BLOG
Do Pharmaceutical Companies Support Marijuana Prohibition?
For most drug policy reformers, the answer is probably an exasperated "duh," but a fascinating piece at Huffington Post from NORML's Paul Armentano raises some very plausible doubts about the popular theory that the pharmaceutical industry is pushing pot prohibition to kill competition.I highly recommend reading the whole thing before forming an opinion, but here are the basic points as I understand them:1. Pharmaceutical companies are vigorously pursuing patents on various marijuana components and derivatives for a great variety of potential medical applications. Given the rigorous and heavily politicized FDA approval process they'll ultimately need to pass, there's no sense in indulging anti-marijuana hysteria within the government bureaucracy.2. These products will ultimately be marketed to a populace that has been spoon-fed mindless anti-pot propaganda for decades. Since the origins of the coming generation of marijuana-based medicines will be widely known, their manufacturers have an interest in marijuana being trusted, rather than feared, within the marketplace.3. Pharmaceutical companies understand that marijuana can never live up to its reputation as a panacea that can replace modern medicine. This is true because most people don't smoke it, and most people donât want their medicines grown on a tree. Conditions in places where medical marijuana is currently widely available demonstrate this.4. Government bureaucrats, police and prison lobbies, and voters who've succumbed to drug war propaganda are the real forces behind marijuana prohibition.Paul also observes the important role marijuana reform efforts have played in fostering a climate in which marijuana-based medicines have become recognized as viable. Only by breaking down bit by bit the barrier of hysteria surrounding marijuana have we been able to set a tone in which medical marijuana research can be discussed rationally in the public domain. There are exceptions, of course, but now that the science and the will of the voters can speak for themselves, corporate profiteers associate marijuana with dollar signs, not reefer madness.It has also been proposed by some in the reform movement that pharmaceuticalized marijuana may lead to a crack down on the medical use of herbal marijuana, as corporate profiteers pressure police to purge their most obvious competitor. I reject that notion for a couple reasons: 1) the marketing of new marijuana-based medicines will have a trickle-down effect of politically legitimizing pre-existing medical marijuana activity. 2) We can't afford to bust 'em now, we won't be able to afford to bust 'em then. 3) The risk of jury nullification when bringing medical marijuana cases to trial is substantial and will remain so.Finally, though Paul doesn't address this, many people have cited instances of pharmaceutical companies supporting organizations like Partnership For a Drug Free America as evidence of their complicity in the war on marijuana. I've attempted to research this in the past and couldn't find anything worth our time. The story died on my desk. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies fund so-called "anti-drug" advocacy, I now believe it has nothing to do with marijuana, but rather with a desire to proactively cover their asses for the destructive effects of the legal drugs they themselves manufacture and market. So, I believe Paul's analysis should probably replace much of the conventional wisdom that currently exists on this issue. Unless other evidence emerges, or other experts of Paul Armentano's caliber (few exist), emerge to convincingly challenge his assertions, the burden of proof placed on those blaming Big Pharma for marijuana prohibition has been raised several notches today. If this helps us to refocus our advocacy towards other more demonstrable, palatable, and persuasive arguments for reform, that would be a good thing.
Police Refuse to Take Responsibility For Botched Drug Raid
We have already grown accustomed to disappointing explanations from law-enforcement after they kick in the doors of innocent people, terrorize families, tear apart their homes, and then insist that such things "almost never happen." It happens all the time, as we know, and the pattern is terribly, depressingly familiar.Still, the latest botched drug raid, which took place outside Albany, NY on the eve of July 4th, prompted a reaction from police that is so callous and plainly dismissive that it managed to surprise even me. The point isn't that I don't believe some police officers think this way, but that I just wouldn't expect them to reveal it as shamelessly as this. Here is what Troy Police Sergeant David Dean told Albany's News10 correspondent Anya Tucker after the raid:Sgt. Dean: "We did not hit the wrong house, we hit the house that the search warrant directed us to hit."Anya: "But was that information that led up to that right?"Sgt. Dean: "My bosses are going through this whole investigative process to make sure that we were as thorough as possible."Anya: "What was the level of threat that you assessed prior to coming into the home?"Sgt. Dean: "That there were weapons in the house, or that the drugs were stored in that manor."Anya: "In this house, you found no drugs?"Sgt. Dean: "We are not publicly speaking on that issue at this point."Anya: "Do you think this will hurt your credibility?"Sgt. Dean: "The last thing we want to do is enter an innocent person's home - it doesn't get us anywhere, and it doesn't hamper the drug trade."Let's just stop there for a second. That is why they donât want to raid the innocent? Because "it doesn't get us anywhere, and it doesn't hamper the drug trade"!? Sgt. Dean either won't acknowledge, or doesnât even believe, that law-abiding citizens have a right not to be treated this way. No duty could be more central to police work than the protection of innocent people and property, yet that fundamental concept takes a back seat, if any at all, to the concern that police weren't able to put anyone in prison that day. And it gets worse:Anya: "Will you be going back to clean-up the damage to the house?"Sgt. Dean: "We just have to enter lawfully with our search warrant, that is our only obligation."Anya: "And you can leave it in any state that you left it?"Sgt. Dean: "Yes. We had probable cause that led us to believe there was drug activity."Regardless of what the policy is, does that even sound right when it comes out of your mouth? What sort of public servant goes on TV and says they can trash innocent people's homes with no recourse? If nothing else, I'd be afraid that talking about it this way might lead to these draconian police powers being taken away. Such candor reflects perfectly the paramilitary mentality through which such violent and utterly unnecessary police behavior is born and repeated endlessly.These remarks should be Exhibit A at a hearing before the state legislature. If police don't feel at all responsible for the damage they cause when they are wrong, what incentive do they have to make sure they're right? This is just another painfully predictable result of raiding homes based on the testimony of some desperate informant with everything to gain and nothing to lose by making up names and addresses at random. That appears to be exactly what happened here, and if it's not, well, donât hold your breath for an alternate explanation.Maybe I don't say this enough, but I respect cops. I was a criminal justice major. I've studied under them, dined with them, toured D.C. in a squad car and answered calls with them. I've witnessed heroic policing at frighteningly close range and I'll be the first to concede that a good cop is worth anything we can afford to pay. But the great thing about good cops is that they make you feel safe, and that's the opposite of what happened here. These officers are telling the public that they can destroy your home when you've broken no law, that they donât have to fix it, and that they needn't even explain the circumstances that brought them crashing violently into your peaceful life. Why would anyone anywhere ever want cops like that?
Immigration and Drug Law: A Dangerous Intersection
If one had to identify two areas of jurisprudence where Constitution often doesnât seem to apply, the first one would probably be anything related to controlled substances. And, the second?
PRN files State Tort Claim vs. WA State - July 2008
PRN files State Tort Claim vs. WA State Filed under: Law/Constitution, Medicine/Ethics/Standards, Opiophobia/Chilling Effect - 08 Jul 2008 Pain Relief Network files State Tort Claim vs. WA State; Alex DeLuca; War on Doctors/Pain Crisis blog of the Pain Relief Network; 2008/06/08. [Full text PDF] See also: PRN Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Damages - 2008 WAâs Interagency Guideline on Opioid Dosing for Non-Cancer Pain - 2007 SUMMARY: Nature of Relief Sought This lawsuit is the result of grossly misinformed prejudices about opioid(1) pain medications held by high-level Washington public health officials. Those prejudices are identified in medical literature as opiophobia.(2) As a direct result of public health policies based on opiophobia, chronic pain patients in Washington are now unable reliably to secure necessary and appropriate treatment for their severe pain anywhere within the State of Washington. The dilemma of the chronic pain patients arises out of overreaching actions on behalf of senior public health officials, as well as that opiophobia - which has now permeated the entire Washington State health culture and also unlawfully influences medical licensing decisions. [Read the entire document in PDF format] Â
Pain Relief Network Sues State of Washington
Pain Treatment Advocacy Group Sues State of WA; Donna Gordon Blankinship; Associated Press; 2008-06-25.See also: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Damages a class action lawsuit by Laura Cooper (lead attorney) et al., Filed: 2008-06-24Â Exhibit 1: The WA state Opioid Dosing âGuidelinesâ by Agency Medical Directors Group (AMDG); Mar. 2007; Filed 2008-06-24 -------Â The nonprofit Pain Relief Network says the guidelines for prescribing narcotics, written by the Washington state Department of Health and published in March 2007, have influenced pain treatment across the country and have made doctors afraid to give opiate prescriptions.
Dr. Schneider's Pretrial Constitutional Motions in Judge's Hands
Dr. Schneiderâs Pretrial Constitutional Motions, Including Schneiderâs Response to Govtâs Opposition, in Judgeâs Hands; Alex DeLuca; War on Doctors/Pain Crisis blog of the Pain Relief Network; 2008-06-25. Dr. Schneiderâs pretrial motions to dismiss on constitutional grounds, and his motions for abstention have been filed, as has the Governmentâs opposition to those motions, and Dr. Schneiderâs response to the Governmentâs opposition. As I understand it, now we wait for rulings by the Judge. The relevant briefs, and the Order releasing Dr. Schneider on bond and setting conditions on that release, are linked to, below. Dr. Schneiderâs wife Linda remains in jail as a âflight riskâ and is awaiting hearings on her detention and release.Kick-ass Pretrial Motions: Defendantsâ Memo and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment as Unconstitutional Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendantsâ Motion for Abstention Defendantsâ Reply to Govtâs Response in Opposition to Defendantsâ Motions to Dismiss Schneider Release Memorandum and Order[END]
Police Discover World's Most Expensive Marijuana
During a routine traffic stop in Ohio, police discovered over 100 pounds of the most valuable marijuana ever documented:Police curbed the gray, four-door Mercury Grand Marquis Ruci was driving after he allegedly committed a lane violation, the highway patrol statement indicated. A specially trained, narcotics-detecting dog was brought to the scene, and its reaction to the car signaled the presence of drugs, the statement said.A search of the vehicle yielded 104 pounds of hydroponically-grown marijuana stuffed inside eight black plastic trash bags. Police said the marijuana had an estimated street sale value of more than $4.7 million. [Naperville Sun]This is really an incredible discovery and I'm surprised it hasnât generated more attention. At $4.7 million for 104 pounds, we're talking about an ounce that's worth $2824.51! That just blows away everything listed at High Times's market quotes section, where ounces of high-grade marijuana in Ohio last month were listed at $400. It also overwhelms the STRIDE data collected by drug enforcement officers showing that U.S. marijuana prices averaged around $200 per ounce as of 2003. So far, I havenât heard of anyone smoking this new type of marijuana, but that's probably because the police took it all.*********Ok, enough. In case you haven't figured it out yet, this marijuana isn't worth $4.7 million. The police maybe got a little carried away and reporters don't doublecheck their numbers on things like this. It's happened before.The problem is the numbers are so far off here that it really takes the crime to a different level, an inaccurate one. They magnified the value by a factor of 10, roughly, if the smoker-submitted street prices at High Times are realistic (my guess is they're the most accurate numbers available). The Naperville Sun, The Toledo Blade, and local ABC News grabbed the story, with The Sun even rounding up in the headline, "Driver arrested with $5 million in pot". Ironically, the $300,000 they added for the headline is much closer to what it was actually worth. Police also stated that it was "hydroponically-grown," but they admitted not knowing where it came from, meaning they can't be sure how it was actually grown. Perhaps they just like to say "hydroponic," in which case they're certainly not alone.Amidst the numerous tragedies and injustices caused by our nation's war on drugs, the tendency to exaggerate drug seizures is a minor one. But it's annoying, it happens a lot, and it might even have the unintended effect of encouraging people to think growing marijuana will make them a millionaire.Action Alert: (Updated) Let's respond to this by contacting the papers that reported it and letting them know they've been pushing a false headline. Here are a few of them: Cleveland Plain-Dealer: send a letter/comment hereABC News send a letter/comment here Toledo Blade send a letter/comment here.Naperville Sun send a letter/comment here.You can send more or less the same comment to each, but be sure to include the appropriate link for their coverage, so they know what you're referring to. And, of course, be brief, on topic, and polite. Update 2: Fascinatingly, The Chicago Tribune has the story, but leaves out the claims that the marijuana was valued at $4.7 million. That was the headline elsewhere. Could it be that Chicago Tribune was suspicious of the numbers?Please Digg - Click Here
Congressional Black Caucus Members Try to Ban Menthol Cigarettes
Uh-oh. They're trying to take our minty-fresh menthols away. Not kool.The Congressional Black Caucus is calling for changes to a House tobacco-regulation bill, demanding that the legislation place restrictions on menthol cigarettes, the type heavily favored by African-American smokers.The 43-member caucus is taking aim at a provision in the bill that would ban candy-, fruit- and spice-flavored cigarettes but that specifically exempts menthol. In recent weeks the exemption has become the focus of controversy because menthol brands are heavily used by black smokers, who develop a large share of smoking-related cancers and other health risks. [New York Times]The menthol prohibitionists' argument is simple: if black people are more likely to smoke menthol + black people are more likely to get lung cancer = menthol increases lung cancer risk. Of course, it's possible that black folks are just more susceptible to lung cancer for some horrible reason, but I guess the Congressional Black Caucus thinks the quickest way to find that out is to ban Newports⢠and see if black people live longer. I disagree. I think the best way is to check whether the 25% of black smokers who don't smoke menthol have the same lung cancer rates as those who do.Either way, banning menthol cigarettes is drug prohibition and we know what that leads to:Some supporters of the billâs current language on menthol have argued that, because menthol is widely used by many smokers, the effects of banning it outright are hard to predict. Among possibilities they have suggested is that menthol smokers would turn to an illicit cigarette market to obtain menthol cigarettes.If nothing else, such a policy may rain hell on one of the Congressional Black Caucus' other legislative priorities: ending racial profiling. "Sir, do you have anything in the vehicle I should know about? Drugs? Weapons? Menthol cigarettes?"
The SO CALLED Elected Officials/ SLAVE MASTERS who Love to PUNISH THEIR SLAVES
America is NO Longer a FREE COUNTRY. Every Aspect of our lives is being REGULATED WITHOUT OUR CONSENT.
Drug Czar's Office Admits that Drug Enforcement Can't Be Proven to Work
In a superb column at AlterNet on our nation's world-leading drug use rates, MPP's Bruce Mirken calls attention to this shocking concession from the Drug Czar's office:Trying to find a link between drug use and drug enforcement doesn't make sense, said Tom Riley, spokesman for the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington. "The U.S. has high crime rates but we spend a lot on law enforcement and prison,'' Riley said yesterday in a telephone interview. "Should we spend less? We're just a different kind of country. We have higher drug use rates, a higher crime rate, many things that go with a highly free and mobile society."It is just an incredibly strange argument to emerge from the very people who've tirelessly defended the efficacy of law-enforcement as an essential component of our drug policy. I mean seriously, what on earth is he trying to say? Moreover, who are they to boast about our "highly free and mobile society" presiding as they do over our nation's largest campaign to reduce American freedom? There's no freedom or mobility for the 500,000 Americans they've banished behind bars for drug crimes. We wouldn't even have the "higher crime rate" he speaks of if we didnât make crimes of things that shouldnât be.When I first learned of the new World Health Organization data showing that Americans use marijuana and cocaine at dramatically higher rates than the Netherlands, I asked myself how the Drug Czar's office could even begin to respond. It's a point they've been dodging for decades, thrust suddenly upon them in the form of a credible study that focuses directly upon that which they've sought so desperately to disregard. Nonetheless, I am honestly surprised that, in their infinite slipperiness, they couldn't come up with something better than this.
With the World's Highest Drug Use Rates, Our Fraudulent Drug Policy is Fully Exposed
What could more conclusively demonstrate the embarrassing failure of our drug war than this?Despite tough anti-drug laws, a new survey shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.The World Health Organization's survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use. [CBSNews]As Jacob Sullum points out:â¦it's striking that the lifetime marijuana use rate in the U.S. (42.4 percent) is more than twice as high as the rate in the Netherlands (19.8 percent), despite the latter country's famously (or notoriously, depending on your perspective) tolerant cannabis policies. The difference for lifetime cocaine use is even bigger: The U.S. rate (16.2 percent) is eight times the Dutch rate (1.9 percet).The Drug Czar's kneejerk description of Dutch drug policy as a raging trainwreck is thoroughly annihilated for everyone to see, and there's really just nothing else to say about it. Other countries are achieving much more desirable outcomes without incurring the massive social and fiscal costs of our towering war on drugs. Admittedly, Americans may possess a unique predisposition to enjoy these substances, but that's exactly the point; the more drugs we use, the greater the consequences if our policy towards drug use utterly sucks.
Drug Testing Pregnant Women Produces False Positives (And Kills Babies)
A major and underappreciated problem with drug testing is that the stupid tests donât even work. They say people took drugs when they didnât. The problem is particularly apparent in the case of pregnant women who are frequently targeted for drug screening, but whose changing body chemistry throws off the results:Hospitals' initial urine- screening drug tests on pregnant women can produce a high rate of false positives - particularly for methamphetamine and opiates - because they are technically complex and interpretation of the results can be difficult, some experts say.Tests for methamphetamine are wrong an average of 26 percent - and possibly up to 70 percent - of the time, according to studies by the University of Kansas Medical Center, U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the American Association for Clinical Chemistry. [DailyNews]Of course, drug policy and science cannot coexist harmoniously, thus babies are taken from mothers who test positive, even though the tests are constantly wrong. In one tragic case, a child died in foster care after being wrongly separated from her mother:Growing up in Los Angeles County's foster care system, Elizabeth Espinoza is sure of one thing: A baby needs its mother.Espinoza, who was separated from her own mother when she was young because of neglect, also had her newborn baby taken by the foster-care system when she tested positive for marijuana and cocaine at the hospital after giving birth.Just three months later, the baby, Gerardo, died when his foster mother strapped him into a car seat, took him to a neighbor's home and left him in the car seat on a bed, according to a lawsuit filed against the county's Department of Children and Family Services seeking unspecified damages. [DailyNews]I hope I'm not being generous, but I really think almost anyone would agree that this is just sickening and horrible. The press coverage will hopefully initiate progress towards cleaning up the procedures that contributed to this travesty. I will hold out hope that common sense can prevail over the mindlessness of taking children from their parents based on evidence that is proven to be wrong up to 70% of the time, particularly now that the alternatives we have available for those children have been demonstrated to be fatally inadequate.But there is also a larger lesson here that must not escape our attention. Think for a moment about how many women have already been falsely accused under this wildly unjust policy. Think about the social consequences of tearing families apart based on deeply flawed science in a criminal justice system that strikes without hesitation but drags its heels when it comes to righting such ubiquitous wrongs. Ask yourself, also, how such a policy was ever implemented in the first place, doomed as it was to destroy innocent families so capriciously. Once again, we are faced with a monumental travesty, grand in scope, yet remarkably simple in origin; we should protect unborn children from drug-using mothers. We've wreaked unimaginable and undue suffering upon innocent parents and children in pursuit of the noblest of ideals. That, unfortunately, is the story of most aspects of our drug policy when they receive appropriate scrutiny. The totality of such repeated travesties forms a terrifying mosaic, the true, yet largely untold story of how our drug policies destroy innocent lives each and every day in ways we might never expect.It is precisely because the idea to protect babies from drugs is such a no-brainer that a plan was drafted with no brains.
Drug Czar Furious Over New York Times Editorial
Just watch how the New York Times editorial board picks apart the Drug Czar's propaganda:According to the White House, this country is scoring big wins in the war on drugs, especially against the cocaine cartels. Officials celebrate that cocaine seizures are up â leading to higher prices on American streets. Cocaine use by teenagers is down, and, officials say, workplace tests suggest adult use is falling.John Walters, the White House drug czar, declared earlier this year that âcourageous and effectiveâ counternarcotics efforts in Colombia and Mexico âare disrupting the production and flow of cocaine.âThis enthusiasm rests on a very selective reading of the data. Another look suggests that despite the billions of dollars the United States has spent battling the cartels, it has hardly made a dent in the cocaine trade.The Drug Czar's blog fired back with a predictably off-target, but uncharacteristically hostile response:Today's New York Times has published an editorial that willfully cherry picks data in order to conform to their tired, 1970's editorial viewpoint that we're "losing the war on drugs." Despite our numerous efforts to provide the Times with the facts, their editorial staff has chosen to ignore irrefutable data regarding the progress that has been made in making our nation's drug problem smaller. Â And yet, as anyone can see, the NYT piece clearly acknowledges this so-called "irrefutable data." They list the Drug Czar's favorite talking points right in the first paragraph. But then they do something he wasn't prepared for: they say it doesn't matter. The salient point of the whole editorial is that "the drug cartels are not running for cover." In short, for all the Drug Czar's proud proclamations of progress, the drug trade surges on unabated.It's really just embarrassing that the Drug Czar's only response is to repeat the very points already acknowledged and overcome by NYT. His whole argument is that rates of drug abuse are lower than they were at their highest point in history. That's true, but it's not surprising, not impressive, and not even remotely a result of the Drug Czar's poisonous public policies. With the rage of a shamed tyrant, Walters claims a monopoly on "the facts," as though only the Drug Czar is qualified to interpret the success of his programs. It's like calling CarMax to ask them if they have the best deals on used cars. Beyond all that, ponder the absurdity of the very notion that we must consult the Drug Czar and his overcooked statistics in order to know whether or not our drug policy is working really well. We can observe these things for ourselves. When we lead the world in incarceration, when we lead the world in drug use, when we drug test our own sewage, and deny organs to medical marijuana patients, and murder innocent people in their homes, and subsidize brutal civil wars in foreign nations, we have nothing to celebrate. All of these grand travesties fester before our eyes and are not mitigated, even to a microscopic extent, by the indignant self-congratulatory fulminations of the very people who visited this spectacular nightmare upon us.In other words, when the pool is green, no one gives a crap if the lifeguard says the pH balance is normal.
Drug Czar site
I was reading one of Scotts blogs and it contained a link to the drug czar's home site.Did you know that marijuana was addictive?The site has a list of articles that are written by a whole slew of res
Lunatic Easily Convinces Police He's a Federal Drug Agent
What happens when a crazy person tells local police he's a federal agent and offers to help them fight drugs?Busts began. Houses were ransacked. People, in handcuffs on their front lawns, named names. To some, like Mayor Otis Schulte, who considers the county around Gerald, population 1,171, âa meth capital of the United States,â the drug scourge seemed to be fading at last.Those whose homes were searched, though, grumbled about a peculiar change in what they understood, from television mainly, to be the law.They said the agent, a man some had come to know as âSergeant Bill,â boasted that he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.â¦Sergeant Bill, it turned out, was no federal agent, but Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed former trucking company owner, a former security guard, a former wedding-performing minister, a former small-town cop from 23 miles down the road. [New York Times]The whole thing provides yet another exhibit in the colossal incompetence that has become so routine and predictable in the war on drugs. If some nutjob showed up at the fire department with a badge and an axe, they'd tell him to hit the road. They wouldn't follow him in and out of burning buildings. It is precisely because of the massive multi-tiered drug war bureaucracy that his psychotic scheme seemed somehow plausible to everyone. Drug enforcement is the one occupation so lacking in accountability, so consumed by macho tough-guy posturing, that some maniac can just walk through the door and fit right in. It's a match made in hell.And it wasn't even the cops who figured out he was an imposter. It was a reporter, months into this mindboggling hoax. Even when he recklessly and routinely violated suspects' constitutional rights, the police who followed him around never thought anything of it. That's how easy it is. His flagrantly illegal and incompetent behavior actually made them think he was real.That this even happened is a potent testament to the fact that drug enforcement in America is thoroughly rotten and diseased to its core. If you see vultures circling around something, you know it is not healthy.
Mexico's Drug War is Killing Innocent People
The Drug Czar proudly announced yesterday that President Bush has signed the Merida initiative, which will spend U.S. tax dollars on Mexico's drug war. Here's a sample of what our money will be spent on:The soldiers had apparently panicked at the speeding Hummer and attacked it from two sides, killing both the civilians and their own troops in the cross fire."These soldiers are idiots. What protection do they give us?" Maldonado asked, staring at the dirt road where the killings had taken place. "They should get out of our communities and back to their barracks."The debacle in Santiago in Sinaloa state, a stronghold of drug traffickers, is one of a series of blunders by Mexican soldiers waging a bloody campaign against narcotics cartels â a crackdown that the U.S. Congress is looking at supporting with up to $1.6 billion. Since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and sent out 25,000 troops to take on the mafias, soldiers have killed at least 13 unarmed civilians. In the latest incident this month, soldiers shot dead two men speeding through a checkpoint in Chihuahua state along with another motorist who was unfortunate enough to be driving behind them. The public was also shocked when troops shot dead two women and three children traveling to a funeral in Sinaloa in 2007. [Time]Amazingly, Drug Czar John Walters boasted yesterday that Mexico's drug war will "protect human rights," even though he personally opposed requiring Mexican authorities to uphold human rights standards. As frustrating as it is to consider that we're subsidizing the killing of innocent people across Mexico, let's not forget that it's happening here, too.
We Support NYPD's Plan to Use Written Consent Forms
Since many of you may be skeptical of NYPD when it comes to matters of search and seizure, I'd like to clarify that this is a very good thing:The New York City Police Department wants suspects to sign a consent form before searching their homes or cars, a move that eliminates the need for a warrant and is meant to provide police a layer of legal protection, Newsday has learned.The initiative was put in place because consent searches are often challenged at trial - and jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said.At the same time, sources said, there has been concern within the NYPD about a handful of cases in which an officer's truthfulness was recently called into question. [Newsday]Written consent policies are a win-win situation for police and the public. When consent is given in writing, police have an easier time demonstrating in court that consent was given voluntarily. Since evidence seized during a consent search is almost always legally admissible, defendants challenging such evidence must argue that consent was given involuntarily or not at all. As a result, police spend a considerable amount of time in court defending the manner in which consent was obtained. A written form goes a long way towards resolving such conflicts.For the citizen, written consent provides a quick reminder that permitting searches is optional, while simultaneously creating an added layer of protection in disputes over whether consent was given voluntarily. The form will go a long way towards resolving widespread concerns about police erroneously claiming to have received consent before conducting a search. Finally, there's an additional important point illustrated here. As Newsday reports, "jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said." For anyone questioning the viability of refusing consent during a police encounter, this should go a long way towards explaining how asserting 4th Amendment rights can help citizens achieve a more desirable outcome. It serves as a helpful reminder that, even if police violate your rights and search despite your refusal, any evidence they discover can be effectively challenged in court. Obviously, this is a frequent occurrence if NYPD cites such outcomes as a reason for moving towards a written consent policy.Given the significance of the citizen's decision whether or not to permit police to look through his/her belongings, a written form is just the obvious, common sense approach to establishing whether consent was given.Update: Pete Guither at DrugWarRant has a good post discussing the NYPD policy and explaining why it is never in the citizen's interest to consent to a police search.
No Charges Filed Against Man Who Mistook A Cop For a Burglar and Shot Him
Anyone who has followed the Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick cases knows how hard it is to convince police and prosecutors that you thought you were being burglarized when you fired on police who charged into your home unexpectedly. This bizarre story from Alabama puts a new twist on that tragically familiar narrative:An off-duty Huntsville police officer was shot in the shoulder early Saturday when a friend mistook him for a burglar.Police Chief Henry Reyes said Tony McElyea, a Strategic Counterdrug Team agent, decided to surprise a good friend and former police academy cadet at his home in the 1300 block of Virginia Boulevard.McElyea, his girlfriend, and the friend's wife snuck into the home at about 2:30 a.m.McElyea walked down the hallway and started shouting "Wake up, wake up," at his friend, Reyes said.The friend, who Reyes said didn't immediately recognize McElyea, grabbed a .38-caliber revolver and shot him."It's just one of those things where he got startled and reacted," Reyes said. "It's unfortunate that it happened, but it's fortunate that it's not any worse."â¦The incident has been ruled an accident, and no charges will be filed against the shooter, whose name was not immediately released. [Huntsville Times]So apparently, when you take the botched drug raid out of the equation, suddenly it makes perfect sense that someone would use force to defend their home when intruders come bursting in. Of course, in this case there was no warrant and no vague criminal activity for which the homeowner could be accused of attempting to evade capture. So maybe it's a little unfair to compare this to the Maye and Frederick cases.Still, it's just impossible to ignore the fact that Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick are no more guilty than this man, who wasn't even charged. They made the same fundamental error he made: thinking that their lives were in danger and using force against the intruder. It shouldnât matter whether or not police had a warrant. The bottom line is that if police behave like burglars, they might be mistaken for burglars. Citizens who make that mistake are not guilty of murdering a cop. They are victims of bad policing brought on by a bad drug policy.
New Data: Going to Work Sober May Increase Risk of Workplace Fatality
The Drug Czar's latest blog post, entitled Is Your Workplace Drug Free? If Not, We Can Help, begins as follows:The U.S. Department of Labor reports that the vast majority of drug users are employed, and when they arrive for work, they don't leave their problems at the door. Of the 17.2 million illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2005, 12.9 million (74.8 percent) were employed either full or part time.Ok, so nearly ¾ of illegal drug users are employed. They have jobs, just like everybody else. Interesting. But here's where you're supposed to get freaked out:Furthermore, research indicates that between 10 and 20 percent of the nation's workers who die on the job test positive for alcohol or other drugs.Umm, pardon me, but so what? The National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 8.3% of respondents had used illegal drugs in the past month and 50.9% had used alcohol. If that many people are using alcohol and other drugs regularly, then it is not surprising to learn that 10-20% of people who died at work had drugs in their system. It doesn't prove that the drugs caused the accident.Think about this: 80-90% of people killed at work tested negative for alcohol/drugs, even though more than half the population uses them. If anything, the evidence suggests a frightening link between sobriety and workplace fatalities. But don't take it from me. After all, it was the Drug Czar who brought this up.