Why Obama on Legalization Bugs

Just to show that I'm not some drug-addled hippie looking for a safe toke (in fact I've never smoked pot more than once or twice in my life), let's have a slightly more scholarly discussion about reforming our nation's drug laws than the President wants to have. You can even do it without snickering!

I don't think it takes much to convince everyone that the nation's current drug laws have failed, and failed utterly. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the Secretary of State.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Mexico on Wednesday with a blunt mea culpa, saying that decades of U.S. anti-narcotics policies have been a failure and have contributed to the explosion of drug violence south of the border.

"Clearly what we've been doing has not worked," Clinton told reporters on her plane at the start of her two-day trip, saying that U.S. policies on curbing drug use, narcotics shipments and the flow of guns have been ineffective.

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she added. "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians."

Let's be extremely clear about what Clinton means by failure. At home we have a policy focused on decreasing demand through law enforcement and incarceration. This has only sent the industry underground, made it more violent, increased the ranks of the jailed in our prisons, which typically provide college-level courses in how to commit violent crime instead of rehabilitation and treatment, and done nothing toward the central task. Abroad, we have a policy of interdiction and eradication, which inflames local populations, again sends the industry underground, makes it more violent, and does nothing toward the central task of decreasing supply.

Charles Lemos links to a CNN report by Jeffrey Miron that goes into this subject in greater detail.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.

Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Now that is the argument for legalization. It is not ridiculously popular and I don't think the data even show much of a generational shift yet. But it's not an unserious argument. It's not worthy of snickering. The truth is that, even while opposing the eventual argument for legalization, there are a host of issues that the Obama Administration could tackle, and indeed says they are tackling, to reduce the worst effects of the failed war on drugs. Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent offenders, as they are moving toward in New York with the repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws, is a start. So would increasing funding for treatment centers, and decriminalizing low-level drug crimes, and ending the raids on perfectly legal medical marijuana centers in the states. While the Obama Justice Department has vowed to do the latter, they forgot to tell someone at the DEA today:

Drug Enforcement agents yesterday raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco, a week after US Attorney General Eric Holder said federal authorities would no longer prosecute providers that are not otherwise in violation of state laws.

Yesterday, agents raided Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic, hauling out plants and growing equipment. The dispensary, which gives out free marijuana to the poor once a week, had a temporary city permit allowing it to operate.

The DEA special agent in charge told the San Francisco Chronicle that Emmalyn's was skirting state laws as well. According to Holder's remarks last week, that would make it a candidate for federal legal action. Also:

A source in San Francisco city government who was informed about the raid said the DEA's action appeared to be prompted by alleged financial improprieties related to the payment of sales taxes. DEA Special Agent Casey McEnry, spokeswoman for the local office, would not comment on that information.

I don't remember the DEA raiding any other business that had a state sales tax issue, ever, in history.

My point is that advocates for legalization, and I'm not entirely one (I believe that there would be a similar issue with advertising and sales to minors as you have with cigarettes), have an argument to make, and it can be handled entirely seriously, with the pros and cons weighed and the final judgment reached. The dismissiveness of the President today is the problem, not his verdict.

The Slow Winding Down Of The Drug War

When the Administration announced an end to medical marijuana raids by the DEA, they abruptly took back the statement a few hours later. There was a bit of confusion about the new policy. Eric Holder put an end to that.

Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a change on medical marijuana policy Wednesday, saying federal agents will target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state law.

That would be a departure from the policy of the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

Good. There is little justification to waste Justice Department resources harassing Californians and Americans in 12 other states engaging in perfectly legal activity. Holder must follow the law but he also has discretion in setting priorities, and it's good to see him recognize that arresting local businessmen and their patients makes no sense. There remain questions about outstanding medical marijuana federal court cases with over two dozen dispensaries, and hopefully the solution will be to drop the charges.

In a related story, Maxine Waters wants to end mandatory minimum sentencing for federal drug offenses, and the bill has 15 co-sponsors. The Bureau of Prisons budget has increased 25-fold since mandatory minimums were introduced. Small drug cases belong in state courts, where offenders could be given treatment instead of jail. Furthermore, these kind of drug cases disproportionately impact minority communities.

H.R. 1466, the Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009, seeks to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and to give courts the ability to determine sentences based on all the facts, not just drug weight. It would also refocus federal resources on major drug traffickers instead of low-level offenders. There is currently no companion bill in the Senate.

Sen. Boxer, your office phone is ringing.

Cindy Story Fizzles

The mystery of the missing Washington Post article has been solved, as they published a very long front-page story today about Cindy McCain's drug addiction. I have to say that I think they puled their punches, however. Mainly it removes John McCain's involvement from the story, and the DEA investigation just sort of ends, according to their account. A lot of the burden is placed on heavyweight lawyer John Dowd instead of McCain himself. There's no mention of her securing a passport to hide her drugs on travel, there's no mention of McCain's office strong-arming the DEA to drop the charges. These are elements that Tom Gosinski was willing to put on the record to other journalists. WaPo didn't think they were worthy.

It reads more like a puff piece with a slight edge to it. You certainly learn about Cindy's criminal activities, but not about the abuse of power.

Very depressing.

Spike

Digby already mentioned the breaking story about John McCain's strong-arming of the DEA to stop them from investigating his wife's prescription drug theft. Raw Story adds more to the case.

Tom Gosinski, a former employee of the medical-aid charity Cindy McCain used as personal supplier of Percocet and Vicodin, is speaking out publicly for the first time.

On Wednesday, Gosinski sat down with RAW STORY and other outlets to tell his story and distribute copies of his personal journal from his time with the American Voluntary Medical Team in the last half of 1992, where he voiced ever more acute concerns and frustrations over McCain's drug use and its impact on her mood and job performance.

"My journal wasn't to trash Cindy or anything," he says. "My journal was kept because I came in contact with so many people. It was a way of keeping an ongoing biography of all the people I met, so I could refer back to it."

He says he can't buy the official McCain camp line that Cindy's drug abuse was kept from her husband, he saw and heard too much for any of their stories to make sense -- like the time Cindy was allegedly taken to the hospital after an overdose and John rushed in to berate the doctors and nurses there before moving Cindy to their secluded Sedona ranch. Then there were the Hensley family interventions and the fact that Cindy's drug abuse came to be something of an open secret among employees of the charity.

There's a lot here, from Gosinski being fired and blackballed for knowing too much about Cindy's drug abuse, to Cindy getting a diplomatic passport from her husband's Senate office so she wouldn't be searched in airports with all of these drugs, and on and on.

It's a dense story. But there's another aspect to it revealed today by John Aravosis. Apparently, the Washington Post recorded an interview with Gosinski that they are hiding from the public.

Go to Google. Type in the name "gosinski." Look at the sixth result.



John Mccain abused his power to keep it a.... secret, perhaps? This isn't a story about the wife, it's a story about the Senator possibly using his office to obstruct justice for personal gain. Sounds a lot like Troopergate in fact. Definitely a story.

But when you click the link and go to the Washington Post's Web site, there's nothing there, just a blank template with no content.

I just checked this a second ago. It's still on Google, and there's still a blank template at WaPo when you click on the link.

This is a spiked story. There's plenty of precedent for this in 2004, when 60 Minutes delayed broadcast of a story about Iraq, Niger and yellowcake that would have been very damaging to President Bush until after the election. There are other examples as well.

This now becomes the scandal. It is completely inappropriate for the Washington Post to spike a legitimate news story about the corruption of a Presidential candidate, especially considering that candidate is running on this platform of reform. And all the other news outlets need to be informed of this as well. If there's enough pressure, one of them may see the tactical value in going forward with interviewing a willing witness before their competitors. If that's how the news business still works, anyway.

Some phone calls need to be made.

OxyGiuliani

This one's personal for me. Those who've read me before know that I have a relative who has suffered under an addiction to OxyContin since he was 14, and is only now putting his life back together. Purdue Frederick, maker of the drug, knew that they were peddling an addictive product that could be easily abused, but intentionally hid the warnings from the general public for a decade. They got off with a slap on the wrist a few months back, after the Justice Department attempted to slow down the investigation and the prosecution produced such a poor case that even the judge yelled at them for failing to jail the executives for their crimes. Today in the New York Times, Barry Meier, who wrote a great book on this subject called Painkiller, has a long piece detailing Rudy Giuliani's business involvement with Purdue Frederick.

In 2002, the drug maker, Purdue Pharma of Stamford, Conn., hired Mr. Giuliani and his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, to help stem the controversy about OxyContin. Among Mr. Giuliani’s missions was the job of convincing public officials that they could trust Purdue because they could trust him [...]

A former top federal prosecutor, Mr. Giuliani participated in two meetings between Purdue officials and the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the agency investigating the company. Giuliani Partners took on the job of monitoring security improvements at company facilities making OxyContin, an issue of concern to the D.E.A.

As a celebrity, Mr. Giuliani helped the company win several public relations battles, playing a role in an effort by Purdue to persuade an influential Pennsylvania congressman, Curt Weldon, not to blame it for OxyContin abuse.

Yes, I'm sure it was difficult to get Curt "Working For the Russians" Weldon to play ball.

Purdue Frederick is still a client of Giuliani Partners, and Giuliani still draws a salary from the business, so he continues to profit on the suffering of millions of addicted teens.

Read this shill-of-the-year quote:

“I understand the pain and distress that accompanies illness,” Mr. Giuliani said at the time. “I know that proper medications are necessary for people to treat their sickness and improve their quality of life.”

By the way, at one point Rudy assured the DEA that everything was fine, he's put his top man on the job.

The D.E.A. was not only critical of how OxyContin had been marketed, its inspectors had found widespread security and record-keeping problems at the company’s manufacturing plants [...]

At two meetings, the first at Giuliani Partners in early 2002, Mr. Giuliani and Purdue’s executives argued that they were already taking steps to eliminate any problems.

(Bernard) Kerik had been sent to Purdue’s manufacturing plants to revamp internal security, they assured Mr. Hutchinson. The federal investigators, they argued, should back down and give them a chance to prove they could handle the problem on their own.

Don't worry, Bernie's on it! The plant will have a numbers racket and a love nest suitable for affairs in no time.

Rudy's dead in the water for this election, as evidenced by his resorting to more 9/11 ads to energize his campaign. But the moral blackness of defending this indefensible pharmaceutical company is perhaps the most telling example of how this guy would run the country. It also informs this quote from the other day.

"I suspect that our Democratic colleagues would get that question more often in a Democratic audience than we get in a Republican audience," he said. "Maybe more Democrats are concerned about their health care than Republicans, maybe because Republicans have health care or maybe Republicans generally like the idea of private solutions."

Private solutions like a company who poisons the country and lies about it.