Latest

With my departure for South America set for 10 days from now, the Bolivian government has put a hitch in my plans. Bolivian President Evo Morales announced yesterday that as of now, American citizens will need a visa to visit Bolivia. As the Associated Press reported:

LA PAZ, Bolivia -- The government of President Evo Morales approved a decree Monday requiring U.S. citizens to obtain visas to enter Bolivia. Morales said the decree "a matter of reciprocity." The U.S. government requires Bolivians to obtain visas to enter the United States. "We are a small country but we have the same dignity as any other," Morales said. The decree, approved during a Cabinet meeting, applies to other countries, including Serbia and Montenegro and Cyprus. In February 2006, Leonilda Zurita, a congresswoman belonging to Morales' Movement Toward Socialism party, had her U.S. visa revoked. Zurita said Washington cited an alleged link between her and terrorist activities, which she denied. Morales also cited security concerns for the rule. An American man has been charged with setting off bombs in two La Paz hotels in March. Two Bolivians were killed and seven people were injured, including an American woman. U.S. ties to Bolivia have been tense partly due to Morales' friendship with Presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, as well as by Morales' background as the leader of coca growers fighting U.S. attempts to eradicate their crops.

What the AP did not make clear is that the visa requirement for Bolivians to enter the US is a recent, post-911 move by the US reversing years of visa-free travel for South Americans coming north. The Brazilian government has also imposed a visa requirement for Americans now in this game of diplomatic tit-for-tat. Thanks, Mr. Bush. What this means for my trip is unclear at this point. The Bolivian consulate in Washington wasn't answering the phone today. One of colleagues in the Washington office will run over there first thing tomorrow morning to try to find out what the new requirements are and how fast I can actually get a visa. I am going first to Peru, which hasn't imposed a visa requirement, and it may be possible to get a visa there, but I don't know that yet. I'll keep you all updated on the situation. (Read the comment I've posted to learn a little more about Leonilda Zurita. - DB)

An Associated Press article today reports that the homicide rate in the US is going up again:

After many years of decline, the number of murders climbed in 2006 in New York and many other U.S. cities, including Rocky Mount, reaching their highest levels in a decade in some places. (Rocky Mount is a North Carolina community whose local paper drew on the AP story to produce this article. Among the reasons given: gangs, drugs, the easy availability of illegal guns, a disturbing tendency among young people to pull guns when they do not get the respect they demand and, in Houston at least, an influx of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

While drug warriors like former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani credited the "broken windows" theory of policing and tough sentences in general for the crime drop, criminologists pointed instead to a range of factors -- a decrease in the number of youth in the population figured prominently. (With my elementary school -- Roosevelt -- having been converted into a condominium -- The Roosevelt -- because of demographics, I was aware that fewer kids were growing up for awhile.) A corollary is that with youth numbers expected to go up again, crime would eventually go up again too. And now it has (yes, in New York too). The AP story did not go into the role of drug prohibition in all of this. Basically, it is prohibition of drugs that causes the vast majority of the drug-related violence -- pharmacologically-induced violence, acts committed because of being under the influence of drugs -- makes up only a small portion of the total. Drug-related violence is first and foremost the violence of the drug trade -- gangs and other sellers fighting it out over turf. The illegal drug trade exists solely because the drugs are illegal. The second most important cause of drug-related violence is economic crimes committed to get the money needed to buy drugs. This would mostly go away if drugs were legal because the price of the drugs would drop to normal market levels and addicts would not need to commit crimes to afford them. It's impossible to have a serious discussion of the causes of violence without discussing -- without even mentioning -- the consequences of prohibition. This must be stated over and over and over until the people leading the discussion take note. Click here to submit a letter to the editor to the Telegram, and here for info on their letter standards. Please make a post here with a link or letter to the editor information for any other papers where you see the AP story or articles based on it.

Seems to me the real question that must be addressed is this; As we live in a 'free' country, where people should have the right to do as they wish absent harms to others, the government should be able to show an overwhelming social need for the restriction of any freedoms. They should also be required to prove that the curtailment of freedom is resulting in results consistent with that overwhelming social need. Too often, the arguments for the continuance of this drug war are a mishmash of lies, half lies, misinformation, bombast and hyperbole. We must redefine it or we will continue to lose.

My name is Ken Gorman. I'm a marijuana activist in Denver Colorado. My efforts over the last 14 years actually did change our laws and the way people think about marijuana.

This editorial was published as part of our 12/29/06 "Mini-Bulletin." The entire bulletin can be read online here. One of the news items today -- not in drug policy -- was the filing of an ethics complaint by the North Carolina Bar Association against Mike Nifong, the now high-profile prosecutor in the case involving three Duke University lacrosse players who originally faced rape charges and are still charged with kidnapping and sexual assault. The complaint comes on the heels of a letter sent by a member of Congress from the state, asking the US Attorney General to investigate Nifong. No, I'm not about to express a wish related to this case. I'm not familiar enough with it to express what I would consider an informed opinion, and I wouldn't post such an opinion here in this drug policy newsletter if I did. But I do know something about prosecutorial misconduct in general. For example, that a 2003 report by the Center for Public Integrity, "Harmful Error," found that it is widespread but almost never punished. According to CPI, prosecutorial misconduct falls mainly in several categories:

• courtroom misconduct;
• mishandling of physical evidence;
• failing to disclose exculpatory evidence;
• threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
• using false or misleading evidence;
• harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant's counsel;
• improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.

(There's much more detail about these, of course, on the web site.) Another thing I know about prosecutorial misconduct is that the most common victim of it is black or brown, and poor, is not enrolled at a prestigious university, and doesn't have the best lawyers that money can buy. Media outlets, certainly national ones, almost never focus on their cases. Often they receive the arguably sound advice that innocent or guilty they should really not fight the charges, or the outcome will be much worse. And the Bar Association won't do anything about their cases, because there are just too many. Misconduct in the criminal justice system is by no means limited to the ranks of prosecutors. Police are also serious, perennial offenders. For example, a recent case in Hartford, Connecticut involved a retired police officer who was convicted recently of falsifying an arrest warrant. His colleagues came to his defense, arguing that this was common practice in the department. The judge gave him a special form of probation that will allow him to get his record expunged upon completion of it. The trial has myriad implications. First, there is confirmation by actual police officers, under oath, that police officers constantly break the law in order to make arrests. Second, the officers obviously felt comfortable enough with that fact to state it publicly, before a judge. Third, the judge was okay enough with this to give the officer a sentence that is a little more than a slap on the wrist, but not all that much more. How is police and prosecutorial misconduct to be stemmed if it is tolerated? And if it isn't, how can we in the public have faith in the outcome of any criminal case? One of my many wishes for the New Year is that fewer police and prosecutors commit misconduct, and that more complaints are filed against those who do.