Latest

The last two presidents and two of the current candidates have either used illegal substances or have had substance abuse problems. Does this show that winners don’t always refuse to use drugs?

Would you want a president who's under the influence?

Imagine this:

It's 3 a.m., and a phone rings in the vice president's quarters. A Secret Service agent answers the phone, listens, and then rushes into the VP's bedroom with the phone in hand and wakes him up.

Agent (placing his hand over the mouthpiece of the phone): Mr. Vice President, the president of Xyzistan has threatened to launch a nuclear strike in 15 minutes. You must respond.

Vice president: Where is the heck is the president? Why isn't he taking the lead on this issue?

Agent: Sir, he's coming down from his heroin high. We tried to wake him up, sir, but he's out of it.

Vice president: Give me the darn phone.

I seriously have no clue what his point is. Of course no one wants the president nodding out on dope during a nuclear crisis. Where the hell did that come from? Is he saying that if we listen to Jacob Sullum, we'll be risking nuclear war?

Not surprisingly at all, a google search reveals that Charles Stimson has a history of saying crazy shit. He was forced to resign from the Department of Defense last year following controversial remarks about the lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees. He literally got in trouble with the Bush Administration for taking things too far in the national security debate, which is quite an achievement. Fortunately for us, this trainwreck of a drug war debate will continue for two more days if LA Times doesn't invoke the slaughter rule and declare Sullum the winner today.

A Concord, New Hampshire principal tricked a student into delivering two small bags of marijuana to a police ambush behind Bishop Brady High School. Principal Jean Barker took it upon herself to set up seventeen year old Concord High School senior John Huckins.

After Confiscating another student's cellphone it received a message from Huckins asking "Yo, you need a bag." Presuming that Huckins was referring to marijuana she immediately attempted to get Huckins to come sell two bags of marijuana in the school parking lot. Huckins was immediately skeptical of the deal, nevertheless Barker was able to coax him into delivering the bags.

Huckins arrived at school and was apprehended by the police. A quarter-ounce of marijuana was confiscated from Huckins person. Later he told the police that he used the drug to deal with anxiety issues according to the police report.

Barker attempted to defend her actions claiming that Huckin's willingness to bring marijuana to the school placed her school at risk.

Many other questions however remain unanswered. Immediately one must ask what gave the principal the right to use the student's cell phone to entrap Huckins? While texting illegal drug sales is never a good idea, what could give Barker the right to look at someone's personal message. This whole case stems back to a major invasion of privacy. If you open someone's mail it is a federal crime. I can't seem to understand why Barker's actions in opening the message wouldn't be?

Huckins attorney Mark Howard makes an even more valid point,

"It is a crime in the state of New Hampshire to elicit a drug offense if you are not either a police officer or working under the direction of a police officer,"

Des Moines Police Sgt. Vince Valdez said the shooting involved the U.S. Marshal Service Violent Fugitive Task Force and a warrant team of the Fifth Judicial District of the Iowa Department of Correctional Services.

SANTA CRUZ -- For those who arrest people who use, abuse or sell drugs, Sunday's pot-smoking festival at UC Santa Cruz was "a moral slap in the face to the cause," said Rich Westphal, task force commander with the Santa Cruz County Narcotics Enforcement Team. [Santa Cruz Sentinel]

Here's how it went down:

Police may find all of this embarrassing, but it's not really their fault. Marijuana shouldn't be illegal. Any law targeting this many Americans is just flawed on its face. These gratuitous events are a symptom of the bunker mentality of our marijuana culture, which now erupts into a public free-for-all every year on April 20.

It is marijuana prohibition that glamorizes these events and makes them fun. That is just a fact, and one which shouldn't be lost on law-enforcement. These are anti-prohibition pot riots and they are the safest riots you'll ever find. You'd have to call the national guard if any other type of criminal gathered in such numbers.

So if you can't catch them all on the highways or in their homes, and you can't even catch them when they're all together in one place, maybe it's time to stop trying to catch them.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Kalif Mathieu is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. His bio is in our "staff" section.

I traveled to the city of Istanbul last week to stay for a few days with my school program of Peace and Conflict Resolution. Istanbul (and Turkey as a whole) is the perfect conduit for heroin being produced in the middle-east to reach Western European markets. Heroin and other drugs are commodities like anything else, and travel through the same general trade routes as other goods. Turkey is so strategically placed that according to Le Monde diplomatique in 1995 “An estimated 80% of the heroin on the European market is being processed in Turkish laboratories." (La Dépêche Internationale des Drogues 1995, Nr. 48)

So you might ask, “what’s so special about heroin traveling through Turkey? It’s just like any other trade between the middle-east and Europe.” The troublesome point is who controls the trafficking through the country and receives the profits of the trade. This happens to be the PKK, or Kurdistan Worker’s Party, a militant organization with a 30-year history of fighting the Turkish government to establish a separate Kurdish state. “According to Interpol […] the PKK was orchestrating 80 % of the European drug market” back in 1992, and “[o]ther sources similarly indicate that the PKK controlled between 60 % to 70 %” in 1994 reported the Turkish Daily News.

The state of Turkey has been increasing its process of Westernization recently in its desire to join the EU, and this has meant adopting a Western policy on drugs. Turkey has been very successful recently in increasing its police and border control effectiveness and eliminating corruption. The Turkish Daily News gave some convincing numbers: “According to the deputy customs undersecretary, there was a 400 percent increase in drug-operation success in the period between 2002 and 2006, when compared to the 1999-2002 period.”

However, even though Turkey has been, in recent years, dealing more and more forcefully with both the PKK militants and the drug trade, has this actually reduced the trafficking of drugs and the profits of the PKK? In the Turkish Daily News: “[t]he annual revenue made by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) has increased to 400-500 million euros, a top Turkish general said late Tuesday.” If the PKK’s revenue has increased, then it is logical to assume Turkey’s military campaign against them may not be considered a huge success. Not only that, but “200-250 million euros of [the PKK’s] revenue comes from drugs […] Gen. Ergin Saygun, deputy chief of General Staff said.” That makes drug trafficking 50% of the organization’s income!

The Turkish state has had a history of valuing the effectiveness of force. It was born from war, and the constitution has a controversial but often-utilized article that allows the Turkish army to organize a coup to eliminate the possibility of having a religious party in power. What is the point of these so-called ‘hard-line’ approaches to dealing with the nation’s problems if they are rather ineffective? Very little of course. The trouble comes from what the state could say to its citizens, to the international community, if it negotiated with the violent PKK or began to take the drug trade into the light by moving it towards legalization and either private or state control? If Turkey tried to clean up its smuggling and black market in such a way the majority of Europe, if not the greater ‘global community,’ would probably condemn the entire nation of betraying humanity and literally becoming evil. The reaction of many Turkish citizens would be perhaps lighter, but of a similar nature if the state sat down to negotiations with the ‘terrorist’ PKK. These are strong influences on the Turkish state, and severely limit its options. Therefore it seems Turkey doesn’t have much of a choice but to pursue the same policy of force it has pursued for more than 30 years, whether it benefit the people or not.