Busted: Stone Cowboys, Narco-Lords and Washington's War on Drugs
Mike Gray, Editor

Buy the Book Today!

Busted, a new anthology, builds a convincing argument for the legalization of all drugs -- from heroin to methamphetamine to LSD. Spanning three decades, it tells readers why the War on Drugs has failed, charting the violence, chaos, and corruption that the War on Drugs has spawned. It includes frontline reporting from all over the world, literary journalism, public records, and provocative commentary from the left and right.

From LA Weekly, The Terror War on Drugs.

Sad personal stories, but people should know about them. For more on efforts to change the irrational, ill-advised, unjust, discriminatory drug law penalties in the U.S., take a visit over to FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) and acquaint yourself with their terrific work.

Pass the word on the good news this week: The Michigan Legislature has repealed that state's draconian mandatory minimum drug sentences:

"A bipartisan majority of the Michigan Senate today passed a historic package of three sentencing reform bills – HB 5394 (H-3), HB 5395 (H-2) and HB 6510 (H-1) – that eliminate most of the state’s Draconian mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Governor John Engler is expected to sign the bills"

Here is FAMM's fact sheet on the Michigan laws.

"In a direct affront to the federal government, the Santa Cruz City Council voted unanimously this week to deputize Mike and Valerie Corral, co-founders of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, and authorized them under city law to cultivate, distribute and possess marijuana for medicinal purposes."

"We're just trying to give them a little bit more support and legitimacy," Vice Mayor Scott Kennedy said Thursday. "We don't support drug trafficking. We don't support marijuana. But we do support what they're doing for the terminally ill and terribly suffering."

"Kennedy said the Corrals stand apart from other medical marijuana providers in Santa Cruz because their program has taken greater pains to cater only to the very ill who come bearing recommendations from doctors."

"They're very conscientious, very impressive in terms of their integrity," he said. "They enjoy a high level of confidence, both in the medical and law enforcement community, which can't be said about any of the other medical marijuana distributors."

"But city officials worry most about the patients, Kennedy said, and the possibility that they would be stripped of needed medicinal relief if the dispensary were shut down."

For more about the raid on the Corral's dispensary, go here, here and here.

Canada is moving to decriminalize small amounts of pot. It won't be legal to possess marijuana, but the consequence will be a fine rather than jail. Colorado and many other states have done this for years--e.g., possession of up to an ounce here is a petty offense punishable by a $100 fine.

As Daily Kos points out, the U.S. is miffed.

There is no leniency for hashish or other cannabis-based products in the Canadian proposal. It simply says that for small amounts of pot - including plants cultivated at home - ''fines would be paid without a court appearance and enforcement would not result in a criminal conviction.''

Marijuana is not the gateway drug that anti-drug crusaders have portrayed it to be since the 1930's (Remember the film "Reefer Madness"?) Check out this letter to the editor of the Canadian National Post that states the case for why smoking marijuana should not be a crime. It concludes with:

"Pot decriminalization has long been seen as a liberal cause: Left-wingers have traditionally opposed government efforts to outlaw good times. But conservatives should get on the bandwagon as well. Our marijuana laws represent an entirely unjustified government intrusion into citizens' lives. About 20,000 people are arrested annually on marijuana-related charges. The investigation, arrest, trial and punishment of this small army represents a massive, unjustifiable waste of our tax dollars."

Between the cost of the electronic surveillance the government has foisted upon us with the Patriot Act, the cost of investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders and the expense of initiating an invasion of Iraq, is it any wonder the economy stinks, stocks are down and state and local governments are cutting vital services and programs to balance their budgets?

Let's forego the privacy-instrusions, unhire all those new prosecutors (at $100k plus, per year) who were going to prosecute those caught on tape for routine crimes and all the new FBI agents who were going to spend thousands of hours including overtime listening to our private conversations. Let's stop enforcing our draconian drug laws (we're not naive enough to think changing them is going to happen any time soon, although we'll keep working on it.) Let's skip the preventive assault on the citizens of Iraq. Let's go back to taxing those who can afford to pay. While we're at it, how about the money we're paying to keep detainees who haven't committed a crime in jails under Special Administrative Measures? How much does it cost per prisoner per day for SAM? (It's about $22,000. per year per inmate in jails under normal conditions).

We're no economist, but we are getting alarmed over where the money is going to come from that the Bush Administration is spending on its own agenda in the name of fighting terrorism and homeland security and patriotism. Will we end up like Argentina did last year, broke and defaulting on our obligations? Laugh now, but how can you be sure?

Update: Back to Canada and marijuana, this came in tonight from NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws):

"[Therefore,] the Committee recommends that [Parliament] establish a comprehensive strategy for decriminalizing the possession and cultivation of not more than 30 grams of cannabis for personal use."

"Under the Committee's decriminalization scheme, persons found with small amounts of pot would be issued a ticket, and ordered to pay a small fine. Marijuana offenders would no longer be subject to arrest or a criminal record under the plan, and fines could be paid without appearing in court."

"NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup endorsed the Committee's recommendation, noting that 12 U.S. states have enacted similar policies. Seventy-two percent of Americans say they would support a similar national decriminalization policy in the United States, according to a recent CNN/Time Magazine poll."

"The American public recognizes that adults who smoke marijuana responsibly are not criminals and they do not want to spend our nation's limited police resources arresting and jailing them," Stroup said. "Canada's impending decision to decriminalize pot is one our federal government will not be able to ignore."

Our post on MADD seems to have struck a chord with a lot of people--across party lines--we got an email praising our post from Drinking and Driving - National Motorists Association-- check them out, they have a lot to say and some good referral links. Their mission statement begins with:

"The NMA supports drinking and driving regulations based on reasonable standards that differentiate between responsible, reasonable behavior and reckless, dangerous behavior. The NMA does not support "zero tolerance" concepts, nor does it endorse unconstitutional enforcement and judicial procedures that violate motorists' rights."

Instpundit reports on MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) today. We thought we'd contribute a link to this site, DUI Gulag which takes MADD on front and center. From their home page:

"Despite what MADD propaganda would have you believe, in 1996 only .0000143 percent of the American population was killed in so-called "alcohol related" motor vehicle accidents where someone had a blood alcohol content as high as 0.10% . Government statistics indicate that each year more people die as a result of accidental drowning in America than die in low BAC related motor vehicle accidents. A recent study at a major U.S. university found that low BAC drinking drivers pose far less danger to public safety than do non-drinking drivers who have sleep apnea. In fact, your chances of being killed as a direct result of medical malpractice is 28 times higher than your chances of being killed in a motor vehicle accident involving a low BAC driver.

Despite the extremely low statistical threat to public safety posed by low BAC drinking drivers, more than 600,000 low BAC drivers are arrested and convicted for "drunk driving" in America each year.

Once arrested these otherwise law-abiding citizens are subjected to imprisonment; forced to pay huge fines and court costs; forced to pay the costs of probation; suffer unjust property forfeitures; forced to attend political re-education camps; subjected to psychological testing; forced to engage in involuntary forced labor; suffer government sponsored public humiliation; suffer the loss of driving privileges; suffer loss of respect for the courts and their government; suffer the loss of their jobs; their self esteem; and the destruction of their families.

This unfortunate state of affairs has been foisted upon America by an anti-alcohol, political action organization known as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, (MADD)."

Then read about MADD's "Real Political Agenda" and about MADD's Tax Exempt Status.

We're in court for the rest of the day, but we posted up a storm yesterday to give you all plenty of new material. We hope you read our entry on the death of lying lab chemist Fred Zain.

Update: NACDL media director Dan Dodson thinks we've missed the point on Madd and the real consequence/motivation behind the lowering BAC requirements. "The insurance industry likes the high-risk premiums that result--usually about four times regular rates. And no one can afford more than the minimum liability limits, so the victims of DUI convicts' later mistakes, DUI-related or not, have a minimal pool of insurance money for compensation."

The Los Angeles Times explains why today's crop of accused corporate executives are finding plea agreements preferable to the risk of going to trial--under the federal sentencing guidelines, they could be facing sentences of thirty years to life if convicted at trial.

"Even though the plea agreements still hold out the prospect of serious jail time, defense attorneys say these kinds of deals are becoming harder to turn down as federal officials, using tough new sentencing rules, threaten targets in corporate scandals with prison terms of 25 years, 30 years or more."

Faced with those kinds of numbers, many choose to plead guilty--even when they are innocent. They just can't take the risk. "Defense attorneys say prosecutors in major corporate corruption cases are proposing plea agreements containing 15-to-20-year sentences in negotiations with top executives who the defense contends never had any intent to commit crimes."

"What worries me is that there will be some white-collar guys who won't plead to an agreement like that, go to trial and get a 30-year sentence they don't deserve," [Washington lawyer Bob] Bennett said. "These draconian sentences heretofore have been reserved for the worst of the worst — drug kingpins and multiple murderers."

Actually, not just drug kingpins face those sentences. We have plenty of low-level clients who face them as well. Even a young, first offender can get 30 years to life under the sentencing guidelines if the offense involves a substantial amount of crack.

Bush and Ashcroft's love affair with building more prisons to house more low-level offenders and maintain our reputation as a Prison Nation will undoubtedly continue for the next two years--and longer if Bush is re-elected. Now that the rich will also fall prey to this Administration's mania, perhaps the wealthy will make substantial funds available to groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums who have been working tirelessly for years to make the public see the folly of this response to crime.

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton has appointed a "Gang Czar" to help in that city's fight against gang crime. We wrote about Bratton's announcement he would seek federal aid in the fight yesterday.

The new czar is Michael Hillman, "a former SWAT supervisor and member of the anti-terrorism squad."

At his swearing in Wednesday, Hillman "served notice that while the latest anti-gang effort would not throw the Bill of Rights out of the window, it would also undoubtedly lead to an increased number of "field contacts" in which patrol officers stop citizens on the street to be questioned and sometimes frisked."

"Make no mistake about it, for us to be able to do this, we are going to need the community's support," Hillman told television station KCAL in an interview earlier Wednesday."

"We are also going to need support for the fact that police officers are going to be able to stop people based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause."

"Bratton said Wednesday that he and Hillman were on the same page in term of strategies to combat gangs and that "he understands my goal of gaining the respect of the community."

Los Angeles has the highest murder rate in the country. Officials believe the city's 100,000 gang-bangers heavily contribute to it.

Bratton's plan is to involve the feds by charging the gang members with federal crimes like racketeering and tax evasion. He said the strategy worked in fighting the mob in NY and it should also work in LA.

One criminologist is not so sure. "Criminologist Howard Abadinsky told the Los Angeles Times that the New York mob investigations were run by the FBI and took years of patient surveillance to put together. In addition, he said, Los Angeles gangs are far larger than the Mafia."

"You need to stop recruitment," he said. "The problem you've got in L.A. is you have an unlimited supply of applicants."

We think Mr. Abadinsky has a point. One way to stop recruitment is to offer options to the at-risk youth of South Central --through programs that offer a way out of that hellhole.

Hopefully, not all of LA's money will be spent on enforcement and some will go towards prevention. Knowing Bratton, he's thought of this long before we have.

LA Police Chief William Bratton has a new strategy for fighting the city's gangs: Calling in the Feds.

Bratton will ask the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles to charge gang members with tax and racketeering offenses, a tactic, he said, that met with success against the Mob.

We've noticed the police department has a whole new jargon under Bratton:

"The initiative will not mean mass arrests, but targeted policing, said Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell."

"We don't want to come out like we did in the '80s," McDonnell said, referring to "occupying army" tactics favored by former chiefs. "We're planning a holistic, collaborative approach to the problem."

One local minister in South Central LA who works with gang members is not buying the new strategy:

"You're going to fill up the jail up with them again," said Rev. Nathan Holt, who operates the Love and Respect Youth Organization. "Shouldn't there be some training programs or something else?"

Our initial thoughts: The gang problem in LA is out of control. Bratton is committed to reducing crime in LA. His pattern has been the "broken window" system of policing--arresting people for little things to clean up the streetss and get useful information on bigger crimes and criminals.

He has not been a whosale violator of civil rights in the past, although we did have a problem with the targeted arrests of the squeegie operators and the subway turnstile jumpers.

The violence needs to end in LA. Jail terms for petty crimes and even tax evasion are far less than those for crack and murder. We'd rather see gang members receive shorter sentences for lesser crimes so they don't lose their hope for a future. And we think on the whole, you get a better shot at a fair trial in federal court than state court, which is where tax offenses and racketeering cases are tried.

We remain behind Bratton. But we'll keep watching and reporting as well.

Instapundit has the latest developments in the Racine Rave Prosecution.

In New York, a NYPD officer was suspended for refusing to arrest a homeless man.

"Amid growing complaints that the New York Police Department is singling out homeless people in anti-crime sweeps, police officials have suspended an officer who refused orders to lock up a homeless man sleeping in a private Manhattan garage. Officer Eduardo Delacruz was taken off the force for 30 days after telling superiors he would not participate in the arrest of Stephen Neil, 44. The man had refused a police request to immediately move on or report to a shelter."

Check out Bill Keller's op-ed in the New York Times Saturday, Reefer Madness:

"We interrupt our coverage of the war on terrorism to check in with that other permanent conflict against a stateless enemy, the war on drugs. To judge by the glee at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug warriors have just accomplished the moral equivalent of routing the Taliban --helping to halt a relentless jihad against the nation's drug laws."