Throw Those Hands Up Already

So tonight I watched a CNBC documentary on Mexico's drug wars.  Not really a lot of new information in there for me, but one thing really got my blood boiling.  A Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security from the U.S. said that legalization was not an option, because "it would be like throwing our hands up and saying nothing can be done."

First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send.  Alright.  So what?  Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done?  We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs.  It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes.  We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins.  We burn fields of coca and marijuana.  We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries.  And what happens?  Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost.  The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down.  These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns.  Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done?  If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.

Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up.  The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong.  We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so.  Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs.  How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved?  The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug.  Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug?  Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step.  After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs.  And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law.  So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use?  Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors.  By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world.  We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.

If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth.  They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.

If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving.  Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be  a white flag of shameful surrender.

Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making?  It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses.  It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.

Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope.  Perhaps they're right.  Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope.  But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.

Debunking the Myths on Prop 19

I recently read this article on Proposition 19, and think it is a worthwhile read for anyone who is not sure what they think about Proposition 19.

It debunks and invalidates five of the most common and "strongest" oppositions to Proposition 19 and marijuana legalization.  Not to rehash it, but I think the biggest point is this.

All of the debunked objections could just as easily apply to liquor laws in California and other states.  Yet none of these objections have raised serious issues with alcohol or tobacco.

In short, California, take a first step toward ending the failed "War on Drugs," and legalize marijuana.  Vote yes on Prop 19.

Support Proposition 19!

After seeing this article I was briefly duped into opposition of Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana.

Several of the points seemed at first like valid counterpoints to Proposition 19, even for those who support marijuana legalization.

First, the argument that this conflicts with federal law about employer's rights and responsibilities to drug test.  Proposition 19 specifically outlaws pre-employment or during-employment testing for THC unless the employer can prove that an employee's performance was performed.  Federal law requires drug testing for certain professions.  Remember that there is a hierarchy of jurisdictions, and that Federal law trumps State law, especially in areas where the Federal government has a valid, Constitutional claim to jurisdiction.  While there are some truckers, train operators, pilots, etc. who do not cross state lines, the majority do, or, during the course of their careers, could.  The professions covered by the Federal requirement are, for the most part, very clearly covered under the Interstate Commerce Clause.  Thus, the contradiction doesn't really exist.  A pilot, driver, or train operator crossing state lines must meet Federal requirements, including drug testing.

Second, taxation and regulation.  While I think that one of the biggest selling points has been the tax and regulate potentials of legalization, I don't think this is what is important.  As a principal, we should have the right to choose what to do to our bodies.  Moreover, the legalization would still raise tax revenue, even without marijuana-specific taxes.  The trade in marijuana, especially in the state of California, is huge.  Even without specific taxes on cannabis, the sales tax revenue alone could greatly help California's budget.

The argument that the smell of marijuana could be offensive, and everyone can have an outdoor 5x5 garden.  The smell of trash and dog poop is offensive.  The smell of curry is offensive to many.  The smell of some other plants, or of compost bins, is offensive.  People will just have to survive.

The argument that this will increase crime, citing recent break ins at medical marijuana growth plots.  This is actually one of the best arguments for legalization.  If marijuana were more readily available, and could by grown by anyone, people would not have the incentive to break into someone else's plot to steal their pot.

I have always been a proponent of supporting a specific policy, not a broad slogan or a general principle.  But legalizing marijuana is the first step.  Let the legislature iron out the details later.  The immediate benefits, from the perspectives of politics, liberties, and economics, far outweigh the negative.  The medium-term benefits of lowering incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenses alone will provide huge economic benefits to the state, especially in a state whose current prison overpopulation was recently ruled to be cruel and unusual punishment.  Californians, vote YES on Prop 19.

Mexican Independence Day

Happy Mexican Independence Day everyone.  I sincerely mean that.

I also, think, though, that after 200 years of being nominally independent, it is worth reflecting on how independent Mexico really is right now.  Every day in Mexico, people die in the battle between the cartels and the Mexican government.  Each year, prominent public officials resign in fear or resignation to the cartels.

Each day, Mexican nationals die and get arrested trying to cross Mexico's northern border.  Each day, Mexicans go hungry because tortillas and other staple Mexican foods are too expensive.

Now, no nation is without its problems.  On their independence day, however, Mexicans should take a moment to reflect on where these problems have come from.  Is it the policies of the Mexican government, or the efforts of the Mexican people?  No.

It is a liberty-encroaching war on drugs personal choice in the United States.  It is a policy of subsidizing U.S. farmers and encouraging "free" trade in North America and throwing corn, which could feed the poorest of the poor in Mexico, into gas tanks of American-made SUVs (which, by the way, have now been bailed out by the government as well).

So yes, two years of independence is something to celebrate.  But Mexicans and Americans alike today should take a moment to think about how independent Mexico really is.  Stop the War on Drugs, and stop interventionist agricultural policies.  Then, perhaps, we will see a truly independent Mexico.

Political and Social Reasons Not To Do Drugs

I thought I would take a few minutes to share my thoughts on why, aside from the health and personal problems, and legal risks, anyone, but especially the socially liberal, should not use illegal drugs.

Keep in mind that as a Libertarian, I acknowledge that most of these reasons are more related to the ridiculous War on Drugs and the unconstitutional prohibition on recreational narcotic use in the United States.  Until, however, our current drug policy changes, there are several political, social, and moral reasons why anyone (but especially leftists) should refrain from illegal drug use.

First of all, the violence.  Both on the streets of the United States, and across the world, the drug trade is full of violence and death.  How many people died in the process of growing, processing, packaging, and relocating the bowl of pot that you just smoked?

More important to the leftists, however, is that drugs are really a weapon in class warfare.  I mean that in several ways.  First of all, when was the last time the head of a major cartel or street gang was imprisoned?  I can't remember.  The "major" busts that we read about on the news involve the discovery of large quantities of drugs and money.  Well, in the world these cartels operate in, both drugs and money are replaceable.  So are the poor, who are usually the people (whether in America or abroad) apprehended with the money and drugs.  With technology and financial options becoming more enhanced, when was the last time someone at the top of one of these criminal organizations was stopped?  Even when they are, they serve out their sentences in white collar prisons.  Or, in some foreign countries, like Colombia, where Escobar served, in prisons that are more like personal palaces.  Do you think that anyone was shuttling the street level pushers who went down for selling Escobar's coke to and from soccer games?

Let's look at the classist aspects of the illegal drug trade from start to finish.

Production.  Poor farmers are the most likely to be tempted (or pressured) into growing coca, heroin, and marijuana.  In fact, the class war aspect of this goes back beyond this decision.  Many drug producing regions are the victims of protectionist U.S. agricultural policies.  For years, Latin American countries enjoyed thriving exports of sugar, bananas, and coffee to the United States.  Suddenly, when Asian countries could produce the same products, and gained "favored nation" status, the Latin Americans couldn't compete.  When American countries moved directly into East Asian nations (i.e. Thailand, Indonesia, etc.), often subsidized by the United States governments, Latin American farmers were left high and dry.

These are the farmers targeted by the wealthy individuals behind the Latin American end of the drug trade.  They don't have much to lose, and have a lot to gain.  Because of U.S. subsidies to its farmers and manufacturers, even many products used in their own countries are imported from outside the region.  Due to U.S. and Latin American subsidies, the small farmers cannot afford to compete with the large, corporate farms.  They have small family plots which they are risking, but the gains can be huge.  It is, in fact, these farmers, not the Escobars, Ochoas, or other cartel-heading families, who suffer when fields are fumigated or burned.  The cartels will move on to the next farmer.  The rural poor have lost their crop and their only source of income.

In trafficking, money, drugs, and big players are kept as separate as possible.  This means that the individuals actually carrying drugs across international borders are unlikely to be the wealthy individuals responsible for either the U.S. or the international aspects of the business.  At one time, they were likely to be fairly wealthy, as they probably owned boats or planes.  With improved enforcement of the U.S. border, however, the methods for trafficking drugs have changed.  It is now far more likely that an individual will be driving a car with false panels, or even carrying drugs inside their body.  The "mules" who are recruited to do this are usually poor and desperate individuals, either looking to make fast cash and a paid-for vacation, or looking for the financial means to enter the United States.  At the very least, they put their freedom in jeopardy.  At worst, they engage in physically dangerous methods of transporting narcotics, including swallowing, or inserting into their body in other ways, condoms and balloons filled with highly toxic chemicals.  Meanwhile, the cartel leaders sit at home at either end of the route collecting the payouts.  The violence has erupted (again) in the border cities of northern Mexico.  Do you think the real movers and shakers in the drug trade are anywhere near this border?  Were any of their daughters disappearing on bus rides home from maquiladores in Juarez for the last 20 years?  Were any of their heads found on the steps of an Acapulco night club?  No.  The poor along the Mexican border, and throughout the coastal states of Mexico, are the ones suffering right now.

When drugs hit the streets, again, the drugs, the money, and the key players are kept separate.  The violence of street gangs is directed at other low-level players in the game, and the police often apprehend these low level players, since they are the ones actually making physical transactions involving the drugs.  Meanwhile, gang leaders sit at home and collect the money.

Even drug use is classist and prejudiced.  While middle aged, middle class white users, along with celebrities and star athletes, use the (relatively) safe and pure drugs (cocaine, marijuana, abusing prescriptions, etc.); people of color, gays, and the youth often wind up caught up in more synthetic, processed, and therefor dangerous drugs, like crack cocaine, crystal meth, and ecstasy.

Even enforcement is skewed along racist, homophobic, ageist, and classist lines.  The penalties for crack, crystal meth, and ecstasy use are relatively harsh compared to those for other drugs, with ecstasy (used by the youth, but mostly the upper-middle class white youth) having strangely lenient requirements for crossing from misdemeanor "personal" use to felony "commercial" use.  This leads to a cycle of young, poor people of color being killed by and incarcerated for drug use at a higher rate than their older, wealthier, straighter, and whiter counterparts.

In fact, the imprisonment for drug use among poor youth, and in particular poor youth of color, could very well be seen as perpetuating the racial gap in this country.  Poor teens of color are put into prisons and juvenile detention facilities for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes associated with drug possession.  There, they are locked up with and surrounded by killers, burglars, rapists, and other violent criminals.  To survive, they often must turn to prison gangs.  These prison gangs teach them how to become hardened criminals.  When they are released, they have new knowledge, new skills, and new connections, which enable them to enter deeper into the world of crime.  We send away young black men as kids who may have experimented with, or even sold a bag or two of, drugs.  When they are released, they are criminals, with few options, and fewer inhibitions.

What proponents of drug use need to realize is this.  The real culprits here, and the ones making the real money off of all of this pain and suffering, are not the street level dealers.  They are successful business men, sitting in mansions in California, Florida, New York, Chicago, and around the world.  They have stash houses full of cash, and bank accounts with lots of zeros.  And they are all connected.  So when you smoke a bowl of your (you think) guilt free pot, or do a line of your (you think) safe cocaine, you are actually supporting the same network of wealthy, middle aged men who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Again, I acknowledge that the ultimate responsibility for many of these deaths actually lies in the oppressive prohibition on personal choice which has been imposed by the U.S. government when it comes to drugs.  We spend millions of dollars, and take millions of lives, in an attempt to control our individual choices.  My first suggestion would be that everyone advocate for a sensible drug policy in the United States.  Until that happens, however, anyone who leans to the left politically, or who is socially and morally conscious, should stop using illegal drugs.

Legalize It!

The other day, I saw this interview at Reason on marijuana policy, and it caught my attention.  Could our decades old losing "War" on drugs finally be coming to an end?  With the issue appearing on the ballot in California, and mainstream medical and mental health professionals (even some, like Dr. Fichtner, who have a government background) coming out in support of legalization, we could be there.

Poll numbers show that increasing numbers of Americans support, or at the least, don't oppose, the legalization of marijuana.  In fact, I'm guessing that polls, petitions, and other actions actually underestimate the number of people who strongly support liberalization of drug laws.  Many drug users (especially the stereotypical paranoid pothead) do not publicly support legalization because they don't want their names associated with a taboo subject, and one which could have serious legal, professional, and personal ramifications.

Do I agree with Dr. Fichtner that marijuana legalization is the key to pulling us out of the recession?  Not entirely.

I don't think pot is the next technology or real estate sector.

On the other hand, by legalizing marijuana, we could probably reduce federal and state budget deficits.  Prisons would be less crowded, ICE agents could focus on stopping human trafficking, potential terrorists, and hard drug trafficking.  Local law enforcement agencies would not be paying officers to search high school students' pockets for pot and pipes.

Moreover, the tax revenues generated by adding this product to the above ground market would be huge.  The savings to the average user would also be significant, possibly providing some sort of stimulus spending on the pothead's part.

The lowered medical and law enforcement costs from reduced gang activity resulting from removing the most used illegal substance from the black market would be huge.

Is legalized pot going to save our economy?  Probably not.

Will it help, even a little?  Absolutely.

Is this just one more reason to add to an already long list to support legalization of marijuana and an end to our War on Drugs?  Absolutely.

Californians, potheads and Libertarians everywhere are watching you this November.  Continue to lead the way on this issue.