BLOG
Police Who Steal From Drug Suspects Are Charged With Theft of "Government" Property
The drug war has a rather tragic tendency to turn police into perps. Our ability to run a weekly feature with the latest news on domestic drug war corruption is just one example of the ubiquity with which law-enforcement becomes complicit in the very activity they are responsible for preventing.Inevitably, when one hears about a police officer being sentenced to jail time, you simply know that their crimes were drug war-related:On one occasion, prosecutors said Silva acquiesced while Kasperzyk improperly relocated confiscated narcotics during a drug raid to solidify a case against a suspect. Another time, prosecutors said Kasperzyk stole $1,000 confiscated during a drug raid and later gave $500 to Silva. Silva kept the money and did not report the theft, prosecutors said.Kasperzyk has pleaded guilty to theft of government property and a civil rights conspiracy. He is scheduled to be sentenced in March. [Hartford Courant]So if police steal during a drug raid, they're charged with robbing the government, not the suspect. It is often literally impossible for a drug suspect to be robbed by police, because their property ceases to belong to them once police start grabbing at it. Whether it ends up in an evidence bag or an officer's pocket, it's all the same to the innocent-until-proven-guilty drug suspect.Isn't it interesting that the government maintained its ownership of the property here even though the arresting officers turned out to be liars and thieves? Even when police are found guilty of planting and stealing evidence, the government still keeps the fruits of their felonious labor. Anyone presiding over a policy such as this has no business enforcing laws against theft in the first place.How can government possibly expect moral accountability from agents who are trained to steal on its behalf?
A Column That Deserves a Mention -- AJC's Cynthia Tucker Compares the Drug War with Prohibition
This column came out on December 30th, but it's still noteworthy. Cynthia Tucker, Editorial Page Editor with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, opined, "Decades Later, War on Drugs is Still a Loser." Though Tucker doesn't directly come out for legalization, she suggestively asks, "Isn't it time to admit that this second Prohibition has been as big a failure as the last -- the one aimed at alcohol?" And one of the points she makes is that "thousands of criminals, many of them foreigners, have been enriched." The creation of profits for criminals is a key anti-prohibitionist argument. Check it out here...
Ecstasy Laced With Meth is Bad, But it's Not My Fault
The Drug Czar is warning everyone about an epidemic of meth-laced ecstasy tablets coming into the country from Canada:Alarmingly, more than 55 percent of the Ecstasy samples seized in the United States last year contained methamphetamine. Cutting their product with less-expensive methamphetamine boosts profits for Canadian Ecstasy producers, likely increases the addictive potential of their product, and effectively gives a dangerous âface liftâ to a designer drug that had fallen out of fashion with young American drug users. [Pushing Back] I'll tell you whose fault this isn't: mine. See, I don't think ecstasy should even be illegal. I don't want it to be manufactured by drug gangs in Canada, or anyone else who might lace it with methamphetamine or other noxious crap. I think it should be manufactured by licensed professionals and sold to adults through regulated outlets. Many people have been saying this for a long time to no avail and now look what's happened. So if meth-laced ecstasy isnât my fault, whose fault is it? Ironically, but rather obviously, it is the fault of the exact people who now complain about all the bad ecstasy rolling across our northern border.
SWAT Team Shoots Baby, Kills Mom in Drug Raid Gone Wrong
It has become a nauseating chore just to report on all the innocent people that get killed in the drug war. But until our public servants stop killing us to protect us from drugs, the reporting must continue:Tarika Wilson, 26, was shot and her 1-year-old son was wounded when Lima police conducted a drug raid on their home Friday night, prompting members of the black community to organize a candlelight vigil and demand answers from police."They shot my daughter and her baby," Ms. Jennings said through tears while being consoled by other family members. "The police have to pay for what they did. They went in that home shooting and killed her." [Toledo Blade]Tarika Wilson's boyfriend was arrested for marijuana and crack, but police havenât reported how much they found. Something tells me this is because the amount is very small. Too small to justify shooting a baby. Similarly, they havenât said a word about why Ms. Wilson was shot. If they had a good answer, we'd know by now what it is. Here's the thing: when you hear about police shooting a baby and killing an innocent mother of six, you just know the drug war had something to do with it. Overwhelmingly, it is the drug war that sends adrenalin-charged cops into private homes with their fingers on the trigger of a machine gun. In a post-drug war world, babies and grandmas won't get shot in their houses by police. I can't wait.More at DrugWarRant and The Agitator.
Barack Obama's Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Record
Jeralyn Merritt provides an overview of Barack Obama's record on criminal justice and drug policy issues, on the TalkLeft blog.
Good Guys, Bad Guys: Bills Filed to Improve or Worsen Crack Cocaine Sentencing
There are "good guys" and "bad guys" in Congress. More accurately, perhaps, there are members of Congress who do good things at least some of the time, and members of Congress who do bad things some of the time. Among the latest good guys are Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Democrat of Texas, and 32 cosponsors of her bill H.R. 4545, the "Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007," introduced 12/13. H.R. 4545 would ameliorate some of the atrocity that is federal mandatory minimum sentencing by reducing crack cocaine penalties to equal those existing for powder cocaine. The Supreme Court ruling and the Sentencing Commission recommendations that came down recently don't help with the mandatory minimums, but only help with sentencing guidelines cases. The bill also includes language intended to focus federal drug enforcement activity on high-level players instead of small-timers as they do now. One of the latest bad guys is Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican also of Texas, the sponsor of H.R. 4842, introduced 12/19, a nasty bill to reverse the Sentencing Commission's positive ruling in favor of making the recent crack sentencing reductions retroactive. Smith only has eight cosponsors, as compared with Jackson-Lee's 32, and Jackson-Lee has the chairman of the subcommittee of Judiciary that would consider it, Bobby Scott (D-VA). I don't see John Conyers (D-MI) on there yet, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee itself, but he's just as much on our side as Scott is. I don't think Smith has much of a chance on this one, but you never know. Jackson-Lee has been a strong support of our efforts repealing the Higher Education Act's drug provision, and spoke at our 2005 press conference:
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
These are the addresses for petitioning the agency responsible for the appeal of the pot firing case: Alberta Human Rights and citizenship commission, 800 Standard Life center, 10405 Jasper Avenue,
Major Media Dodges Precedent Setting Drug Case
The story appeared in the same issue of The Vancouver Province, newspaper as did the crack pipe story. It appeared on page A24, which is about as buried as a story can be. In 2002, one John Chiasson (I think I did time with this guy), was fired from his job at the Alberta tar sands project for the crime of being exposed to pot smoke sometime in the past 45 days.
Public Outraged
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority announced today that they would begin handing out mouth pieces for crack pipes in an effort to prevent the spread of blood borne diseases, mainly Hep-C. Every-where I went today, people were bitching and whining about the waste of taxpayers' money.
Traffickers Are Hiring Flat-chested Women to Smuggle Drugs in Their Bras
You can't make this stuff up. Unfortunately, you don't have to because the drug war brings to life new and unfathomable absurdities each and every day:Customs officials on the other side of the Pond are on the lookout for curvy drug mules after customs officers arrested a woman for attempting to smuggle £50,000 worth of cocaine in concealed pouches built into her bra. Criminals are now being said to favor "tall, flat-chested women who don't arouse suspicion when they have fuller figures." [Radar]So now we can add both flat and full-chested women to the drug courier profile. We shall search women's underwear high and low because Victoria's got a new secret now and we don't want those fun bags getting into the hands of children.
Texas Cop Says "Put Addicts in Jail Where They Belong"
Usually, drug warriors at least pay lip service to the idea that we're supposed to be helping people recover from addiction. Drug war supporters frequently feign compassion by touting their support for drug treatment, all the while defending policies that trash the lives of users and make recovery that much harder.But today, I found a drug warrior that's willing to say what the rest are probably thinking. His name is Wayne C. Williams and he's been putting drug users in jail for 32 years. Williams was so disturbed by an op-ed from former cop/drug policy reformer Howard Wooldridge that he wrote a crazy letter to the Amarillo Globe News complaining that drug addicts don't get punished enough: Too many people use rehabilitation as a way to stay out of jail or prison.A person hooked on drugs won't get clean for his family, but only when he hits rock bottom and wants help for himself.Put addicts in jail where they belong and ease up on the probation, which usually is a joke in itself. [Amarillo.com]Rarely does one find the sheer cruelty of the drug war expressed with such unabashed self-righteousness. This man is literally insisting that we must smash victims of drug addiction in order to demonstrate the harms of drug use. It just tells you everything you need to know about the drug war and the people who carry it out on a daily basis.In the war on drugs, one can be diagnosed with the disease of drug addiction merely by being found in possession of drugs. At that point, one is then broken down and stripped of their family and property. They are removed from their job and their home, banished into a dark brutal hole amongst violent thugs and sociopaths, and once every last thing they have has been taken away, they are asked to start acting normal.It's really a perfect mess as far as public policies go, which is why it's so damned hard to find a defender of the drug war who isn't paid to participate in it.
Happy New Year
I was just listening to The Fox in Vancouver.They keep playing this idiot that thinks that a raise in the minimum wage will hurt his bottom line and "only help the guy that's making $8.50 hr." It reminded me that there are always two sides to an issue and it's really hard to break through to "them." What I do know is I was on the other side.
New Deputy Drug Czar: "We Have One Year Left"
Last week, Scott M. Burns was promoted to the #2 position at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He celebrated the occasion with a candid acknowledgment of the office's blatant political partisanship:It has been quite a journey from Cedar City to the White House. All I can say is it's a great country that someone like me can have that opportunity," Burns said. "We have one year left and, as the president says, we're going to sprint to the finish." [Salt Lake Tribune]Sure, the Drug Czar's office is part of the president's cabinet. And it's already been exposed for illegally campaigning on behalf of republicans. But couldn't Burns at least pretend he's here to serve the people and not just the Bush Administration?Either way, he hits the nail on the head when he acknowledges that the partisan political propagandists at the helm of the ONDCP will not be reinstated by the next administration. They have "one year left," indeed. They've bucked congressional oversight at every turn, forcing ONDCP creator Joe Biden to complain that the drug czar's office is operating "like an ivory tower."Not even a petty formality like Burns's nomination itself could proceed without the wrath of congress being entered into the record. Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy had to say:We will also hear from one nominee for a high-level position in the Executive Office of the President â Scott M. Burns to be Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We consider his nomination on the heels of decisions by the Supreme Court and the U.S. Sentencing Commission that represent moderate but powerful steps to reform the unfair disparity that exists in Federal crack cocaine sentencing laws.Yet, the Administration continues to be silent on any reform in this area. For more than 20 years, we have tolerated a Federal cocaine sentencing policy that treats crack offenders more harshly than cocaine offenders. This policy has unacceptably had a disparate impact on people of color and the poor â without any empirical justification. The Administrationâs failure to support even the slightest modification of crack penalties is both a surprise and a deep disappointment.Ironically, had there been more than "one year left," one wonders if Congress would have made more of an effort to disrupt ONDCP's power structure than to simply promote a long-time insider who shares responsibility for the perpetual controversy and incompetence that we've all come to expect from President Bush's drug war experts.
Check out Wikipedia
I was just perusing my back editions of The Georgia Straight, Vancouver's lone voice that's not controlled by Canwest Global Media. I found a letter to the paper that claims that: "The prohibition of cannabis/hemp/marijuana began with the prohibition of opium, which itself began with the Anti-Asian Riot in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1907.
FOX News Bars Drug Policy Discussion From the Republican Debates by Excluding Ron Paul
Looks like FOX News is trying to put a lid on Ron Paul:ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.â¦The network said it had limited space in its studio -- a souped-up bus -- and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls. [CNN]Notwithstanding the arbitrary decision to use a bus that doesn't fit everyone, their selective use of polling data doesn't tell the whole story either. Paul is at least as popular as Fred Thompson in New Hampshire, where the debate is to take place:Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll's margin of error.One effect of keeping Ron Paul out of the debate will be to ensure that drug policy is not discussed at all during the event. Paul is surely the only republican candidate that would ever voluntarily mention drug policy during the debate. He wants to end the drug war, while the others want to keep the lights turned off and pretend that everything is going splendidly. I'm not saying FOX News is trying to stifle the drug policy debate specifically. Paul's views on drug policy arenât the only reason his candidacy is controversial. But to whatever extent his unique views on this issue contribute to his frequent designation as a "fringe" candidate, that's a shame. Whether or not Paul's views on drug policy are a primary source of concern among his critics, this is certainly one issue that is attracting supporters to his campaign. All of this stands to demonstrate that opposition to the drug war is energizing voters on the right as well as the left, and that's why it's disturbing to see the appearance of bias against him in the media. If anything, Paul's fundraising success should demonstrate that many republicans want more discussion of drug policy, not less.Growing support for Paul's campaign may ensure that his views can't be censored as easily as some would prefer. If he bests any of the FOX Five in Iowa or New Hampshire, it will become that much harder to deny him a place at the podium. And the odds of a top five showing aren't looking too bad. As the comment section of this post will soon reveal, people really like Ron Paul.Update: It wasn't my intention to start a debate over Ron Paul's candidacy in the comment section. We donât endorse or oppose candidates. We just report on their drug policy positions and reflect on the implications of presidential politics for our movement. This isn't the best place to debate the rest of Ron Paul's platform.But it is interesting to note the intensity of sentiments both for and against Paul. He's generated a significant buzz, which will hopefully help to illustrate the viability of drug policy reform as an asset on the campaign trail. Update: FOX News pundits question their own network's decision to exclude Ron Paul in light of his strong showing in Iowa.
You Can't Protect the Children's Futures by Putting Them in Jail for Marijuana
Fed up with prison overcrowding, the Texas legislature passes a law encouraging police to ticket rather than arrest people for small amounts of marijuana. And, wouldnât you know it, police and prosecutors are ignoring it and fidgeting around rationalizing their determination to haul every pot smoker off to jail. Why? They consider it their job to overcrowd the prisons.And as you might expect, we're told this is all necessary to protect the children:For Greg Davis, Collin County's first assistant district attorney, one of his qualms with the new law is the perception created by ticketing for a drug offense, instead of making an arrest."It may... lead some people to believe that drug use is no more serious than double parking," Mr. Davis said. "We don't want to send that message to potential drug users, particularly young people." [Dallas Morning News]It's not enough for Mr. Davis to brand them with criminal records that could haunt them for the rest of their lives. They must also suffer the indignity of being handcuffed and tossed in an overcrowded steel box full of dangerous thugs the moment they're found with marijuana. Surely, that will show them how much we care.And while we're at it, double-parking really is a vastly more serious crime than having marijuana. If Americans double-parked at the same rate that they smoke pot, we'd be living a parking lot. Pizzas would be undeliverable. Productivity would generally suffer considerably. At least the police in Austin are following the new policy, and for innovative reasons you might never even think of:With the high price of gasoline, Mr. Wade said, writing citations also saves money because officers don't have to drive into Austin from the county's outskirts to put a suspect in jail.Is that what these people care about? Do we have to start talking about trivial crap like gas mileage to stop marijuana arrests? I will if I have to, but damnâ¦
The 10% Crow
The Canadian border services agency and the RCMP are crowing about their latest seizure: 61.5 kilos of cocaine were seized around the 23 of Dec. 2007. There's the usual back slapping and congratulatory praises from agency to agency.
60 minutes
I hope every one watched 60 minutes tonite.Their story on the big mess that the feds have created in California over medical marijuana was a major eye opener.The minister(methodist,I think),that spons
The Years Best
I guess newspapers can't resist the urge to one up them selves.The Vancouver,Province Newspaper,in it's years most watched stories named the drug war as the star in three;The Picton Murders,The Drug Trade Gang War Murders(19 to date),and the Whole Justice System.The paper decries the lax sentencing and revolving door justice in B.C.