Alaskablawg

Constitutional Chaos Author Interviewed

Reason magazine interviews Judge Anthony Napolitano about a variety of topics. The interview was prompted by the Judge's new book, Constitutional Chaos. Judge Napolitano has some very harsh words to say about the present occupant of the White House, the present Attorney General's condoning of torture, the drug war, and cops who lie on the stand knowing that it will not make any difference. Thought provoking article, especially since Judge Napolitano derives his beliefs from a natural law theory.

It is interesting that he is the legal commentator for Fox News. As you might guess, I am no big fan of Fox, but I will admit that no other news channel has a legal analyst willing to point out the fundamental flaws with our system like Judge Napolitano. Further, the website regularly hosts columns from Radley Balko and Wendy McElroy. So, even though I am not a Fox fan (and I don't have cable so I couldn't watch it even if I wanted to), I do check out their website. With those three as columnists/commentators, I am willing to overlook the rest of their stuff.

Teach the children well (or maybe not)

If Greg Aghazarian (Republican Assemblyman from California) has his way, parents will go to jail for using drugs in front of their children.

Drug Killings in Canada

Yesterday, 4 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Mounties) were killed when seeking to arrest a marijuana grower in Alberta. Today, Jonathan Kay of the National Post, a paper in Canada, writes an excellent analysis of what this means about our drug war. Thought provoking.

Link via Drug War Rant.

Drug War Atrocity

From Drug War Rant comes this horrible story about the Drug War gone awry. When will we learn that this sort of thing is to be expected when we declare 'war' on drugs?

Legalization would stop this crap. I think that Dave Barry really hit it on the head when it came to legalization of socially frowned upon behavior. I call it the doggy sex argument. He argued that most people are against legalizing bestiality because if it became legal, everyone would want to have sex with their dogs. If you asked any specific individual, that person would always say, "No, I do not want to have sex with my dog, but my neighbor will. And that bothers me." (By the way, Barry's response was really good. Barry said that those advocating government control are rooting for a horrible system because more than one half of the people could pass a law that people had to have sex with dogs. Tyranny by the majority. Good rejoinder.)

Really, how many of your neighbors will have sex with their dogs if its legalized? Granted, Barry was being humorous to make a point, but it is well taken. Most people would be against legalization of drugs because "everybody will then take heroin". 98+% of the people polled would never want to take heroin, but they are dead-set convinced that their neighbor would. This is the same neighbor that would screw the dog, I suppose.

Yet such an argument demonstrates how fallacious it is. If prostitution were legalized tomorrow, how many more people would really solicit prostitutes? Maybe a few more, at least initially, but most people recognize that prostitutes are not a prime source for potential long-term relationships. In the same way, there might be a few more people who experimented with drugs, at least initially. But most people have behavioral regulating mechanisms in place (such as families, jobs, peer pressure, etc.) that deter addiction. Yet all of us give up our civil liberties because a comparatively few people do not exercise control when using various controlled and non-controlled substances. Why is it that Joe and Jane Citizen would never really consider having sex with the dog, visiting a prostitute or shooting up heroin but believe that only the threat of jail prevents all of their neighbors from doing so? If that's the case, I would suggest that they find a new neighborhood.

What a Pisser!

Paul Aremtanto asks, "Have you peed for your government/employer lately?"

Drug War Casualties

Via DrugWar rant comes this news about yet another victim in the War on Drugs. Sadly, Cheryl joins this list and this list of Drug War victims. I think one of the best articles I ever read about Drug War victims came from Vin Suprynowicz, writing about the deaths of Veronica and Charity Bowers. For those who do not know, the Bowers were missionaries in Peru. Veronica was 35 years old and was traveling in a small plane with her 7 month old daughter, Charity, when the CIA identified their plane as part of a drug smuggling operation. The Peruvian Air Force, on the orders of the CIA, shot down the Bowers plane, leaving Veronica and her infant daughter to die in the jungle.

In his inimitable style, Vin wrote: "Unless you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, right now, then watching Roni Bowers and her baby choke and scream and bleed and drown in some distant muddy jungle river is exactly what you asked for, what you pay your taxes for, and what you ought to have to watch on videotape every night before you go to sleep." (Quoted in The Ballad of Carl Drega, pg. 567 (Mountain Media, 2002)). I know I could not have said it better. So think of Cheryl, of Donald Scott, of Roni and Charity Bowers the next time you hear somebody talking about how the Drug War is making our society safer.

First Amendment - Drug War

In other First Amendment news, the DOJ has decided to not appeal a judicial decision regarding funding anti-Drug War advertising. The group Change the Climate had purchased ads on the Massachusetts Bay public transportation system decrying the War on Drugs. One ad, for example, noted that the government was spending billions of dollars to lock up non-violent offenders. Congress passed a law prohibiting any transportation group that accepts federal funds from accepting ads promoting the legalization of marijuana. A US District Judge ruled that such a curtailing of funding abridged Change the Climate's First Amendment rights. Interestingly, the Solicitor General refused to appeal, noting that the government really does not have any argument to make. Whether this is a matter of principal or recognition of case law, I do not know. Given some of the other arguments that I have seen the feds make, particularly regarding drugs, I would guess it is the latter. DrugWar Rant gets it right, I think, when it notes that the Solicitor General probably did not wish to get laughed out of court.

In spite of the Cabellas decision, I must say that I am heartened by sites like DrugWar Rant and by the arguments of Judge James Gray and others about the problems with the Drug War. I believe that within my lifetime (and for the record, I'm 35 years old) we will see major decriminalization of drugs. Society as a whole may not see legalization on a grand scale, but I think we as a society will eventually realize that if for no other reason, we simply cannot afford the Drug War and will substantially change our tune. Decisions like Cabellas are frustrating, but I believe they are the last gasps of a failed policy and ideology. Remember, even 10 years ago, it was hard to even mention the 'l' word (legalization) in the same context as marijuana let along other drugs. Today, however, we see a number of people across the political spectrum questioning whether the cost (in dollars or civil liberties) is worth the benefits (?) of the Drug War.

UPDATE: A commenter, S.cotus, correctly points out that I am confusing two situations involving Change the Climate. One was in DC, forbidding federal funding for advertising supporting the legalization of marijuana. The Boston decision, referred to above, prohibited spending money from the transit association (from Boston or whatever municipality in fact ran the transit system) from accepting ads advocating legalization of drugs.

The USA Exports Its Drug War

As if the Drug War did not create enough problems in this country, we are exporting it. What I found interesting is that the Canadian authorities cannot search someone's car. The article is not clear just why the search is forbidden - because it resulted from a road block, general suspicion, whatever. But this is really depressing considering the Cabellas decision.

On the other hand, Canada's free speech and firearms decisions and regulations are rather worrisome to freedom-loving individuals.

Tulia Judge Speaks Out

This is an interesting article about Judge Ron Chapman, the judge on the Texas Court of Appeals who granted new trials to those in Tulia whose conviction was based on the testimony of former officer Tom Coleman. Key quote: Someone in the audience asks, "Are we winning the war on drugs?" Judge Chapman: "Hell no."

For those who are not familiar with Tulia and Tom Coleman, check out Grits for Breakfast series on the subject. Of course, we have a really dedicated Supreme Court, committed to upholding the promises of liberty guaranteed to each citizen in the Constitution. I mean, if it were not so, they would let cops run drug dog searches on any car they wanted to. Oh, wait. You mean they do let cops run drug dog searches whenever they want to? Well, I guess you better hope that no Tom Colemans work in your jurisdiction or any jurisdiction through which you travel.

Bush's Foreign Policy v. Drug Policy

Christopher Hitchens points out the inherent contradiction between our foreign policy of 'promoting freedom' in Afghanistan and the War on Drugs. Hitchens argument is that on the one hand, we are trying to foster freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and that seems to be working. But the best money-making opportunity in Afghanistan is growing poppies, which are made into opium, morphine and other drugs. So, are we going to diminish the economic opportunities for the Afghans, or are we going to abandon our Drug War?