1. Police Corruption Scandals Spread Nationwide

The widening scandal involving the Los Angeles Police Department, in which nine more convictions were overturned this past Thursday alone, has focused national attention on the impact of the drug war on policing. Reports this week from New Jersey, Maryland and Florida indicate that the problems are national in scope.

In federal court in New Jersey last week, Wendell Huggins, a 10-year veteran of the Irvington, NJ police force, admitted to protecting drug shipments traveling between Essex County and Jersey City. Huggins agreed to cooperate by wearing a wire in an ongoing investigation into other police corruption, according to sources of the Newark Star Ledger. In exchange for his help, Huggins is expected to receive a favorable sentence.

Another ex-cop, Carl Kohn, Jr., was in Federal District Court last week (2/10), this one in Florida. Kohn was in court to testify against his cousins, allegedly his cohorts in a cocaine distribution operation. Kohn, for his part, transported more than 71 pounds of cocaine and sold 28 pounds himself, at least once out of his patrol car.

In Maryland last week (2/8), at least 100 drug cases stand to be dismissed pending an investigation of Officer 1st Class Richard Ruby, who stands accused of planting drugs on arrestees.

And in Los Angeles, calls were intensified this week for an outside investigation as sordid details and expanded estimates of damage continue to be revealed in what is fast becoming one of the worst corruption scandals in the history of American law enforcement. This week's tidbits include testimony, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, of beatings of suspects and others, and routine cover-ups of such activities. In one case, officers seeking information used a man as a human battering ram, forcing his face through a wall. Other victims have complained that they were beaten in retaliation for filing misconduct complaints against officers.

Los Angeles county supervisor Zev Yaroslovsky, calling police misconduct "an assault on democracy, an assault on our justice system and an assault on our way of life," teamed with Steve Cooley, candidate for Los Angeles Attorney General in calling for an independent investigation. Currently, the police department is handling the investigation itself. Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan has steadfastly maintained his opposition to an independent investigation.

Liability against the city in the ever-expanding number of potential lawsuits is now expected to far exceed earlier estimates of $125 million. The Los Angeles Times reports that city hall insiders claim that the costs will "virtually preclude any new initiatives in the next city budget."

But while this growing tale of violence, corruption and crime within the LAPD is shocking, it ought not be surprising, says Mike Gray. Gray, a screenwriter and most recently author of Drug Crazy, an historical and analytical perspective on the American drug war, spent six years researching Prohibition and its impact on American life, culture and justice.

"During my research for the book, I spoke with many people, among them Tim Lorath, a former prosecutor in Chicago, who laid it out this way. Tim said that police, in drug prosecutions, routinely stand up in court, in drug cases and lie -- time after time -- with the tacit approval of the entire justice system. The cop says 'the suspect threw a glassine bag to the ground as I approached,' when everyone in the courtroom -- the judge, the prosecutor, everyone -- knows that what really happened is that the cop threw the guy up against a wall and pulled the stuff out of his sock. Everyone just winks. Since drug crime is consensual crime, the only way to get a decent bust is to break the rules and then to lie about it. Lorath believes, and after spending years looking at the drug war in action, I do too, that the system of deceit has an enormous effect on the police, a corrupting effect."

"Looking back in history," continues Gray "there is certainly precedent for what we are seeing, and for the outrage that accompanies it. King George, back in colonial days, found that the colonists were quite efficient smugglers. In response, George had his troops breaking down doors to find contraband. As we know, the colonists took exception. The point is that in telling our police to go out and enforce prohibition, we have handed them mission impossible. We have thereby forced them to lie, forced them to skirt the law, and the result is this massive corruption, this cancer that we are seeing come to light in Los Angeles and elsewhere."

2. Colombia Update

This week, Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey testified before Congress in defense of the Clinton Administration's proposed two-year, $1.6 billion emergency aid package to Colombia. The hearing marked the beginning of what is likely to be a robust debate over the next two months on the propriety of helping the Colombian government sweep guerrillas and paramilitary groups out of the countryside in order to attempt the eradication of coca and poppy fields there. House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) explained at the hearings that "We've got to treat Colombia as a serious national threat."

The new aid package would provide the Colombian government with extensive military assistance to help them defeat the 26,000 leftist guerrillas who control most of the country's prime southern coca-growing land. The US military would train two special Colombian Army anti-drug battalions, which would enlarge an existing 950-man unit trained by US Green Berets last year. Another $700 million would purchase 33 Huey and 30 Blackhawk helicopters, and McCaffrey also testified that 80 to 200 military advisers would be dispatched to Colombia to further train government forces.

The new proposal comes just days after the DEA released new figures embarrassingly at odds with their previous predictions for Colombian cocaine production. In each of 1998-99, the DEA had estimated, 165 metric tons of cocaine would be produced; the new analysis shows that Colombian cocaine production potential rose to 520 metric tons in 1999, up from 435 in 1998 and 230 in 1995.

If the new aid package is approved, Colombia will become the third-largest recipient of US aid in the world, behind Israel and Egypt; US aid amounted to $65 million in 1996 and jumped to $290 million in 1999.

The hearings were held before the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, chaired by Rep. John Mica (R-FL). After opening statements, McCaffrey presented the new aid package, which received broad support, save for some minor quibbling. Only one committee member, Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), voiced strong opposition to the plan.

"The administration's... aid package... puts the United States at a crossroads: Do we invest in a militaristic drug war that escalates the regional conflict in the name of fighting drugs, or do we attack the drug market by investing in prevention and treatment at home and seek to assist in stabilizing Colombia?," Schakowsky asked, adding "According to the General Accounting Office, 'Despite years of extensive herbicide spraying, United States' estimates show there has not been any net reduction in coca cultivation. Net coca cultivation actually increased 50 percent.'"

Rep. Schakowsky went on to question the likelihood of the mission's success, the prospect of becoming entangled in the Colombian civil war, the lack of a "foreseeable end game," and the idea that money would be better spent on treatment: "If decreasing drug use in America is the ultimate goal, why aren't we putting equal resources into domestic demand reduction, where each dollar spent is 23 times more effective than [crop] eradication?"

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) replied that Rep. Schakowsky's "hostility to helping Colombia has blinded her to the facts," namely, that "the amount of money that we are expending for interdiction and international efforts is in fact currently far less than that devoted to demand reduction." He went on to laud the effectiveness of Peruvian President Fujimori's "tough, consistent steps," like the "'you fly, you die'... shoot-down policy." McCaffrey concurred with Rep. Barr's assessment, later saying of the Peruvians, "they did use military and police power with incredible effectiveness."

The plan, however, probably will be disputed more vigorously in the Senate. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) told Newsweek magazine: "We have spent billions trying to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, and the flow has gotten worse, not better."

Ian Vasquez, a Cato Institute scholar and specialist on Latin America, is also skeptical: "I'm afraid that the current situation [of drug cartels and civil war] in Columbia is largely the result of US policy being imposed there. The drug war has led to the deterioration of the country in a dramatic way. I don't think that policies that move the country in that direction will be helpful. [Our policies] have helped, through spreading corruption and drug money, to undermine those elements of civil society that are vital to a healthy country."

(Visit http://www.drcnet.org/wol/114.html#peaceincolombia to read about the peace movement in Colombia and activists' objections to the counternarcotics proposal. Visit http://www.drcnet.org/wol/108.html#amnesty and http://www.drcnet.org/wol/108.html#editorial to read about last summer's Congressional debate on Colombia.)

3. Court Says Public Housing Authorities Can Evict Tenants Who Knew Nothing of Drug Use

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday (2/13) that public housing tenants can be evicted for a household member or guest's alleged drug use, even if the tenant had no knowledge of the activity. The 2-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows broad latitude for housing authorities to enforce a "one-strike and you're out" anti-drug eviction policy written into federal law in 1988.

The case grew out of eviction notices served to four public housing lease-holders in Oakland, California in 1997, based on provisions in their leases that tenants must "assure" that no family members, guests, or other persons under their control engage in drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises. In none of the instances did the Oakland Housing Authority allege that the tenants were involved in, or even aware of the alleged drug activity.

In the first instance, 63-year-old Pearlie Rucker was served notice of eviction after her grown daughter, who has been mentally disabled since childhood and lives with her, was caught with a single rock of crack cocaine and a crack pipe three blocks from Rucker's home.

In another instance, Herman Walker, a 75-year-old disabled man, was served notice after housing authority police found crack paraphernalia in the belongings of a caretaker Walker had hired to help him around his home.

The other instances in the case involve two elderly women, Willie Lee and Barbara Hill, whose grandsons, who lived with them, were caught smoking marijuana in the parking lot of their housing complex. Both women were served eviction notices.

The tenants filed suit in federal court against the Oakland Housing Authority and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1998, asking that the housing authority be barred from carrying out the evictions. US District Court Judge Charles Breyer granted a preliminary injunction.

In overturning Breyer's decision, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Joseph Sneed, wrote that HUD's policy was a necessary means of "preventing tenants from turning a blind eye to the conduct of a household member or guest." Forcing housing authorities to prove that a tenant knew or should have known of others' drug use would, the court said, "hamstring efforts to rid public housing of the crime and violence with which low-income families must cope on a daily basis."

In his dissenting opinion, however, Judge William Fletcher wrote that the policy "deprives innocent people of property that was not involved in any crime and punishes innocent people for crimes that they did not commit and could not prevent."

Part of the court's reasoning was based on the fact that the one-strike policy relies on the discretion of the local housing authority. Local authorities are supposed to decide on a case-by-case basis whether tenants are complying with the drug provision of their leases.

But Ira Jacobowitz, an attorney for the tenants in Rucker v. HUD, told The Week Online that given the racial disparity in the way drug cases are prosecuted in this country, "It certainly doesn't comport with fairness to allow the housing authority the leeway to decide who is suspicious and who needs to be evicted for drug related activity."

Fair or not, Congress granted HUD that authority in 1988, at the height of the crack scare, when stories of innocent bystanders gunned down in housing projects by warring drug gangs dominated the nightly news. HUD raised the stakes in the 90's by offering hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money to local housing authorities specifically to enforce its one-strike policy.

Jacobowitz said he and his clients must now decide whether to ask for a rehearing of their case en banc (before the full Ninth Circuit Court), appeal to the Supreme Court, or to fight the evictions in state court.

4. Woman Loses Custody of Children After Hospital Botches Drug Test

A California woman lost her job, was forced into drug treatment, and lost custody of her children for three months after her newborn baby tested positive for the prescription drug Seconal, even though a doctor had provided the woman with the drug when she was in labor.

When Noel Lujan arrived at a local hospital last October to give birth to her son Daniel, a doctor prescribed the barbiturate Seconal to relax her. But he didn't tell that to hospital staff who tested the unmarried mother's baby for drugs -- and they didn't ask. After Daniel was born, Lujan was told of the test results and was not allowed to take him home. Orange County child welfare authorities assigned temporary custody of the baby and Lujan's other three young children to Lujan's parents. According to Lujan, she was allowed to stay at the house with them, but she was not permitted to feed Daniel without supervision.

Meanwhile, Lujan was forced to enter a drug treatment program, which caused her to miss so many days of work that she lost her job. She was also subjected to repeated hair and urine drug tests. "It was horrible," she told the Associated Press this week. "The whole three months they were telling me I was a drug addict, that I was in denial."

According to court records, child welfare workers did not learn that the Seconal had been prescribed until mid-January. The doctor who prescribed it claims he was notified before Lujan's children were taken away.

Lujan's children have since been returned to her custody, but she and the children's father will remain under children's services supervision until July. Michael Riley, director of Orange County's Children and Family Services agency, told the AP this week, "If this is an honest error, then we are sincerely sorry."

5. GHB Bill Goes to White House

The US House of Representatives voted this month to schedule Gamma hydroxybutyric acid, or GHB, as both a Schedule I and a schedule III drug by a vote of 339 to two. The bill, dubbed "The Date Rape Prevention Act," has already passed the Senate and now awaits President Clinton's signature.

The bill will make GHB a Schedule I drug, with an exemption for Xyrem (a product being researched by Orphan Medical) which will be Schedule III. This represents a unique legal situation, as the drug will simultaneously exist in two schedules, depending on whether it is made illegally or made by a pharmaceutical company. No other drug in history has been placed in two schedules at once. The bill, it should be noted, does not directly make GHB a scheduled drug - but rather it orders the Attorney General to make GHB a scheduled drug within 60 days of the president signing the bill.

As a Schedule I drug, GHB -- other than Xyrem -- will be in the company of marijuana, heroin, LSD, and other drugs which the government has deemed to have no medical use, despite research showing its promise in treating a variety of ailments, including alcoholism, anxiety, and sleep disorders. In addition, the bill calls for new penalties, including prison sentences up to 20 years for the possession, manufacture or sale of the drug.

GHB, once available over the counter as a dietary supplement, gained its notoriety as a "date rape" drug when reports surfaced of sexual predators mixing it in their victim's drinks, rendering them unconscious.

But Emanuel Sferios of Dance Safe, a California Bay Area harm reduction drug education group that serves the rave and nightclub community, called the legislation misguided. "The rescheduling has come with an entire anti-club drugs campaign, taking a whole group of drugs together and calling them club drugs, blurring distinctions, demonizing them in such a way that it is going to increase usage of them because it glamorizes them," he told The Week Online. "The whole notion of a date rape drug is simply a drug warrior propaganda tool. Calling something a date rape drug will only encourage their use that way. For example, we could call GHB a 'make-you-pass-out-and-steal-your-wallet' drug. There are many drugs that will disorient someone and make him or her easier to take advantage of."

GHB's greatest popularity in recent years has been on the dance scene, where users found its effects similar to alcohol but with fewer side effects. Since over-the-counter sales were banned in 1990, however, GHB has been linked to 58 deaths and 5,700 overdoses, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Sferios said that GHB's rescheduling will make the drug even more dangerous to the people who take it recreationally. "Now there will be an even greater taboo about discussing how to use GHB responsibly, and the black market is going to mean that batches of GHB are going to increase in dosage level," he explained. "That's going to make it harder for people to measure their doses, which will make it more likely they will overdose. Because it's in liquid form, dealers will want to make it in stronger and stronger concentrations so their contraband doesn't take as much room."

DanceSafe is on the web at http://www.dancesafe.org. (NB: DanceSafe is one of many web sites that would be illegal if the Hatch-Feinstein methamphetamine bill becomes law!)

6. Hemp Bills In South Dakota and New Hampshire Fall Short

(courtesy NORML Foundation, http://www.norml.org)

Pierre, SD: The South Dakota House of Representatives killed a bill (HB 1267) which would have allowed for the cultivation or industrial hemp. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Weber (R-Srandburg), died in the House Agriculture Committee following testimony from both sides.

Testimony given by law enforcement and the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, with encouragement of Gov. William Janklow, proved to be most detrimental, even after an amendment was added to the legislation which said the provisions of the bill would not go into effect until the federal barriers on the cultivation of industrial hemp are lifted.

"Governor Janklow demonstrated once more that he cares little for the plight of farmers," said Bob Newland, Chair of Mount Rushmore State NORML, who had spent the months prior to the 2000 legislative session drumming up support for the bill. "Here we had a chance to do something positive, something which would cost the taxpayer nothing -- would save the taxpayer money, in fact something which would tell the federal government that we wanted them to change their regulations."

Following the defeat of HB 1267, Rep. Weber introduced House Concurrent Resolution 1015, urging the US government to remove its barriers regarding the production of industrial hemp.

Mount Rushmore State NORML can be found online at http://www.nakedgov.com/mtrushnorml.htm.

Concord, NH: A bill allowing for the cultivation of industrial hemp (HB 239) introduced last month in the New Hampshire House of Representatives by Rep. Amy Robb-Theroux (D-Claremont) was dealt an unofficial defeat last Thursday as House members sent the bill back to the Environment and Agriculture Committee to be studied further.

Heavy lobbying by local law enforcement and opposition from both Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and the state attorney general was enough to sway the House members to all but kill the legislation. Law enforcement in the state continue to claim that planting industrial hemp would make it more difficult to enforce marijuana laws.

"This is not marijuana," said Rep. Derek Owen (D-Hopkinton). "I don't know how you can tell it's terrible if we haven't even planted it yet." It is unlikely that this industrial hemp bill will return to the House this year.

7. Nationwide Vigils Send the Message, "Two Million is Too Many"

Kristy Gomes, George Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy, [email protected]

On February 15, the day that the US prison and jail population was expected to reach two million prisoners, The November Coalition and other drug policy reform groups organized over 40 "Two Million is Too Many" vigils nationwide. Vigils were held in front of prisons, city halls, courthouses, and in Washington, DC.

Tom Murlowski of the November Coalition told The Week Online that the day of vigils was successful in a number of ways.

"Most of the vigils featured speakers and other participants with loved ones serving long mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses,” Murlowski said. "It was great for them to see the support that is growing around the country for the reform of those sentencing laws. We also feel like the vigils have helped to forge solidarity between a number of disparate groups. We are certainly pleased, and we intend to continue to hold vigils to raise awareness of the tragedy of mass incarceration in the land of the free."

At a vigil held steps from the Capitol in Washington, DC, Karen Garrison spoke about her twin sons, Lawrence and Lamont, who are incarcerated for 15.5 and 19.5 years respectively for allegedly having played minor roles in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. They were convicted on the testimony of an admitted drug dealer who then received a reduced sentence. There was no evidence of either drugs or money in their case and Lawrence and Lamont maintain that they are innocent.

Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, also spoke at the DC vigil. Sterling said that reaching the two million mark was not an indictment of those in prison, but of all Americans. He spoke of the families that are destroyed by mandatory minimum sentencing, highlighting the case of Dorothy Gaines, who is serving 20 years for a drug trafficking offense.

Organizers around the country reported overwhelming public support to end the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing. The largest vigil, held in Spokane, Washington attracted more than 200 supporters to the King County Jail. In Dallas, Texas and Gainesville, Florida, demonstrators dressed in black and white prisoners' costumes.

8. Sodexho Marriott Stops "No More Prisons" Show at American University -- Event Was Planned to Highlight Company's Ties to Private Prison Industry

February 15 in Washington DC, two hundred students came to American University's Mary Graydon Center to hear performers featured on the forthcoming No More Prisons Hip Hop Compilation CD. But when they arrived they were informed by employees of Sodexho Marriott Services (SMS), which is contracted to operate the venue, that the show had been canceled.

David Epstein, a senior, explains that students had received all of the appropriate authorizations from American University's Office of Student Activities. "Three hours before the event, the SMS manager told us that the university didn't give them time to prepare. They could have worked with us to make the show happen. They refused to do that."

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Prison Moratorium Project (PMP), the groups that put the show together with the support of the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet), have been critical of SMS' close ties to the for-profit private prison industry. According to Kevin Pranis, a Soros Justice Fellow and PMP activist who was scheduled to speak at the event, the French-based Sodexho group, which owns Sodexho Marriott Services, is the largest investor in US private prisons through its 11% holdings in Prison Realty Trust/Corrections Corporation of America. Articles detailing Sodexho's prison investments, and calling on students to put pressure on SMS, have appeared in a number of publications, such as Infusion, which reaches over a hundred campuses throughout the US and Canada.

Students have no evidence that these articles influenced the decision to cancel the show, but they find the coincidence eerie. "I don't know that the message had anything to do with it," says Epstein, "but I think it's disturbing that an outside corporation can just shut down an authorized student event. That's something students everywhere should be worried about."

According to Marty Leary, a researcher for the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE), SMS has a bad record with free speech issues. "It's unfortunate, but I can't say that I'm surprised. This company had a rule preventing its own employees from talking to outsiders about their working conditions." To avoid civil prosecution, SMS recently entered into a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board and agreed to drop illegal work rules.

Despite the initial setback, event organizers went into high gear and managed to pull together equipment and transportation for a house party, hosted by junior and President of AU SSDP, Kate Sanders. Sanders explains, "I just felt we owed it to the artists, Apani B. Fly, Lyric and El Battalion, who drove down from New York, and to all the students who showed up to hear a positive and political Hip Hop message." The party drew more than fifty students, and organizers say that the footage will be available online within a week at http://www.zoomculture.com/ssdp/.

The No More Prisons show was organized as part of a nationwide effort to protest the growing number of men and women behind bars, projected to exceed two million on February 15, according to a study released by Justice Policy Institute. Pranis says that the next big date will be April 4, 2000, when students at campuses across the country take action against Sodexho Marriott Services. For further information, visit http://www.nomoreprisons.org.

9. TomPaine.com Raises Awareness of 2 Million Prisoners

This week, the good people at TomPaine.com did much to raise awareness of our nation's exploding prison population. An ad, which ran on the Op-ed page of Wednesday's New York Times, provides an irreverent and thought-provoking look at the other side of the prison boom... those who are profiting from it.

View TomPaine.com's ad at http://www.tompaine.com/op_ad.html -- and when you're done, check out their features on the two million, prison labor, and on California's Prop 215, at http://www.tompaine.com/features/2000/02/14/2.html on the web.

If you like what you see there let them know -- and tell them DRCNet sent you.

10. Forums, Protests (Connecticut, North Carolina, Florida, California)

New Haven, CT, Feb. 23, 7:30pm, "Seized!?! A Debate on Civil Asset Forfeiture," by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, in conjunction with Western Connecticut State University NORML and the Yale ACLU. Moderated by the Hon. Mike Lawlor, Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the CT General Assembly -- featuring former New Haven Police Chief and Criminal Justice Policy Foundation senior fellow Nicholas Pastore, Roger Pilon, Vice-President of Legal Affairs for the CATO Institute and Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's drug policy litigation project, arguing for forfeiture reform -- and retired Guilford police officer Anthony Dirienzo III, David X. Sullivan, State's Attorney, Forfeiture Division and Mark H. Kaczynski, Resident Agent in charge of DEA operations in Hartford, arguing against forfeiture reform. At Yale University, Linsley-Chittenden Hall (LC), Room 102. Free, refreshments will follow. For further information, contact Dave Bonan at (860) 247-9823 (daytime) or (203) 791-0284 (evening).

Asheville, NC, Feb. 26, 7:00pm -- Cannabis Forum, including presentations on law enforcement, medical marijuana and other topics. Sponsored by Community of Compassion, to be held at the Movement and Learning Center above the French Broad Food Coop. For further information, call Dixie Deerman or Steve Rasmussen at (828)251-0343 or Dawn Humphrey at (828)258-8432, or visit the Community of Compassion website at http://onward.to/herbmercy/.

Keystone Heights, FL, Feb. 28, 5:30pm -- "Don’t You DARE Arrest My Parents," protest by activists and parents of recent incidents in which students were encouraged to turn in their parents for drug activity. To be held by the Keystone Heights elementary school, 335 SW Pecan Drive, coinciding with the 6:30pm monthly PTA meeting. For further information, contact Scott Bledsoe at (904) 278-0993 or Jodi James at (321) 253-3673.

San Francisco, CA, March 8, 5:00-7:00pm -- "The War on Drugs: Criminal Justice Perspectives," at the San Francisco Medical Society,1409 Sutter, at Franklin. Featuring Vaughn Walker, United States district judge for the Northern District of California; former member of the California Law Revision Commission, former president of the Lawyers' Club of San Francisco, and former judicial representative of the American Bar Association; Joseph McNamara, former chief of police of San Jose, California; research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of five books and many articles on criminal justice; Vernon Grigg, managing attorney of the Narcotics and Vice Units of the San Francisco District Attorney’s office; and Dan Macallair of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (Washington, DC and San Francisco). Moderated by Daniel Abrahamson, Director of Legal Affairs for the Lindesmith Center; free and open to the public. Call (415) 921-4987 or e-mail [email protected] to reserve a space.

11. EDITORIAL: Corrupting the Morals of a Nation

Adam J. Smith, Associate Director, [email protected]

As the corruption scandal involving the Los Angeles police department widens and deepens, it is essential that our leaders recognize and confront the issue of our crumbling system of justice. That system, and the institutions charged with maintaining it, must have the full confidence of the citizenry if the rule of law is to be maintained. Placing the integrity of the justice system at risk, especially at the level of risk inherent in a policy of unenforceable prohibition, is nothing less than a total abdication of responsibility on the part of our legislators and executives.

When the rule of law ceases to exist -- that is, when the confidence of the public in the persons and the institutions charged with enforcing the law and dispensing justice is shattered -- the government itself becomes illegitimate. Where but to the rule of law can a nation turn for order? Where but to the rule of law can a people turn for assurance of the continuation of civil society? To which but the institutions of the law can one generation point in teaching the next what can be expected, and what will be expected of them as they move through their lives?

Do we overstate the case? Do we over-dramatize the impact of the cancer that has metastasized in the LAPD? When sworn officers of the law -- agents of the state -- frame the innocent, beat, maim, and kill, steal, cheat, and lie, disregard the Constitutional foundation of society -- can the root causes of the problem be responsibly ignored? Are we to believe, blindly, that this scandal is in any sense an isolated incident? Or would we be better served to view this as a symptom of a much more widespread and malignant disease -- one that we fail to ameliorate at peril to the life of the republic?

Early in the 20th century, alcohol prohibition, that so-called noble experiment, had a similar corrupting influence on American law enforcement. Payoffs, rip-offs and violence undermined public confidence in our institutions of justice. In 1933, the 18th Amendment was repealed, a decision not insignificantly informed by a growing intolerance of widespread corruption. It was an unavoidable choice in that to further countenance the ills of Prohibition would have likely done irreparable damage to the rule of law, and society as a whole.

Today, our own prohibition threatens -- in fact delivers -- the same fate we tempted then. Is it time one must ask, for our leaders to confront the folly of this second noble but ill-fated experiment? Is it time to face the fact that to charge our institutions with this sisyphian task, one whose absurdity is publicly underscored with every consensual act of transfer or use of a banned substance, is to undermine their very legitimacy? Is it time for our leaders to stand strong in the face of all the moneyed interests -- both licit and illicit -- which profit from this terrible game, and to call an end to the madness?