I checked out the iloveblow.com website and it seems to me that the company is more into glamorizing 80's hair metal. So maybe it is a good thing the feds are trying to keep this out of the kiddies' reach. A few shots of this stuff and they'll be voting for Reagan and investing all of their money in savings and loans. Hey, I've seen it happen.

Having said that, if the feds try to take away my brown sugar-flavored Smack Crispies, I'm going to be really upset.

Anti-Social Behavior 'Will Not be Tolerated'

Government Announces New Drugs Strategy

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has unveiled the Government's new 10-year drugs strategy.

The new £1 billion strategy includes plans to extend police powers to seize drug dealers' cash and assets on arrest, rather than conviction; make drug users who receive benefits be assessed by a specialist treatment provider to help them get into treatment and back into work; and provide family-friendly services to protect more young people and families affected by drug use.[...]

"We will continue to send a clear message that drug use is unacceptable; that we are on the side of communities; that we demand respect for the law and will not tolerate illegal or anti-social behaviour; but we will provide help for those who are trying to turn their lives around, to get off drugs and into work, to ensure drug problems are not handed on to the next generation; and that we expect drug users themselves to take responsibility, and will help them to do so."

Story here.

But Your Honor He Also Ate An Entire Bag of Doritos

In other Canadian news, a Saskatchewan appeal's court said last week that the smell of burnt marijuana cannot be used as evidence of drug possession. Why? Because it has been smoked:

"The smell of burnt marijuana does not reasonably support the inference that additional marijuana is present," the three-judge panel said in newly-released court filings.

Thus, police "did not have reasonable grounds to search" the truck of Archibald Janvier after his roadside arrest in 2004 for narcotics possession, the judges said in maintaining his acquittal.

The Canadian cops had stopped him because a taillight was out but when they smelled the pot they searched his vehicle and found eight ounces. His lawyer came up with a brilliant defense:

Archibald's lawyer Ronald Piche successfully argued the warrantless search and seizure were "unreasonable" because the aroma of burnt marijuana -- as opposed to raw marijuana -- infers that the drug has dissipated.

"How can you say you're in possession of something that doesn't exist," Piche told the daily Saskatoon Star Phoenix.

The whole thing here. And, no, I wasn't the one that was busted. But if you want to raise some funds for my legal bills, I won't object.

Dear Bush, Bernanke and Congress,

I have heard the news that you plan to release an economic stimulus package that entails giving each American taxpayer a lump sum payment of, tentatively, $800 per person.

Therefore, I feel compelled to disclose that I plan to spend my "stimulus" payment primarily on marijuana, with the remainder going towards a beer chaser and cigarettes. Likely there are many Americans, young and old, who plan to spend their checks in a similar manner.

I hope you realize that your policies on drugs, alcohol and tobacco will mostly likely prevent such expenditures from stimulating the economy whatsoever. For instance, the marijuana I plan to buy is inflated in cost due to the risks involved in growing, transporting and selling it in the black market. So instead of my "rebate" being injected back into the economy, most of it will end up in the pockets of various levels of dealers who don't pay taxes on drug income, likely don't invest in the market, and will probably spend the money in a way of which you wouldn't approve.

The remainder, which I will spend on beer and cigarettes, will indeed go into the economy. But since these industries are taxed so heavily in the name of "public health," you'll probably be taking back a good chuck of this sum anyway. If the money is - at least in part - going right back into your hands regardless, then why bother with the lump sum payout to me in the first place?

I realize that my economic rationale in this letter may not be flawless. But I do sincerely believe that it's better than all of yours. I have been waiting, but so far left wanting, for an explanation of exactly how sending just a small part of the taxes we pay back to us is going to stimulate the economy at all. Please feel free to explain your rationale in the comments section of this post.

Sincerely,
Nate

Racist? Check. Ineffective? Check. Part of Drug War? Yup.

No more drug-free zones in New Jersey?

In 2005, the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing found that 96 percent of all those in prison for school-zone offenses were black or Hispanic, and recommended that the zones be reduced to 200 feet and that the penalties within those smaller zones be increased. [...]

In October, Gov. Jon S. Corzine asked another panel to look at the earlier commission’s findings again. This time all 21 of the state’s prosecutors, as well as the attorney general, endorsed the proposals, and also recommended expanding the state’s drug court program, which emphasizes treatment over prison. “The current school zone law does not effectively deter drug activities in urban centers and the legislative purpose — to create a safe haven for children around schools — is thwarted,” the report said. But again the proposal has stalled in the Legislature.

I'll be borrowing a page from the drug war, and effective immediately I will declare a vagina-free zone within 3 feet of my penis and testicles. If the success of drug-free zones is any indication, I'll be laid by lunch.

Full article here.

Forget HIV, Lack of Clean Water, Proper Nutrition and the Corrupt Governments Who Excaberate the Problems...Blame Cocaine

Catching up on my drug related reading can be a depressing exercise. Via the ONDCP's blog I found UN Drug Czar's -- Antonio Maria Costa -- latest speech on Europe's cocaine "epidemic". The whole thing is utter nonsense, you can take a look for yourself here.

Let's focus for now, on the supposed impact of the global, illegal cocaine market on West Africa. From his speech:

What does cocaine have to do with Africa?

Traditional cocaine trafficking routes from the Andean countries to North America are heavily patrolled. Trafficking into Europe has also become very difficult, as our airspace and our coastline are becoming harder to penetrate. Seizure rates are as high as half of production (estimated by UNODC at 940 t/y). We used to seize batches of 100-200 kg of coke: the latest seizure in Mexico was a staggering 23 tons!

Yet as demand for cocaine in Europe keeps growing, traffickers have found an alternative route - through West Africa.[...]

The international community cannot remain idle -- and I have pleaded in favor of African countries in my recent statement at the General Assembly. The situation on the ground in countries like Guinea Bissau is so bad that police cars do not have gas to chase suspects, no equipment to run investigations, no paper or pencil to note witness statements, no radios to call for back-up, no prisons to lock up convicted criminals, nothing.

As a result, Africa is under attack and cannot defend itself. Cocaine is being shipped in from South America to the countries of West Africa by boat, often by plane, then broken up into smaller consignments and sent up the coast to Morocco and then towards Europe.

The international community is reacting, but not as forcefully as needed. More than 4 tons of cocaine were seized in West Africa this year, a 35 per cent increase over the entire haul for 2006. The Spanish and British navies seized 9 tons of cocaine off the coast of West Africa last year. But this is probably only the tip of a cocaine iceberg. The drugs trade in Guinea Bissau may be as high as the country's national income. By comparison, in Afghanistan - which is often cited as the worst case - opium is equivalent to about half (53%) of the country's GDP. So Africa faces a crisis of epic proportions, by and large fuelled by Europe's cocaine users.

So we can agree on most of the facts. Yes, smuggling routes have switched over the years. One more example of how you can not win this war, but rather push the battle on to someone else's turf. Yes, being a major transportation hub for drug traffickers will cause local problems. Most of these people are violent criminals. Criminals tend to be attracted to very profitable, but very illegal, activities. No surprise there. Europe is causing most all of these problems, no doubt. But it isn't the cocaine user; it's the governments who have insisted on a global war on drugs pushing the cultivating, production, and sale of these substances into the hands of criminals.

Violent criminals aren't attracted to drugs because they are cool, it's the astronomical profits involved in selling an illegal good that has a demand that never seems to diminish.

You can also watch Costa here, bloviating on how marijuana use is out of control and more dangerous than heroin or cocaine....Sooo which drug am I suppose to avoid? I'm so confused....

Am I Allowed to Say that It's a Backdoor Legalization Method?

Of course I can say it; I just don't think people like to hear it. But I'll tell you this -- if medicinal marijuana legislation isn't a policy designed to weaken prohibition and to put a face on "drug users", and potentially soften the ground in advance for other anti-prohibition legislation, then I'm an idiot who doesn't love massive labias. Plain and simple. But of course I do love massive labias, and of course it is about an incremental approach to drug policy reform...Right? So why can't we all just say it then? It's silly to lie. And they will lie so convincingly even right to my face that it makes you believe that maybe all they've convinced themselves to care only about making sure a very, very small percentage of the population is allowed to use one drug in a very regulated matter. No matter we haven't accomplished anything for the majority of the Drug War victims, or addressed the real structural problems associated with prohibition. Whatever, I complain about this a lot, I'm just tired of folks saying, "It's not about legalization." If this all isn't about legalization, then what's the point?

It's stories like this that get me on this rant.

Forget the Waiting Period, Sale of Mushrooms Now Banned

Jesus, that was quick:

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The Netherlands will ban the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms, the government announced Friday, rolling back one element of the country's permissive drug policy after a teenager on a school visit jumped to her death after taking the narcotic.

The decision will go into effect within several months, said Wim van der Weegen, a Justice Ministry spokesman.

[...]

Possession of "hard" drugs like cocaine, LSD and Ecstasy is illegal. Mushrooms will fall somewhere in the middle.

"We're not talking about a non-prosecution policy, but we'll be targeting sellers" Van der Weegen said.

Psilocybin, the main active chemical in the mushrooms, has been illegal under international law since 1971. However, fresh, unprocessed mushrooms continued to be sold legally in the Netherlands along with herbal medicines in so-called "smart-shops," on the theory that it was impossible to determine how much of the naturally occurring substance any given mushroom contains.

Van der Weegen said that was also the reason the system proved unworkable: "It's impossible to estimate what amount will have what effect."

Calls for a re-evaluation arose after Gaelle Caroff, a 17-year-old visiting from France, from a building in Amsterdam in March after eating psychedelic mushrooms.

Shame. Full article here. Our prior stuff on smart shops, Amsterdam and mushrooms, here.

Drugs are Fun

A simple, but smart attack in the Sydney Morning Herald, on drug prohibition around the world.

Three cheers for my fellow columnist Lisa Pryor, who last week suggested we acknowledge the elephant in the room where public debate about drugs occurs. It's time to stand up and say illegal drug use is fun and - unless you get caught - harmless.

Yes, there are exceptions to this. But far fewer than if you tried to make the same claim about nicotine or alcohol or junk food. The criminalisation of recreational drugs will one day be looked back on with the incredulity we now reserve for Prohibition.

[...]

The persistence of drug criminalisation reflects the self-interest of a loose coalition of politicians, moralists and law enforcement officials, in search of headlines, bigger budgets and more power. They've been winning the argument for a long time now, at least in terms of public policy. What might alter this situation?

You hear that a lot -- "One day we will look back on the War on Drugs as one of the more retarded [ed-do people really say retarded?] policies we have ever had." -- And I agree. But you have to convince people that this is the case. Until that happens we can't have the proverbial, the emperor has no clothes moment...

Iraq, Gaza, and Now New Mexico--Victims of Democracy

From the Drug Czar's blog:

For years, marijuana legalization groups have worked to bypass the Supreme Court's decision, the FDA's official Interagency Advisory, and Federal law regarding medical marijuana. Symbolic medical marijuana laws which have been passed in some U.S. states have given too many citizens the false impression that growing and distributing marijuana is safe and legal. Now, New Mexico is the latest state to become victimized by the confusion generated by these state laws.

They link out to this article, in case you want to read it.

What's truly great is the next section:

State-based medical marijuana laws simply do not work. Consider this:

Huh? Well, yeah. Because you guys don't let them work. If someone somewhere in the federal government decided to give federalism a go again, then maybe state based decision making (whatever happened to the whole states are the laboratories of democracy thing?) could work. Until then, not so much.

They go on to make earth-shattering points about why the laws don't work. Like, Medical marijuana laws lead to drug-related violence. Or my favorite, Medical marijuana laws protect drug dealers. Brilliant! How do you not like that one? Sometimes when I'm reading the ONDCP's blog, I get that, "Hey, they're struggling to come up with content too!" feeling. What kills me is that TtP's operating budget is coming in at a few billion below the ONDCP's. Really, it is. We hide it well, but right now I'm typing this post on a typewriter with no keys.

Related stopthedrugwar.com Drug War Chronicle article here.

War on Terror No Match for War on Drugs

From Sunday's Washington Post:

Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion.

[...]

The trade in illegal narcotics begets violence, poverty and tragedy. And wherever I went around the world, gangsters, cops, victims, academics and politicians delivered the same message: The war on drugs is the underlying cause of the misery. Everywhere, that is, except Washington, where a powerful bipartisan consensus has turned the issue into a political third rail.

[...]


In Washington, the war on drugs has been a third-rail issue since its inauguration. It's obvious why -- telling people that their kids can do drugs is the kiss of death at the ballot box. But that was before 9/11. Now the drug war is undermining Western security throughout the world. In one particularly revealing conversation, a senior official at the British Foreign Office told me, "I often think we will look back at the War on Drugs in a hundred years' time and tell the tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes.' This is so stupid."

Read the whole thing.

DARE to Hope?

Good news out of Florida:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The popularity of the DARE anti-drug program for schools extends to the Florida governor's mansion, but that hasn't stopped some officials from recommending that it be removed from the state's budget.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement suggested the annual appropriation of $376,362 be eliminated after Gov. Charlie Crist and legislative leaders asked agencies to propose cuts in their budgets to offset declining state tax revenues.

FDLE officials say they want to drop their role of training local Drug Abuse Resistance Education officers not just to save money, but because national studies show it is ineffective.

Wait. What's that? Its "ineffective"? Since when do we start using empirical evidence for evaluating drug policy expenditures?

Snarky comments aside; this is becoming what you could call a trend with D.A.R.E. Let's hope it continues. Previous D.A.R.E blogging here.

UK Drug Policy--Part 1

A spot-on breakdown of the increased British press and "studies" surrounding the correlation between mental illness and marijuana use, by Paul Armentano (NORML) and Mitch Earleywine over at the Huffington Post.

According to the Associated Press and other news sources, a new study in the British medical journal The Lancet reports that smoking cannabis ­- even occasionally ­- can increase one's risk of becoming psychotic. It sounds alarming at first, but a closer look at the evidence reveals that there's less here than the headlines imply.

First, there is no new study. The paper published in The Lancet is a meta-analysis --a summary of seven studies that previously appeared in other journals, including some that were published decades ago. Second, the touted association between cannabis and mental illness is small--about the same size as the link between head injury and psychosis. Finally, despite what some new sources suggest, this association is hardly proof of a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis and psychosis. So why the sudden fuss?

Yeah, why the sudden fuss? I'll give it my best shot.

Continued below.....

Part 2

Well, I'm not sure. But I have a keyboard and button on the bottom of my screen right now that says, Publish Post. If those two things don't make me qualified to take absolute guesses then I don't know what does. Here are my theories:

• Think about public opinion the same way you would about long-term drug use statistics in a society. Drug trends (like all trends) are cyclical in nature. They go up in popularity and then down. Certain drugs increase in popularity over a period of time and others fall. Different generations can have different attitudes, and attitudes within a generation can change over time. Sometimes it is easy to figure out why, sometimes it isn't. Public opinion on how we deal with drugs (I think) operates on the same plane.
  
• Most drug policy experts associate the recent anti-pot media campaign to be driven by the press itself. I'm not so sure. I think both the press and the political class are picking up on a public push back stemming from the reclassification of the drug 3 years ago. Drug policy reform doesn't operate in some magical world where the wins stay wins, and you never give back ground to the opposition. I mean there is an opposition side to lax drug laws in the UK right? And they all aren't media professionals or politicians...We can all agree on that right? If there are people on the other side, they don't stop fighting just because they are losing. *If that was the case we wouldn't have a single reformer in the US. They all would have killed themselves by now...
  
• Can someone explain to me, in a nation where the government foots the bill for citizens' health care, how they don't have a right to police what you put in your body? Seems to me that's the biggest down side of government provided health care. If they are picking up the tab, how can you draw the line and say -- Hey, I get to decide what harmful substances I put in my body. Once you give up the responsibility of providing your own care, you have given an incredible amount of ground in the personal freedom arena. Why even stop at health care? The UK has turned into one of the great nanny states of the 21st century...That could be the real catalysis for the increased pressure...
  

The Star touched on this subject a week ago. It's worth a read.

*Obviously reformers have had successes in the US. Without them we would be in much worse shape, which is a horrible thought to have. My only point is that most people would agree we aren't much better off than we were 25 or 30 years ago.

The War on Drugs Cost Me My Kidneys

Print up the banners, let's run with this slogan. From a Baltimore Mayoral Election forum, my favorite Socialist candidate uses his time to address the failed War on Drugs as the #1 way to attack crime in the city. [emphasis mine]

A. Robert Kaufman: Mitchell is calling for 250 cops. Dixon says no, we need only 240 new cops and then to hedge the bet said or 300. We don't need a police state. The cops didn't create the problem the cops are not going to solve the problem. If we don't deal with problem of poverty and the war on drugs, the poor addict who was so desperate for a $20 fix that he tried to kill me two years ago and left me for dead and took my kidneys from me. If he could have gone to a clinic, a doctor, a hospital, a drugstore and gotten whatever he was addicted to, I'd have my kidneys now. It's the war on drugs that creates criminals out of addicts.

Here's where I diverge from him and say keep the feds out of it and allow the local jurisdictions to determine how they handle their drug problem.

I've called for a federal program to treat drugs as a public health issue. Addict goes to a clinic, gets what they're addicted to. All the money we've saved on the cops and the courts and the prisons and the low morale in the police because all of this can be used for treatment on demand and a federal jobs program.

[...]

In the interim, I call for a red-light district for distribution of drugs. Set it up like a flea market. And the same thing for prostitution so to keep it out of the streets. And the morale of the police will rise higher that way than any other way. Thank you.

I understand I seem to insist on covering the Drug War on a city level focusing mostly on Baltimore. Honestly....it's just easier to follow this stuff on a local level. Plus, if you had to pick one city to study the holistic failure of the War on Drugs, Baltimore has to be on the top of the list. Full piece here.

Needles, Needles Everywhere

Posted without with little comment. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

They tell us he was steaming, but San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom shouldn't have been too surprised when The Chronicle reported that Golden Gate Park was littered with used drug syringes.

After all, his own Public Health Department spent $800,000 last year to help hand out some 2 million syringes to drug users under the city's needle exchange program --sometimes 20 at a time.

I'm becoming more sympathetic towards the public health approach for drug policy, mostly due to the very slim minority that I seem to be in with my criticism. What I would point out, is that is the exact type of negative consequence of the public health approach that -- it seems to me -- would annoy the fuck out of a lot of people who's support is necessary for reform to occur in drug policy. In theory, most rational people would support policies like needle exchange and more treatment centers. But when it comes time to execute those policies, they aren't going to want them in their neighborhood if it means more addicts and more needles, etc. Most people don't see the Drug War as the massive, evil entity that it is, doing all the damage that it does. This being the case, if the alternative policies impact them more on a personal level, even if on the whole the policy is much better than the previous one, supporters will become opponents.

Sometimes it's important to think about practical matters that may seem trivial, but when it comes to executing the policies, aren't trivial at all. Full article here.

FWIW: I've updated and changed some things in this post a couple times since it was originally posted. That may tell you how certain I am or am not about any of this....

Drugs!

Golf or fishing....That's the question of the day. For all you TtP readers who live in the Mid-Atlantic, I sure hope you've appreciated this summer weather so far. Limited humidity, perfect temperatures, no rain. Beautiful weather everyday. Try and enjoy it.

As for the drugs....

John Walters mini-me gets promoted to Deputy Director of the ONDCP. Pledges to kill John Walters, assume his position and radically change the mission statement of the ONDCP. That or some bullshit about working in his new role to expand the harm he has already done. Who knows, I was blitzed out of my skull when I read it. Best of luck Mr Burns!

Walters and his ONDCP claim victory for a recent cocaine shortage that has risen the street level price of the drug considerably and increased the popularity and demand of other "replacement" drugs. Here's to more money in the pockets of violent drug dealers, and more heroin overdoses! Success for the drug warriors once again!

DEA arrest the man responsible for giving the agency it's largest drug-cash seizure ever, of $205 million, while dining at a Wheaton bistro. You can't make a better effort at hiding yourself?

More on that super-powerful-turn-kids-into-flesh-eating-zombies-bud that is threatening to take down the British Empire. You know that dangerous "herbal marijuana". From the article:

The Home Office's drugs information website, Frank, includes details of new more potent varieties of cannabis.

It says: "Recently, there have been various forms of herbal or grass-type cannabis that are generally found to be stronger than ordinary 'weed', containing on average two to three times the amount of the active compound, THC.

New PM Gordon Brown is recommending that the cannabis be reclassified back to a class B drug. The Conservative Party, led by well-known pot-head and all around idiot, David Cameron is quite happy to go along with it. The Government plans to get the cannabis reclassification out of the way, and then move on to less pressing issues -- i.e., the abnormal desire of some British citizens to blow themselves and others up.

Finally, on a completely different note, this douche-bag wants the FEC to stifle the 1st Amendment rights of the all around annoying blog, Daily Kos. Get a life buddy. And be careful Baylen, don't I remember TtP endorsing a candidate last year......?

This is Your Police on Drugs

Funniest thing all week!!

Negative Economic Impacts of Legalization

Quick question for anyone who might know...I'm trying to locate some information/research in relation to the potential negative economic impacts of full force drug legalization. The is all theoretical of course, but I'm sure that someone, somewhere has looked into the short-term impact legalization would have on inner-cities. FWIW -- I'm thinking about the impact that legalization would have on the displaced workers that are currently running and administrating the illicit drug market. Of course legalization of this sort would most likely never happen, let alone in such a revolutionary style, but I'm curious nonetheless if anyone has done work on what the transition period would/should look like IN the drug markets themselves. I'm mostly concerned with the street level organizations that do the distribution of the product....Any links would be appreciated.

A Timewaster with Good Intentions

The Bong Hits 4 Jesus game. Take a look at it over at the SSDP blog, and pass it around to friends.

My Kind of Campaign Announcement

Baltimore wouldn't be the same without this socialist nutcase. [emphasis mine, spelling mistakes the Sun's]

A. Robert Kaufman, a long-time political activist, announced officially today that he would run for mayor, then proceeded on a door-to-door campaign along The Block, where he outlined his socialist agenda.

Kaufman, 76, said he wants to create a "red-light district" where drugs and prostition would be legalized. He said he figured he would find sympathy for his platform in the downtown cluster of strip clubs and pornography shops.

Kaufman acknowledged having "absolutely no chance at winning the race," but said he wants to use his campaign to foster discussion on creating jobs, pushing for a living wage and treating addiction as a medical problem.

Full article here. More on The Block here. Interview with Kaufman from '05 after a beating he took from a tenant of his, here.

I'm not planning on voting in the Mayoral election because of an utter lack of competence among the candidates -- and I have never brought myself to vote for a socialist of any stripe in any election -- but if I do vote, it might just have to be for Kaufman. If nothing else the guy has provided some colorful moments over my time in Maryland. Not to mention I hear nothing, not even a peep, from the legitimate candidates about the futility of the Drug War.

We Could Blame Our Nation's Policy and Lawmakers...But Blaming Mexicans is Always a Lot of Fun

DEA Microgram Bulletin --- Febuarary '07 [emphasis mine]

INTELLIGENCE BRIEF -

LARGE QUANTITIES OF VERY HIGH PURITY "ICE" METHAMPHETAMINE
BEING ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE MEXICO/TEXAS BORDER

The DEA South Central Laboratory (Dallas, Texas) has recently received several submissions of large quantities of unusually pure d-methamphetamine HCl (“Ice”). The submissions are from seizures made along the Mexico/Texas border by personnel from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, and/or the DEA.

[...]

While these are not the first submissions of this type to the laboratory, it is very unusual for this laboratory to have multiple submissions of 99 percent plus purity “Ice” methamphetamine in such large quantities.

[Editor’s Comment: Restrictions on the domestic sales of ephedrine- and pseudoephedrine-containing products have had a significant impact on small-scale, domestic production of methamphetamine. As a result, Mexican-based Drug Trafficking Organizations have moved quickly to fill the void with increased production of “Ice” methamphetamine.]

Does anyone besides the usual legalization crowd care one bit about this type of negative consequence from prohibitionist legislation? Anyone in the MSM or politics? I suppose no one cares about a few more dead meth users, or feeding violent drug cartels in Mexico? And you can bet that if they do care to notice an increase in meth trafficking across the border they won't ever come close to touching the root cause of it.

Of course this was an obvious cause-effect relationship. You shut down domestic production, someone from across the border will fill the void. In a sense you have shut down small, mom-and-pop operations that were (on a whole) not as concerned about making monster profits. The motivation for most domestic meth producers is the same motivation that most low/mid-level dealers have. To cover their losses from recreational use and maybe make a small profit. They sell their product to friends, acquaintances; most people buying the meth are close to the production of it. That's an important quality control measure. It might seem crazy because we're talking about an illegal drug, but a relationship based on trust with your supplier probably keeps some of these meth-heads alive.

Then of course, we have the Mexican producers that need to produce a lot (some will be seized and never make it to market, also a much high risk premium is added than with domestic product), and preferably a lot of a high-quality, to increase the profit margin. So you end up with a lot of potent, potentially dangerous meth, made by faceless Mexicans. Was limiting my monthly allowance of Sudafed worth it?

Beware of Zombie, Pill-Popping Teenagers, Prowling Your Streets with...Cinder Blocks

I'm quoting Drug Czar John Walters, during a recent speech/lecture/waste of time at an Orlando drug treatment center:

...So you're not taking a cinder block and bashing someone on the side of the head to get money to pay for drugs.

Watch the local TV video coverage of the event here, and read the Orlando Sentinel's coverage here. The ONDCPs Blog post here. Links are now taken care of, let's jump right into this week's asinine Drug War propaganda.

To begin with, what the purpose of his visit? Walters was visiting the Center for Drug Free Living (which sounds like an all together not fun place to be) to opine on the most recent "national crisis" -- prescription drug abuse among teens. The hysteria behind this pill propaganda is bad enough in itself. But in this case it gets worse. He took the opportunity to blame the increase in violent crimes that the Orlando metropolitan area has seen over the past few years to drug use alone. Mind you, he was lecturing on prescription drug abuse; therefore it is only rational for one to link the increase in prescription drug abuse to the increase in violent crime. That's where the above quote came from. Walters was desperately attempting to say that the drug user was the root of violent crime. As they (drug users) multiply, so do violent criminals. His strategy for dealing with crime is to decrease the number of drug users/abusers at all costs, therefore reducing the number of desperate fiends roaming the streets. He thinks the war can be won fighting demand (because that has worked so well up to this point) and I think I've made a fair assessment of his argument.

I could turn this into an op-ed, and maybe I should dedicate some length to this, but let me keep this short and to the point. a) is he really attempting to blame an increase of shootings, murders and rape on prescription drug abuse? b) do he and his followers really believe that the majority of violent crimes in America's cities are committed by drug addicts trying to score their next fix; regardless of whether it be crack, heroin, pot, or Oxycontin? c) does he think we have been too soft on drugs and drug users up to this point? d) does he believe any of this, any of it at all?

For the sake of my own sanity -- wanting badly to believe that the guy setting the tone for drug policy for the whole of the nation is not a complete fucktard -- I sincerely hope that Walters et al, are only a bunch of bold-faced liars running one of the largest propaganda machines in the world, rather than the dumbest human beings alive.

Pot Stories D'Jour

Why do people consent to a search? Especially when your apartment serves as a hydroponic grow house....

During the investigation, Mooney told police she “found out I could pay my rent with it,” McDaniel said.

[..]

She gave consent to search her apartment, McDaniel said. The officers seized about six ounces of marijuana grown in water without soil, $1,542 cash and a .32-caliber handgun. She was also charged with possession of a handgun.

Later, the police informed Mooney that banks take paychecks and turn them into cash; which also can be used to pay rent. She seemed perplexed and promised to look into it.

Does pot prevent lung cancer? Or rather, the aggressive growth of lung cancer? Maybe, who really knows. But some scientists somewhere, with some rats, think they discovered something of some significance regarding THC and cancer cells.

So far, in the last week, I have tobacco preventing some other disease that you don't want, and marijuana staving off one of the most destructive cancers you can get. Huzzah for Rob's lifestyle!!! I eagerly await studies in the near future that provide further proof that blow-jobs from tranny hookers can help prevent Alzheimer's.

I'm a few weeks late on this, but here is Paul Armentano from NORML commemorating 35 years since the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse released their report on marijuana policy.

NPR

Via Pete Guither--NPR is doing a five-part series on the "Forgotten War." I haven't had a chance to sit down with it yet; but here's the link if you want to dig into it.

Interesting Development

Assembly changes course and takes a potential strike against mandatory minimums for non-violent drug-offenders in Maryland.

Bob Barr, Drug Warrior No Longer...I Guess

This would typically be one of those bigger drug stories that I wouldn't really touch on at TtP; if only because they get covered ad-nauseam on every other anti-prohibition site. Plus, you don't come here for intelligent commentary on the big issues of the day do you? God, I hope not. I just assumed everyone came here for offensive jokes about handicapped people, pedophilia and horse-fucking. Or maybe you don't. Eh, either way I don't care, that's why I blog here. And I'm the only person that matters.

To the point--Bob Barr has signed on with the Marijuana Policy Project and seems to have renounced his past and out-spoken support for restrictive drug policies. Some question his sincerity, but I'm with Radley Balko. Who cares? I don't get this need for ideological purity that finds it's way into libertarian circles as much as any other political group. Isn't it a good thing when someone who was originally against your policy recommendations, switches sides and begins lobbying for your ideas? Who gives a shit if he really means it, (although in this case I tend to believe Barr, what does he have to gain from a flip-flop?) if he is doing your bidding for you for opportunistic and political reasons, let him. We need all the help we can get.

David Weigal on Barr here, with some helpful links from past as well.

Monday Morning Drug Links

From this weekend's papers:

Maryland State Delegates reject a proposal to allow parole for non-violent drug offenders that currently carry a mandatory minimum sentence. Says Del Anthony O'Donnell (R-Calvert):

Constituents “are not knocking on our door to give more lenient treatment” to drug dealers,[...]The bill “makes it easier to destroy our society.”

Apparently Del O'Donnell hasn't taken a weekend trip into Baltimore...

Democracy has no place in Missoula County, Missouri, as a marijuana decriminalization initiative passes, then is gutted by the 3 person county council. Reason given? A "gut feeling" that the voters did not know what they really wanted. Democracy averted, problem solved!

Finally, I leave you with yet another "Watch out until 2010, when the whole of the UK has gone insane from pot" story.Only 3 years left until we get our own personal viewing of Dawn of the Dead. Hazzah!!

Blogging: My Anti-Drug

Great anti-anti-drug commercial here.

Baby Boomers Stink

Not sure where to go with this one...But the Independent has reversed its position, taken a few years back in the late '90's, calling for the legalization of marijuana in the UK.

Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago.

More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.

A couple interesting things to note, with the disclaimer that I haven't put a lot of serious thought into a rebuttal. To begin with, this is an example of why I'm not fond of arguments like this. For the reason that you leave yourself wide-open to attacks like this, putting yourself constantly on the defensive of defending the statement, "Alcohol is worse and we allow that".

My intial response to an editorial like this would be "So what?" Are they really saying we should continue a war that cost billions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and our civil liberties for a few thousand kids that might need mental health treatment because they smoked some strong pot? That is insane on every level. What has prohibition done so far to stop this, if kids are even going loony from the drug to begin with? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not giving ground on the potency issue. I largely think it is a load of shit that older generations use to simultaneously excuse their drug use while prosecuting a disgusting war on civil liberties, otherwise law-abiding citizens and......a plant. However, why waste time disputing THC percentage levels from 1972 as opposed to 2007. Who does that appeal to? Why not say: Look, this is another example of prohibition failing. If we had legal markets to purchase drugs, both casual users and addicts alike would be able to choose drugs of varying potency that suited their taste better. Or point out the cost/benefit analysis that I made at the beginning of this rant.

It's also important to point out that we are talking about a particular strain of marijuana, growing in popularity yes, but "skunk" has been around for some time now, it doesn't represent all pot in circulation and even within the strain potency can vary greatly. I can't get into the weeds on that particular issue, because I'm not a botanist, and there are actual qualified people who can speak to it much more authoritatively.

Full article here.

More on Below Post

I did my best to ignore that blinking red light on my office phone and forced myself to actually dig into the report a little bit. I owe a slight mea-cupla for my quick, doom and gloom reactions to the bullet points of the report. Slight though; because I'm still holding to my overall negative reaction to the approach they advocate. However, when you actually read the report in it does seem fairly sensible. You could read the post below and get the sense that I wouldn't be for handling illegal drugs in the same fashion we do with alcohol and tobacco. That's incorrect. I'd love for that to happen. What I don't want to see happen (and it's entirely possible to read the report in this way) is where we shift the focus of drug policy from one group of substances to another, or, move a group of drugs that we can use with relatively little state interference into a more regulated model. Hence the one step forward two steps backward.

I naturally get worried when public health zealots are leading the charge for any kind of change. Can't fault me for that. I'm throwing a link (click the first link on the page) to the PDF of the summary which serves as a good primer for the report. If you get a chance check them both out.

Drug Policy Redux

The RSA just released a report (links to the full report and summaries are on the left hand side once you clicked through the link) on Britain's drug policy. Current effectiveness, areas for potential change, etc. It's about what you would expect out of one of these reports; very heavy on the public and social welfare scheme theme as the proper movement in drug policy. Subsidize the drug abusers to the point that you are provided housing, drugs, and the tools they need to continue the abuse. All provided by the tax-payers. Great way to reduce dependency. Don't worry, I won't go on about that topic; it has been discussed at length over the past few weeks in both TtP posts and the comments section and I really don't have anything new to add to the debate anyway.

However, I will note that I was thrilled to see this declaration that I'm pulling directly from the report via the Scotsman.

"The use of illegal drugs is by no means always harmful any more than alcohol use is always harmful. The evidence suggests that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them without harming themselves or others."

Good to hear. Now back to the bad stuff in the report. I'm reminded of that old adage of replacing one addiction with another...

The two-year RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs argued that Britain's drug laws should be replaced by a system which recognises that drinking and smoking can cause more harm.

[...]

The harm caused by substances, including alcohol and tobacco, rather than outdated classifications should be at the heart of future drugs laws.

It's never ending. One step forward, two steps back.