Drug War

... but the current attitude towards prohibition in the United States is doing more harm than good.  This article, describing the results in Zurich of legalizing heroin use, suggests that other policies may be more effective. 

It is useful to reiterate here that all governments depend on voluntary compliance for the vast majority of our laws.  We pay our taxes and our traffic tickets without a quibble (mostly).  We send the police after murderers, rapists, thieves and muggers.  For the stuff in between, there simply aren't enough enforcement resources to have a prayer of enforcing the law by actual force; it all depends on the people complying voluntarily because they don't want to take the risk of being in the small percentage of violators who are actually caught.  For the victimless crimes of prohibition, with no one to report the crime and no body to find, it's even harder. 

We need to find a better solution to the real problems of drug abuse.  The current law is actually creating more problems than it solves.

Alphecca is soliciting comments about the War on Drugs.  I'm a Libertarian (yes, big-L, though I do have some serious differences with the party's positions on some things).  Thus, it should not come as a surprise that I oppose the drug war.  I do so for several reasons.

First, there is no Constitutional authority for drug prohibition.  The federal government has no authority to regulate or ban the possession of any substance, though they can regulate commerce in that substance IF it crosses a state line or international border.  The government is exceeding it's Constitutional authority in this respect, and for decades that was driving the expansion of Federal powers in a way that caused dramatic harm to the rights of the people. 

If drug regulations were to operate on the State level, people could choose to live under regulations that they approve of -- and suffer the consequences of that choice.  The federal system would work as it was intended, allowing both choice and policy experimentation.

Second, I believe that drug use is a personal choice.  People have the right to do whatever they wish so long as their conduct does not harm others.  If a drug user can't keep a job, he's harming himself, not anyone else -- and not being able to keep a job might well motivate him to change!  The same argument applies to alcohol.  Social pressure has reduced the problem of alcohol abuse far, far more than regulation has.   Those who want to be successful will choose to drink or use drugs responsibly -- and "responsibly" may mean complete abstinence for many.  I drink rarely, and I choose not to use the sort of drugs that people mean when they talk about "using drugs".  I don't even like simple painkillers for a headache or cold medicine; I don't like the way that they interfere with my thought processes.

Third, some of the drugs we're talking about are just plants.  Why are we outlawing weeds?

Fourth, Jeff comments about lost productivity resulting from alcohol abuse.  While that's a good argument for appropriate social norms discouraging alcohol abuse, it's not an argument for government intervention.  It is not the government's job to make us more productive.

Fifth, Jeff also notes that crime is often associated with alcohol.  Granted, but correlation is not causation -- would these same people be committing crimes if they were not drunk?  Probably not in some cases, but there are millions of people who manage to drink and get drunk without breaking the law.  The causal chain is not direct, but instead involves reduced judgement and reasoning.  Drinking does not cause crime; it causes stupidity.  The problem is the crime itself, not that drinking led to the crime, and the way to address it is to punish the crime.  Someone who notices that when they get drunk, they end up in jail, should put two and two together and stop getting drunk.

It is not appropriate for the government to walk back up that chain of causality.  Deal with the crime.  Social organizations that are not wielding the threat of lethal force to bankroll their operations can handle the causes.

Sixth, and finally, drug prohibition is unenforceable.  Our experience with it so far has made that abundently clear.

All that said, I agree with Jeff that hard drugs can destroy lives.   But government is not there to help us make good choices; it's there to prevent us from harming one another, not from harming ourselves. 

Suppose you were confined to a wheelchair due to a crippling spinal injury that left you in chronic pain.  Suppose you asked your doctor to prescribe painkillers to help you deal with the pain, and he did so.  Suppose that the government then threatened to charge him with drug-related offenses, and he denied that he had written you the prescription.  As a result, you are charged and convicted of drug trafficking, resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years.  Not because anyone thinks you intended to sell the drugs that you desperately needed for yourself, but because the prescriptions allowed you to obtain enough painkilling medicine to cross the absurd legal threshold for "dealing" drugs.

Why should we send a man to prison for 25 years because he didn't want to live his life in constant agony?

Free Richard Paey.

It doesn't work for guns, and it doesn't work for cold medicine.  Back when Oklahoma passed an anti-meth law in yet another attempt to crack down on drugs, I didn't have time to ridicule the idea.  It seems that reality has done that for me.  

For their role in cuffing dope pushers and supporting the DARE program, cops in one Massachusetts town were recently awarded a $1,000 by a local drug-abuse prevention organization. A job well done: Only part of which involved undermining the family and the relationship between parent and child ? but an important part.

While the DARE program has come under intense criticism in the state, resulting in drastic funding cuts, Marshfield, Massachusetts, Police Lieutenant Phil Tavares has been fulsome in praise for the anti-drug school program. Reports the July 8 Boston Globe, "Tavares said he has received only positive feedback about the program and he firmly believes it's a needed resource. As an example, he talked about the recent case of a DARE graduate who called the police on his mother after finding marijuana in the house."

Oh yeah. That's good: Fink on your mom.

Remember, government always seeks power above all else. Family values, freedom, civil rights, even limited government... all of these arguments are only ways to convince the people to give a particular politician power. The days when a politician could campaign on the basis of being well-read, articulate, intelligent, and a good leader are gone. These days it's all about nuance; whether it's Kerry nuancing the question of how tax increases will improve the economy or Bush nuancing about how the laws that he hasn't even used are going to save us all from terrorism... it's all about power.

And that's what the drug war makes clear. The power to turn brother against sister, father against daughter, son against mother. When the enemy is within our homes, how can we possibly trust anyone other than the government's knights in shiny black armor, here to protect us and parent us from the evils of the world? Our children are taught to recite the fealty oath to their feudal lords, the teachers, and the teachers recite to the administration, and the administration recites to the DEA, and the DEA recites to King George.

Funny, we rebelled against the last King George when he tried to tax tea, never mind banning the addictive caffeine-laden substance. I won't hold my breath, though.

The Bush administration yesterday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a federal appellate court ruling protecting medical marijuana patients and caregivers from prosecution by the federal government. If the high court agrees to take the case, the safety and well-being of tens of thousands of patients in states that have enacted medical marijuana laws will hang in the balance.

What's the problem here? Well, it's simple: the Federal Government has no authority to regulate drugs, medical or recreational. Of course, that hasn't stopped them. In only a few short years we have gone from Prohibition (which required a Constitutional Amendment, and which was then properly repealed) to a never-ending War on Drugs with absolutely no Constitutional basis.

The 9th Circuit said that wouldn't fly in their district, and quite properly so, when the major state therein (California) has passed a medical marijuana law. (The 9th Circus isn't my favorite court by a long shot, but sometimes they do get it right).

And the Federal Government wants the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit and say that they can lock up those damn drug fiends once and for all!

According to ballot language approved by the attorney general, if I-148 is passed, patients could use marijuana, under medical supervision, to alleviate the symptoms of conditions including cancer, glaucoma, and HIV/AIDS, or other conditions or treatments that produce wasting, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe muscle spasms, or other conditions defined by the state.

Additionally, a patient or patient's caregiver could register to grow and possess limited amounts of marijuana by submitting to the state written certification by a physician that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and would benefit from using marijuana.

Drug Czar John Walters is at it again - traveling around the country on a taxpayer-funded drug war myths tour - but this time we have his schedule!!

Walters and the White House usually keep his schedule a secret until the last minute because they fear that drug policy reformers like you will challenge his drug war lies. This time around we can plan ahead and pressure him to answer the real questions! We know exactly where he will talk and what topic he will address - the Bush administration's plans to take away parents' rights to decide how best to keep their kids safe. Let's say no to student drug testing!!!

Please organize a group to attend the Office of National Drug Control Policy Student Drug Testing Regional Summits. These events will attract media attention, a great opportunity to get our opposition heard!

Bexar County prosecutors said Friday they wouldn't seek criminal charges against a federal agent who shot the teenage daughter of a cocaine smuggler during a confrontation last year on a dark street.

First Assistant District Attorney Michael Bernard said federal law generally shields agents from prosecution by local authorities and that, as a result, a federal judge likely would dismiss state charges.

"The federal badge stops us in our tracks," Bernard said.

Remember the good old days, when the church had its own court system to keep its clergy out of gaol, and the nobility could not be convicted of anything on charges from a common man?

President Bush's national anti-drug strategy will for the first time target the use of pain relievers, sedatives and stimulants for nonmedical purposes, a problem that has exploded in the last decade.

A key part of the strategy being released Monday involves government efforts to help states develop monitoring systems to track a patient's use of prescription medicine. The monitoring programs flag cases that indicate a pattern of abuse, such as "doctor shopping," where a patient gets prescriptions for drugs from multiple physicians.

Prescription medicine now ranks second, behind marijuana, among drugs most abused by adults and young people, said the report by the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. It cited a recent study by the Health and Human Services Department.

Painkillers, now? Those horrible painkillers are destroying our children? Sheesh. Sure, they're addictive and sometimes abused -- so are caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

... Reuter seemed eager to pursue a rambling debate, which suited me fine. My general impression of Reuter is that he's a passionate true believer who has absorbed the party line, but who is not always interested in subtle argument. While he disputed my points, he did not always respond to them.

It seems our nation's drug warriors are high (ahem) on passion, but low on rational argument. It's a good thing for The New Prohibition that our government is willing and able to spend millions of dollars on advertising to promote it's own policies, because if they didn't, no one would buy into them at all!

A little more than five years ago, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer initiated a high-profile campaign against pain doctors who prescribe high doses of opioids ? drugs such as Oxycontin, Vicodin and codeine.

Lockyer made Frank Fisher his example. Lockyer and other California prosecutors likened Fisher to a crack dealer. Then, to a mass murderer. Fisher was charged with multiple counts of drug distribution, fraud, and most sensationally, 15 counts of murder. The state seized his assets. His bail was set at $15 million and he faced a possible life sentence.

Over the next five years, all of the charges against Fisher flitted away. A judge immediately threw out the murder charges in a preliminary hearing. Four years later, another judge threw out the other felony charges ? manslaughter and fraud. In May of this year, a jury considered the remaining misdemeanor charges against Fisher and acquitted him on every one of them. One juror said Fisher had been the victim of a ?witch hunt.?

Many conservatives are fond of countering drug-legalization arguments by citing the increased cost to society of widespread drug use. There will be addicts in the streets and preschoolers dying of overdoses... there will be people who choose to remain in a drug-filled haze on welfare. There's some truth to those charges, of course. Some people will always misuse freedom if given the opportunity.

But there is a very high social cost to continuing the drug war as well, and it is exemplified by efforts like this. This is a doctor trying to treat patients, and he has been selected by the government as an "example" to bring the rest of the doctors in line. We're not supposed to have a government that does that. We're not supposed to set examples; we're supposed to have equal justice for all.

Just one more casualty of the drug war.

According to the Complaint, John Ashcroft, the Federal Justice Department, and the DEA are unconstitutionally exceeding their authority by embarking on a campaign of seizing or forfeiting privately-grown intrastate medical cannabis from California patients and caregivers, arresting or prosecuting them, mounting paramilitary raids against them, harassing them, and taking other civil or administrative actions against them. Raich v. Ashcroft has received national media coverage.

Raich v Ashcroft is a medical marijuana case argued on several grounds, the most significant of which is the commerce clause. Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy will be arguing for the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.

As readers may recall, Ashcroft v Raich was argued before the Supreme Court recently. The transcript of the oral arguments is now available.

The case is an interesting one. It's a California medical marijuana case, argued by Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy on commerce clause grounds. The idea is simple: if the federal government, under the commerce clause, can regulate (ie, forbid) the in-state growth and consumption of marijuana that never crosses a state line, then it's powers are essentially limitless. The abuse of that clause is what has given us our modern government.

The current court has taken steps to rein in governmental authority under the commerce clause, and for that reason this is a significant case. Speculation is that the justices are sympathetic to this line of argument. Let's hope so; it's our last, best hope for a peaceful return to a Constitutional form of government.

The drug war is an insane waste of resources and most likely a deliberate excuse to curtail civil rights in the US.  Those two reasons are why I oppose it.  But even I don't think it's a good idea to teach children how to make popular illegal drugs in school.  Of course, one of the problems with government schools is how unaccountable they are.  Parents aren't in control of what's being taught, and they usually can't afford to remove their children and place them in an alternative system.  Monopoly breeds extremely poor customer service, and make no mistake... anything operating under government requirements is a monopoly.

We need to put parents back in control of their children's education. 

The Supreme Court has issued a decision in Gonzalez (formerly Ashcroft) v Raich.  This is the medical marijuana case that was argued in part by Randy Barnett of the Volokh Conspiracy; the Conspiracy has better commentary on the decision than I could hope to produce. 

The Heartless Libertarian briefly comments that this case doesn't bode well for the outcome of US v Stewart, a pending case dealing with the intrastate construction of machine guns in which the 9th Circuit struck down federal regulations barring such activity because the interstate commerce clause only grants authority over, well, interstate commerce.

The Libertarian Party doesn't much like the outcome in Raich either, and it is pledging to work towards introducing federal legislation on the issue.  It's worth a try, I guess, but I can't be optimistic about their chances.

Xlrq at damnum absque injuria has links to the full text of the decision, as well as her own commentary.  To sum up, the statists have four solid votes in favor of federal power, and the remaining justices don't have a clear unifying philosophy to draw them together in a single opinion.  In this case, Justice Scalia defected from his usual federalist position to support federal prohibitions on marijuana -- as xlrq characterizes it, "No, you dummies, we shouldn?t be upholding this unnecessary, improper and blatantly unconstitutional law under a tortured reading of the commerce clause, we should uphold it under an equally tortured reading of the ?necessary and proper? clause, instead."

David Hardy at Of Arms & the Law has good comments, as does Kevin at The Smallest Minority.

The only note I will add is that this case follows clear, if aging, Supreme Court precedent in Wickard v Filburn.  That case involved a farmer growing wheat on his own farm for his own use (animal fodder); the Court held that the Federal Government could regulate his growth and use of that crop despite the lack of an interstate commerce nexus because the market for crops was interstate.  That's the decision that gutted the legal underpinning for federalism.  The present Court has issued some rulings (eg, Lopez) limiting federal power, but apparantly is not yet ready to fully endorse a return to federalism. 

Overall, a very disappointing decision, but not at all unexpected.  This is why getting strong federalists on the Court and through the Senate while Bush is in office is vital. 

Full Frontal Liberty has a notice up about an impending medical marijuana amendment:

Congress is expected to vote Wednesday morning on a medical marijuana amendment -- introduced by U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) -- that would bar the U.S. Department of Justice from raiding, arresting, and prosecuting patients who are using medical marijuana in the 10 states where it's legal under state law.

MPP has last-minute intelligence that many members of Congress are on the fence and need to hear from their constituents. This is where you come in.

We are asking elite activists like you to call five of your friends or family members on Wednesday morning and ask them to call their U.S. representative. Even messages right up to the time of the vote could impact the swing votes in Congress.

It's easy, and you can spend as much or as little time as you want before the vote on Wednesday. Here's how to help:

(1) Call through your friends who you think are most likely to support e issue now and see if they are willing to help.

(2) Tell them to call the capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, give the operator their zip code, and ask to be connected to their representative; they don't even need to know the representative's name to do this.

If you're not sure what to tell your friends who are willing to call, here's some guidance. When the receptionist for the congressperson -- not the capitol receptionist -- answers the phone, your friends should say: "Hi, this is [name]. I live in [city], and I understand that my representative needs to decide today how to vote on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment to the Science-State-Justice-Commerce bill. I'm calling to ask for a vote in favor of the amendment."

If the states can't do it, thanks to Gonzalez v Raich, perhaps the federal government can be persuaded.  Although my gut feeling is that this is unlikely to pass, please do call your Representative and ask them to vote in favor.  Why?  Because a strong showing will help continue the debate even if the amendment fails.  Furthermore, since this is a federalism amendment (preventing the Department of Justice from interfering with medical marijuana patients if their state allows it), rather than a blanket legalization, it will be easier to vote for.  Let the states act as laboratories for policy, as they are supposed to.

Federal drug agents launched a wide-ranging crackdown on medical marijuana providers in northern California, raiding pot clubs, homes and businesses in San Francisco and arresting a husband and wife in Sacramento.

Officials with the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. attorney's office would not say how many people were arrested or give other details, pending a news conference Thursday.

An attorney for the Sacramento couple said he believed Wednesday's arrests and sweep may have been prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court's medical marijuana ruling two weeks ago. The high court said federal law prohibiting the sale and distribution of narcotics supersedes state medical marijuana laws.

What threat did these individuals pose that justifies them being arrested and imprisoned?

Hat tip to The Claire Files.

Quoted In a clash between state and federal law, a Routt County man whose medical marijuana was seized in a law enforcement raid was still waiting to get it back Monday. A county judge had set the date as the deadline for the government to return the marijuana. A federal official said the government had no intention of giving it back.

This is a concern primarily because it is an instance of the Federal Government refusing to follow the law. The rule of law is a vitally important principle of American government, and the idea that even the government itself is not above the law is the stake in the heart of ancient systems of privilege. And the federal government has just spat in the eye of that principle.

Federal Drug Enforcement agents say their medical marijuana raid in Roseville should send a message to every other medical pot operation in California, that they're breaking federal law.

Of course, state law allows for medical marijuana possession and distribution to sick people, and a federal appeals court has said that federal authorities lack the power to go after these medical marijuana shops in California.

But the U.S. Justice Department has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, and meanwhile, the D-E-A isn't slowing down.

It is clear that the Federal government does not recognize any limitation to its powers. The states are as much subjects as the people.

A marijuana advocate and the jury that convicted him are making an unexpected show of solidarity: Jurors claim they were misled and the defendant says it isn't them he blames. Jurors said they felt cheated because they weren't allowed to hear that Rosenthal supplied Oakland's medical marijuana program, an outgrowth of a 1996 medical marijuana initiative that conflicts with federal law. "I feel like I made the biggest mistake in my life," juror Marney Craig said. "We convicted a man who is not a criminal."

It is government abuse like this that demands true jury nullification of bad laws. If the government cannot get a conviction on drug charges without lying to the jury and hiding important information from them, it's an indication that maybe the people don't really support the drug laws.

White House "Drug Czar" John Walters today refused to report how much money he spent campaigning against Question 9, Nevada's November 2002 marijuana initiative. Walters' refusal came in response to a written request from Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller that he explain his failure to file campaign finance reports as required by Nevada law. In a Jan. 27 letter to Heller, Walters' office claimed he was "immune" from Nevada's campaign finance law "as a federal officer acting within the scope of duties, including speaking out about the dangers of illegal drugs."

One law for the people, another for the government... and campaign finance laws apparantly don't apply to government propaganda. I wonder how long it will take for incumbents to seize upon a similar defense for their "informative mailings" to constituents?

The FBI has taken a new approach to the war on drugs. Recent arrests have been not of drug dealers, but of those who sell merchandise considered drug paraphernalia over the Internet. The crackdown has many local store owners and craftsmen worried about where the line will be drawn that separates paraphernalia from lawful goods.

Craig Brown claims Almont Police Chief Eugene Bruns recently suspended him for "selling illegal drugs," something he says just isn't true. Bruns said he placed Brown on paid administrative leave when he learned Brown was being investigated by the St. Clair County Drug Task Force for the illegal sale or use of steroids. Bruns said the leave will last until the investigation is complete. Brown denies ever buying, selling or distributing steroids. Brown said he has a medical condition that requires him to take steroids daily. And he has a prescription.

Recently, several Canadian judges have ruled that simple possession of marijuana is no longer a crime. What has caused this turn of events? Why it's medical marijuana. It seems that Canadian judges find it unconstitutional for marijuana to be legal as medicine and then force the sick to resort to the black market for their medicine. In the US, nine states have passed laws allowing the medical use of marijuana but only California allows patient access to their medicine without resorting to the black market. Sure in all nine states, patients can grow their own medicine (and wait four months for harvest), except buying and selling the seeds are illegal in eight of them. And if the patient or their caregiver buys seeds from Canada or other countries selling them, they violate another law if they ask the US Postal Service to deliver them.