The Speakeasy Blog
Push Down, Pop Up Even Worse
Another Sad Shooting Death in the Projects
They Should Put Surveillance Cameras in Police Stations
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
The Allegheny County district attorney's office has launched an investigation into what happened to $4,000 that Glassport police failed to return to a local bar owner when drug charges against him were dropped. "The fact that money was seized and placed in an evidence locker and turned up missing is unacceptable," said district attorney's office spokesman Mike Manko.
I agree, but I’d go a step further and call it a crime. Grand larceny to be specific. Of course, Glassport officers think it’s just a procedural problem:
Officers testified yesterday that the borough doesn't have a strict procedure for handling evidence and they don't know what happened to the money.
I hope Glassport area defense attorneys are paying attention, because they might have some appeals to file. It’s not everyday that your local police department admits general incompetence with regards to the collection of evidence. That’s the sort of candor that gets convictions overturned.
But keep in mind, it’s the honesty here that’s anomalous, not the apparent theft. Illegally searching people, confiscating private property, and stealing from the evidence locker are all routine activities in the war on drugs.
If you don’t believe me, sign up for our weekly newsletter here.
Drug Laws Drive Addicted to Prostitution in West Virginia (and Everywhere Else)
"The prostitution and the drugs go hand-in-hand," [police chief William] McCafferty said. "Most of the (prostitutes) are drug users, and that's how they support their habit. None of the men who are coming here to purchase the product the women are selling are from Steubenville, and we don’t need them in our city. "They know the girls are here and have a drug problem to support," he added. "It makes our drug trade better than what it actually is. The 'johns' support the prostitutes who then support the drugs."But why do some drug addicts need to resort to prostitution to be able to afford some chemical mixtures that could literally be produced for pennies? It's because prohibition of drugs drives up the price by putting it into the criminal underground -- economics call this the "risk premium." Cigarettes are just as addictive as any street drug, but you don't see people walking the streets (or for that matter breaking into cars) to afford them, at least not very much, and the same goes for alcohol. Legalization of drugs would therefore reduce prostitution and help some of the addicted avoid being in that often degrading and dangerous circumstance. In the meanwhile, carting them off to jail probably isn't going to be the thing that helps them stop using drugs once they get out.
Doing a story for the Oaksterdam News
Prickly Progressives Impede Pot Progress
Progress Now, a Colorado-based advocacy group issued a statement condemning Focus on the Family President James Dobson for using a signature gathering service that has also worked with the marijuana reform group SAFER.
James Dobson is spending tens of thousands of dollars of Focus on the Family's money to hire paid signature collectors to solicit people for the so-called "marriage initiative" under the guise of protecting Colorado's families. He needs 68,000 valid signatures by August 8 to qualify. Many of these very solicitors paid for by Dobson also are working to collect signatures for an initiative to legalize marijuana in Colorado simultaneously.
For starters, they’re just signature gathers. They’re professionals who work for whoever pays them. It would make as much sense to complain that SAFER and Dobson patronized the same Kinkos.
What’s really troubling here is the implicit negativity of Progress Now’s statement. While they claim that “this is about hypocrisy” and “not about the merits of legalization,” I don’t think you can feign neutrality on the marijuana reform issue while simultaneously trying to skewer a political opponent simply for operating in proximity to it.
For a real example of hypocrisy, try to reconcile Progress Now’s seemingly positive positions on drug policy with their refusal to support marijuana reform in Colorado.
Progress Now accepts suggestions regarding their policy positions here.
My suggestion is not to say this unless you mean it:
[We] support reform to drug laws so that less people are sent to prison and more people are rehabilitated from chemical addictions.
To Snitch or Not to Snitch
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill has a fascinating editorial at AllHipHop.com about the moral dilemmas created by the growing Stop Snitching movement.
The movement, which has been accompanied by a flurry of t- shirts, songs, websites, and DVDs, is ideologically grounded in the belief that people should not cooperate with law enforcement authorities under any circumstances.
As you might guess, the movement is not without its critics:
In response to the "Stop Snitching" campaign, community organizations, politicians, and law enforcement agencies have mounted a full-fledged counter-movement, informally titled "Start Snitching", designed to encourage the hip-hop generation to cooperate with authorities when criminal acts are committed.
Hill doesn’t elaborate on their tactics unfortunately, and I’m left wondering how police and politicians plan to popularize snitching among a demographic already ravaged by the criminal justice system.
Afterall, this us-against-them mentality is hardly limited to the African-American community:
Even the police, who are among the strongest opponents of the "Stop Snitching" movement, have a 'blue code' of silence that protects them from internal snitches.
It’s true. Police advocates are fond of claiming that “a few bad apples” are responsible for all police misconduct, but police are loathe to expose criminality within their ranks. It’s ironic that those who’ve maintained a long-standing and virtually impenetrable “don’t snitch” ethic are now begging the public to stop following suit.
Ultimately, the “Stop Snitching” movement is a form of protest literally woven into the fabric of popular culture. A counter movement of police and prosecutors begging young people of color to “Start Snitching” is comically hypocritical, serving only to further legitimize the anti-informant crusade by proving its effectiveness.
The hard truth is that the “Stop Snitching” movement will continue to grow. Those that have been born the brunt of our war on drugs and the crime it causes have discovered a form of silent resistance. Thanks to the drug war, our most dangerous criminals are capitalizing on a climate of distrust between the police and the public in minority communities.
And if the DAs are up in arms over this, just wait til 50 Cent writes a song about jury nullification.
Maryland Marijuana Gumballs
“It’s a new idea and it’s new to the DEA,” said Gregory Lee, a retired supervisory special agent of the Drug Enforcement Agency, who had never heard of anyone packaging marijuana in such a way before. “When it comes to drug-dealing, you’re only limited by your imagination.”I agree with that last statement -- but what does that say about either the efficacy of drug enforcement efforts or the impact of drug prohibition laws? Because the drugs are illegal, there is no possibility for regulation to control the form in which they are made available -- "hence Greenades" -- and because the drugs are illegal, there is no possibility for regulation to control where and when and by whom the drugs get sold -- hence high school students selling drugs in the schools to other kids. And the endless possibilities for innovation in packaging drugs mean there also must be endless possibilities for hiding drugs too. Or we could legalize the drugs and mostly end this craziness... The Examiner accepts letters at:
Main Office/Letters to the Editor 1015 15th St. NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 903-2000 [email protected]
Marijuana Grow Outside Santa Cruz -- Could Have Been Dangerous, But Why?
"These operations can be dangerous," Palanov said. "Last year down this canyon a couple miles away from here, a fish and game warden was shot during a marijuana raid." The officer survived. Agents shot and killed the gunman, while another suspect escaped, Garza reported. "Our deputies, and fish and game and everybody else that's involved are hiking into area where the growers have orders to protect their groves at all costs. They have weapons," Palanov said. "You have a lot of environmental damage -- the marijuana goes out on the street, which fuels other criminal activity."But why is it dangerous? Is the danger intrinsic to the marijuana? No, it is because marijuana is illegal. With marijuana legalization, no one would want to shoot people over the legally grown crop -- even bad people wouldn't shoot people over it, because it would in no way be worth the risk of going to prison for homicide -- because the value just wouldn't be what it is now and one could go to the police for help if one's crop were threatened. The environmental damage -- assuming that's for real, which certainly seems possible -- could also be reduced if not eliminated through agricultural regulation and inspection. Save Mount Umunhum -- end prohibition! Click here to write to NBC11.
Joint-Rolling Record Attempt Thwarted (France)
What is going on with the DEA and the San Diego medical marijuana dispensaries?
Drug Prohibition Violence Rising in Orlando, Florida
Police Chief Mike McCoy stressed that no tourists had been killed, and said most law-abiding citizens aren't at risk. "If you're not selling drugs, if you don't house people selling drugs, if you don't have the proceeds of drugs in your home, then your chances of being involved in a homicide are pretty slim," he said.Some other interesting comments in the article:
"People can attribute crime to failing schools, failing families. There's a bunch of sociological things you can put your finger on," said police Sgt. Rich Ring, head of Orlando's homicide investigation unit. "All we can do as police is say the biggest things are drugs and robbery, and we're going to take action to attack those issues."Note that McCoy did not include possession of drugs or drug use itself in his list of high-risk factors. All of the situations he mentioned relate to the drug trade, the commercial act of drug selling or activity closely related to it. And that's the first important point: the vast majority of drug-related violence is not from people getting high and shooting people because they're under the influence. The vast majority of drug-related violence is due to the modus operandi of this highly profitable area of the criminal underground. Legalization would bring all of that to a stop: All of the money that people are now spending on drugs that is fueling this kind of violence could instead stay in the licit economy, where business disputes can instead be moderated in the courts, and where most cash is kept in bank accounts and is therefore not such a tempting target for armed robbery. The other issue is that violence is going up in a lot of cities -- the AP article named some of them, and we are seeing this in other news reports as well. The drop in crime rates over the past decade or so has been a welcome partial relief to communities living under economic stress. But it is probably temporary, and in any case should not be taken as a reason to continue prohibition of drugs -- even if violence were to continue to drop, as long as there is prohibition of a lucrative commodity like drugs, violence rates will be higher than they could otherwise be, and no one seriously thinks that things are at an acceptable level in this regard even now. I don't know if this appeared in the Sentinel in print or not, or where else it appeared. You can follow the message board links from the article, or click here for letter-to-the-editor information. Please post to the comments here with the names and letter-writing info for any papers where you see the article appearing.
Drug Prohibition Violence Rising in Orlando, Florida
Police Chief Mike McCoy stressed that no tourists had been killed, and said most law-abiding citizens aren't at risk. "If you're not selling drugs, if you don't house people selling drugs, if you don't have the proceeds of drugs in your home, then your chances of being involved in a homicide are pretty slim," he said.Some other interesting comments in the article:
"People can attribute crime to failing schools, failing families. There's a bunch of sociological things you can put your finger on," said police Sgt. Rich Ring, head of Orlando's homicide investigation unit. "All we can do as police is say the biggest things are drugs and robbery, and we're going to take action to attack those issues."Note that McCoy did not include possession of drugs or drug use itself in his list of high-risk factors. All of the situations he mentioned relate to the drug trade, the commercial act of drug selling or activity closely related to it. And that's the first important point: the vast majority of drug-related violence is not from people getting high and shooting people because they're under the influence. The vast majority of drug-related violence is due to the modus operandi of this highly profitable area of the criminal underground. Legalization would bring all of that to a stop: All of the money that people are now spending on drugs that is fueling this kind of violence could instead stay in the licit economy, where business disputes can instead be moderated in the courts, and where most cash is kept in bank accounts and is therefore not such a tempting target for armed robbery. The other issue is that violence is going up in a lot of cities -- the AP article named some of them, and we are seeing this in other news reports as well. The drop in crime rates over the past decade or so has been a welcome partial relief to communities living under economic stress. But it is probably temporary, and in any case should not be taken as a reason to continue prohibition of drugs -- even if violence were to continue to drop, as long as there is prohibition of a lucrative commodity like drugs, violence rates will be higher than they could otherwise be, and no one seriously thinks that things are at an acceptable level in this regard even now. I don't know if this appeared in the Sentinel in print or not, or where else it appeared. You can follow the message board links from the article, or click here for letter-to-the-editor information. Please post to the comments here with the names and letter-writing info for any papers where you see the article appearing.
Medical Marijuana in South Dakota
Drug Gangsters Immortalized in Song
"These songs are about what's happening in our country, we sing about the paramilitaries, the rebels and the drug-traffickers and they all love it," said Uriel Hennao, the king of the genre, responsible for such anthems as "Child of the Coca," "I Prefer a Tomb in Colombia (to a jail cell in the US)" and "The Mafia Keeps Going."One of the more pernicious consequences of drug prohibition is the glorification that ends up accruing to violent criminals. I don't know enough about the culture in Colombia and among the people who like this music to know whether they are listening in admiration of drug lords like Escobar and terrorists like Castano or simply because, as Hennao said, it's about what's going on in their country, so I'm not going to pass judgment on either artist or audience. But I don't think it's good for any country to be in that kind of a place. I wrote about this phenomenon here in the US (a situation not involving music, but the same cultural corruption idea) in February 2005 in Boston, before moving to Washington, the case of a gangster named Darryl Whiting who by the account of the prosecutor who put him away was someone who lured young people into lives of crime. The prosecutor, Wayne Budd, was the same guy who had brought federal civil rights charges against the police officers involved in the Rodney King beating. But getting Whiting off the streets, he said, was one of the things he was most proud of. I saw Budd speak on a panel at Harvard -- he predictably did not express agreement with my contention that legalization would have been the way to keep Darryl Whiting and people like him from ever getting into that position. But legalization is what is needed for that purpose. Alcohol prohibition turned Al Capone into a pop hero, and drug prohibition is doing the same thing to top-level gangsters now, even if they don't become as well known to mainstream, majority society as Capone did.
Will It Make a Difference in the Drug Supply in the End?
A crystal-methamphetamine distribution ring allegedly run by the Breed motorcycle gang has been broken and 15 members from Philadelphia, Bucks and Montgomery Counties and New Jersey were in custody or were being sought, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett said yesterday. From May 2005 through June 2006, he said, the gang's Pennsylvania chapter distributed more than 120 pounds of crystal meth, with a street value of more than $11.25 million.Will the Inquirer revisit this story in a year, or six months (or for that matter two weeks) to see if meth has been made any less available to its users -- or if instead the slack has been taken up instead of other dealers eager to make the added profit? This is also a "consequences of prohibition" story, hence I've also posted it to our "Prohibition in the Media" blog:
Corbett said a statewide investigation and a grand jury found that from its clubhouse at 3707 Spruce St. in Bristol, the gang "had terrorized Lower Bucks County for several decades by committing crimes involving illegal drug dealing, thefts, extortion, witness intimidation and assaults."It's clearly the case that those involved in illegal drug activity are going to resort to violence to advance their business purposes and moderate their business disputes -- that's prohibition, it was like that with Al Capone during alcohol prohibition and it's like that with drug gangs now. While drug prohibition laws don't directly account for the thefts and perhaps other crimes that the AG alleges were committed by this particular gang, all the money they were making from meth certainly turned them into a larger and powerful group, perhaps is what got them started in the first place. When prohibition was repealed, the homicide rate decreased steadily for ten years, to about half of where it had peaked by the end of prohibition -- perhaps the steadiness of the decrease as opposed to it all going away immediately reflects the idea that gangs whose financial backbone is based on drug selling will struggle to hold on for awhile before dwindling. But the violence dropped, and that's the main thing. The Inquirer posts letter and op-ed information here. Sadly Philadelphia has been plagued lately with another consequences of prohibition, overdose deaths due to a tainted drug supply. Read what one of Nixon's drug fighters had to say about the long-term effectiveness of massive drug busts.
The Heroin Overdose Wave Continues...
Holy Cow, They Busted Holy Smoke!
LA-Area Methamphetamine Lab Illustrates Need for Legalization
British Tabloids At It Again With More Reefer Madness
Free Advertising for Drug Dealers
Stupid drug war ideas are a usually a dime a dozen, but I’d pay a quarter for this one.
Officials in Maine are discussing the creation of an online registry of convicted drug dealers. Apparently this is the latest in a series of hysterical legislative responses to the epidemic of meth-related media coverage:
From the Bangor Daily News:
Tennessee was the first state to create a public Web site registry for convicted methamphetamine makers. It now has more than 400 convicted offenders on the list. Illinois created a similar registry earlier this year, and a half-dozen other states have pending legislation to create meth maker registries.
But if meth is so bad, why would you create a public database of local people that might have some for sale?
Somehow these well-meaning legislators forgot that drug transactions, unlike molestations, are consensual acts. Drug dealers don’t have victims, they have customers, and putting their names online is like advertising their services. For example, if I were looking for meth in Anderson County, Tennessee, I’d begin by looking here. See how easy that was?
Before you can say "counterproductive", they’ll be combating underage drinking by creating a public registry of liquor stores that sell to minors.
But if these lists weren’t such a horrible violation of privacy, I might support them, because this ill-conceived effort to shame and stigmatize the victims of America’s war on drugs may soon become a vast and ever-expanding memorial to the countless lives our drug laws have destroyed.