Alaskablawg

New TV Show

So, I'm watching bowl games and see that ABC is going to be starting a show about Homeland Security. I wonder if they are going to give the real story of the TSA. Somehow, I doubt it. I would bet that Homeland Security, as part of the agreement, demands reviewing the scripts of the show. And so its doubtful that they will show, say, TSA needlessly requiring someone to remove nipple rings in following asinine policies.

Somebody might think that the above comments are the height of cynicism. What could potentially make someone think that the government would want to influence TV show scripts to ensure broadcasting of government-approved messages? Oh, maybe history.

I wonder if Homeland Security will show drug searches and raids on innocent people.

I wonder if the show will demonstrate that the drug war might be something other than a complete success.

Somehow, I doubt it. Instead, the show will show us the 'heroes' that keep us 'safe', unquestioningly glorifying governmental power.

Brilliant ad

This is a remarkable ad. Link from Radley. Spread it around.

Field Drug Tests

Today's Miami Herald has a sobering article about a freshman at Bryn Mawr who was headed home for Christmas break. She had powder-filled condoms in her luggage, leftover jokes from the previous finals session. Field test showed that the powder was cocaine. She's thrown in jail and bail is set at $500,000. Her attorney demands a test of the powder and its determined to be flour, not cocaine.

This sounds rather similar to the Dallas Police Department scandal in which Dallas cops were planting fake drugs on people, usually indigent Mexicans, and rail-roading them through the system.

DOJ, Again

As long as we are on the subject of the DOJ, check out this column. A hard-core Republican US Attorney, who has aggressively prosecuted a number of Democratic politicians for perjury, refuses to prosecute a star witness for perjury after she admits lying at a trial in which a Pennsylvania doctor was convicted. Par for the course, from what I can see.

So, between putting away people that distribute porn to willing adults and convicting doctors on perjured testimony, what are we paying the DOJ for anyway?

The War on Doctors

John Tierney looks at the DEA's shift in the War on Drugs. They are now targeting doctors. Radley Balko and Drug War Rant have been on this issue for a while. (Radley really takes the DEA to task in this column.)

The Drug War has never made any sense. But as long as the majority of the citizenry can blame it, conciously or unconciously, on 'someone else' (which is just a euphemism for blacks and Hispanics in inner cities), politicians and law enforcement are going to keep getting away with this crap. With this new shift in the 'war', maybe some of those citizens will start having second thoughts now that their mothers or their siblings or friends have to live in constant pain because of the DEA. It is truly sad that such appears to be required before people start to question how much we are going to tolerate for a 'drug free society'.

The DEA, unmasked

From Radley Balko comes this post about the DEA. Apparently, DEA agents post their thoughts anonymously on this website. Some extremely disturbing stuff. Just remember - these people have guns and badges and instant credibility with jurors. But don't worry. They only go after 'bad guys'. So, trust them.

Local Cop Busted

I have known about this story for some time but did not blog about it because I was asked to keep quiet until it aired, if at all. Now that it has been broadcast, I can tell that a local drug cop was caught on tape suggesting that they plant evidence during the execution of a search warrant. Cops suspected a fellow of dealing heroin so they got a search warrant for a shop where he worked. The automotive shop was owned and operated by his dad. His dad had a good security surveillance with audio. The search warrant found nothing in the garage, although cops claim to have found something in the client's car - about 1 gram of heroin. The tape was given to the DAs office and they promptly dumped it.

In this article, the DA says that they dumped the case because there was only a small amount of heroin involved and it was not worth the trouble. Such has not been my experience. Possession of any amount of heroin is a felony in Alaska. There is no personal use amount. I have represented people charged with the miniscule amount left over in a needle after it was used for injection. I find their refusal to prosecute a substantial departure from normal practices, particularly since our governor is so hell bent on stamping out drugs.

Of course, the officer, the troopers and the TV station all talk about how the police officer was just 'joking'. I have a question: why do we put up with this? Why do we let police keep searching through our homes, our personal effects, our conversations, our lives simply because somebody puts a chemical into her body? Have you ever stopped to think about it - we put people in jail simply because they ingest substances.

Well, for those who practice up here, the cop in the case is Dwayne Shelton. I am spelling out that name - Dwayne Shelton - so if anybody Googles it, or terms such as Palmer Alaska Drug Cop Planting Evidence, they will know which officer is a lying sack of crap that needs to be raked over the coals in his next suppression hearing.

Travel Alert

When in Melbourne, do not pack talcum powder in your bags or the drug dogs will 'alert' on your bags.

AEI Questions Benefits of Drug War

The American Enterprise Institute, a notoriously right-wing think tank that is one of GW's favorites (although they are a bit more libertarian than the Heritage Foundation - emphasis on small bit), has recently published an assessment of American drug policy. Surprise, surprise, they find that the drug war has failed! While the report does not endorse legalization, it does note that treatment is much more effective than jail and that criminalizing marijuana use is not "justified". I wonder if the Alaska legislature or the Bush White House will consider what they have to say. Somehow, I doubt it. Still, the chorus of those questioning the drug war on both the left and right is steadily growing as the decades of evidence continues to show the drug war's stark failures and incredible costs. Even Becker and Posner note that the drug war is a giant failure (although Posner is reluctant to describe the drug war as having been lost per se). Notice from Jacob Sullum and Julian Sanchez.

Governor's Drug Bill

For those who have not heard, the Governor has introduced a bill to try to overturn Ravin v. State. Ravin is the case that determined that Alaska's explicit constitutional right to privacy overruled any social interest in prohibiting possession and use of small amounts of marijuana in one's own home. I guess nobody notified the governor's office that you can't overturn a constitutional decision with legislative action.

Ravin was the case in which Chief Justice Rabinowitz stated that (paraphrase) people come to Alaska seeking a degree of liberty and control over their own lives not available in their sister states. Not anymore. People come to Alaska to tell other people how to live their lives, whether its to stop smoking marijuana or to not wear fur, there are an awful lot of damn busy bodies around here now.

Anyway, Pete writes about the utter foolishness of the hearings this week. One of the legislators stated that he was "really disappointed" in the testimony of my ex-boss, Barb Brink, head of the Public Defender Agency. What did she do? She merely had the guts to say that the emperor had no clothes: that marijuana is not particularly addictive, that the studies showing that marijuana is now more potent than it was in the '70s are bunk, and that just about every study done on the issue shows that criminalization is not a cost-effective way to deal with the marijuana issue. Imagine the gall of arguing facts rather than just spouting the same old "marijuana is so evil that users must be sentenced to a hideous, painful death" line!

It is clear that some people are going to listen to persons who agree with their pre-conceived notions. Why then even bother to have hearings? Why not just pass the bill? From what I hear, though, there is a fair amount of scepticism. I am going to do my part to increase that scepticism. Not that I'm sceptical, mind you. I just demand a bit (or more) of proof.

Remember, as you go along our busy way, to pause occasionally and take some time to smash the state.
Graffiti, c. 1970, quoted in Don't Shoot the Bastards (Yet), 101 More Ways To Salvage Freedom, by Claire Wolfe.