Tidbits on Drug Policy

I got reminded of this ubiquitous mantra that was all over TV a few years ago when I read the following:

“Profits from Afghanistan’s thriving poppy fields are increasingly flowing to Taliban fighters, leading U.S. and NATO officials to conclude that the counterinsurgency mission must now include stepped-up anti-drug efforts.”

Source: CNN: Poppy profits fuel Taliban

“The traffic in drugs finances the works of terror,” said George W. And - he is right. Trading in illicit drugs is a lucrative business, and, considering that drugs are a black market commodity, a logical choice for those who want to stay under the radar. The thing is, trading in any black market commodity is acceptable as a clandestine financing scheme.

It’s funny how the leading U.S. and NATO officials still readily conclude that stepping up anti-drug efforts will help combat drug profits. Do they really think that it will work this time? I actually know a way that will pull the financial rug out from under the Taliban: buy all of the Afghani poppy supply at current black market prices (I am pretty sure it’s gonna come out cheaper than waging another unsuccessful anti-drug campaign) or, better yet - legalize poppy. Removing illicit drugs from the black market economy will immediately financially undermine most, if not all, of terrorist networks, organized crime entities and cartels.

Not like that’s gonna happen in the foreseeable future. For now, it seems like the way to combat illicit drugs and terror link is by throwing more money and resources at massive interdiction campaigns that are doomed to fail right from the start, or by engaging in this sort of rhetoric:

“‘DEA’s Target America is the first exhibit that makes the connection between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, leaving no doubt that drug abuse can not be viewed as a victimless crime.’ …. said Administrator Hutchinson.”

Source: DEA: DEA AND GIULIANI OPEN NATIONAL MUSEUM EXHIBIT ON DRUGS AND TERRORISM

Right. Lets place the blame for terrorism squarely upon the shoulders of a drug user/abuser/consumer. After all, (s)he should have known where the money that pay for drugs might go to. According to Hutchinson, that makes a poor drug user culpable. According to my old Torts hornbook, there might be a small problem with proximate causation in that scenario. I’ll side with my hornbook on this one, because otherwise I could be blamed for slavery in Africa, just because I drink my cocoa in the morning.

admin :: May.21.2007 :: Opiates, Rants, Social Policy :: No Comments »

I already wrote about U.S. Sentencing Commission’s recommendation to reduce the disparity between cocaine powder and crack-cocaine minimum sentencing schemas. The Commission recommends lighter minimum sentences for crack - since, under the current statute, trafficking in crack-cocaine will result in substantially greater minimum sentence than trafficking in the equivalent amount of coke powder. The idea is that the offenders will now be punished equally for trafficking in equal amounts of the same substance.

Douglas A. Berman, a professor of law at the Ohio State University, thinks that it is an important development, legally speaking. Alex Coolman of the Drug Law Blog has a less legalese, albeit a more common-sense approach to the issue, pointing out that the proposed changes would have a virtually cosmetic impact on “roughly 70% of crack sentences will be reduced, on average, from just over 10 years to just under 9 years” (He actually got the numbers from a Professor Berman blog post).

Obviously, there are many ways to look at this development. My brain here is with Professor Berman, while my heart sides with Alex Coolman. The problem here is not disparate sentences meted out to crack and coke powder dealers, but the harsh excessiveness of the punitive solution itself. The Sentencing Commission has to operate within the framework of the punitive model supplied to us by Congress. Obviously, as Alex mentions in plain-speak, striving for equitable results in a system the facets of which are grossly inequitable to begin with won’t result in a profound change for the better. But, I suppose, a sensible thing at the moment would be abandoning a quest for fairer across-the-board general paradigms and working to make the existing system fairer one positive step at a time. Think about it: the Sentencing Commission could have eliminated the sentencing disparity by raising the penalties for cocaine powder trafficking, instead of lowering the penalties for crack.

admin :: May.18.2007 :: Cocaine and Crack, Rants, Sentencing and Penalties :: No Comments »

In the open letter to Anderson Cooper (”Open Letter: You Screwed Up the “Snitch” Story, Anderson Cooper,” see the link to the letter at the bottom of this post), David Borden, Executive Director of the Stop the Drug War writes about the effects of informant testimony on the prosecution of drug cases. Some people are being sentenced to multiple-year sentences on the basis of informant testimony alone. He writes:

“The exchange of leniency — or even money — for testimony that will help the prosecution is an absolutely routine tactic in the drug war. The DEA, in fact, continued to use a “super-snitch” named Andrew Chambers for numerous prosecutions after a court had determined him to be a repeat perjurer. Common sense tells us that testimony acquired in this way is not always reliable.”

One of the comments to the letter says:

“As a prosecutor I see the harm the ’stop snitching’ campaign does every day. For example, I have seen case after case where an person gets shot and refuses to testify about who shot him. [...] This has nothing to do with the war on drugs. These people aren’t thinking about that. They are just listening to what their hip-hop singers are telling them about how to stick it to the man. But they are only screwing themselves.

I could care less if no one ever cooperates in a drug investigation again. But when it comes to real crime, people need to start ’snitching’ unless they like living in hell.”

Notable are the last two sentences: the juxtaposition of “drug investigation” and “real crime.” This comes (allegedly) from a prosecutor! Obviously, informant testimony is invaluable in successfully prosecuting many cases, where a killer or a rapist would have otherwise have gone free. Obviously, the persons active in the “Stop Snitching” movement would agree with me on this. Obviously, the movement has at least something to do with the multiple instances of shoddy informant testimony putting people behind bars, people who are not persecuted for “real crimes.”

Of course, we can argue ad infinitum whether drug crimes constitute “real crimes.” But, in my opinion, that is not the point. The movement is only a sign of a social dissatisfaction with some aspect of our law enforcement as it is being applied to a social phenomenon that the government chooses to designate as a criminal matter. This dissatisfaction should send certain signals to the government that would prompt it to review its procedures and, possibly the underlying reasons behind them. If the venues for the feedback are insufficient - which would be demonstrated by the government’s inaction in this area - it obviously points to a systemic flaw in the interaction between the government and the governed. Similarly, if the government is aware of the (widespread?) criticism, but chooses not to address it, it points to an even more obvious flaw.

As promised, here’s the link to the David Borden letter:

Open Letter: You Screwed Up the “Snitch” Story, Anderson Cooper

admin :: May.02.2007 :: Rants :: No Comments »