Vice Squad Returns
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:16 AM

Well, sort of returns. Vice Squad is now firmly settled in Tbilisi, after passing through the UK. The vice news there was that yet another head of government, this time Gordon Brown, joined a long, distinguished list of past potentates who made the mistake of convening an expert panel on marijuana policy. As usual, the experts reported back that mj should be essentially decriminalised, and as usual, the government immediately ignored the report -- this time even moving to increase penalties for marijuana possession. (That two years you could get for possession of a joint just wasn't sufficient, so Class B status was necessary to put potheads away for five years.)

London has a new mayor, and a new policy on its underground and bus system -- as of June 1, no more (legal) drinking on the Tube. Americans can file this one under "What, you mean you used to be able to drink openly on the Tube?" Speaking of the new mayor, he celebrated his swearing in by going to a casino. During the campaign, he was a bit wobbly on Britain's smoking ban, too.

Labels: alcohol, Britain, casino, marijuana

 
A Federalism Quandary
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:28 PM

Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, alcohol was taxed at the federal level, but illegal in some states. This created a bit of friction, as alcohol dealers (operating illegally within a state, if their alcohol was for beverage purposes, not industrial or sacramental or medical use) would sometimes pay their federal taxes. The federal tax rolls, therefore, could be used (and were used) to identify state lawbreakers. Some federal license holders tried to argue that state prosecutions based on federal tax payments violated the self-incrimination clause of the 5th amendment, but that argument generally was not availing. Some states (twenty-eight states, by 1917) even passed laws that made the payment of federal alcohol taxes for beverage alcohol a prima facie state crime. (See Chapter 5 in Richard Hamm's Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment.)

Today we are witnessing a curiously symmetric problem. Medical marijuana is legal in many states, but is illegal as a matter of federal regulation (except for those handful of patients who are provided with federal marijuana). States want to tax the sales, but what marijuana provider wants to provide tax records that could be used for a federal prosecution? I hope that the self-incrimination argument -- which on the merits seems to be airtight from the point of view of this non-lawyer -- proves to be more persuasive this time around.

Thanks to Radley for the pointer.

Labels: alcohol, federalism, marijuana, Prohibition

 
A NAFTA Suceess Story?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:39 PM

The Guardian has started a two-part series excerpted from a new book about organised crime. Judging from installment number one, the book seems to be on the breathless side. The excerpt starts with a trucker having his rig searched for drugs at the US-Canada border. We eventually learn that the driver was smuggling 50 pounds of marijuana into the US -- oh the humanity! -- but the border police didn't find it. (Thanks to drug prohibition, fifty pounds of "BC bud" is worth quite a sum (the article mentions $100,000) in the US -- somewhat less in Canada -- but it doesn't take up a lot of space in a truck.) The examination at the border, as described in the excerpt, is thorough though in this case, unsuccessful. Further, the author notes that the elaborate search, which includes making sure the propane tank is really usable for fueling the truck -- is called for: "These elaborate tests were necessary; the only other way he [the border agent] could have established Dan's [the driver's] innocence would be by sawing open the LPG tank." That's one of the features of the drug war: it has replaced the antiquated notion of the presumption of innocence with the presumption of guilt. Don't worry, law-abiding citizens, the presumption of guilt is a rebuttable presumption: if you are lucky, you might be able to establish your innocence.

Labels: Canada, marijuana

 
Experimenting With Smoking
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:52 PM

Mike is off to Russia for purely moral activity -- after all, it is International Women's Day -- so today's posting has fallen to moi.

The Guardian today features a collection of stories from some of their writers about their first experiences with such things as flying and high heels -- and smoking. Patrick Barkham had never smoked tobacco or marijuana, so at the age of 33 he went to Amsterdam to put his abstinent past behind him. His first smoke contained both tobacco and marijuana. Patrick's reluctance to inhale posed a barrier to achieving a high, but he eventually overcame that barrier, too. Some joints later, once the THC kicked in, Patrick became a slave to the drug, and he has not spent an unstoned moment since. Er, or maybe not:

I felt disappointed. Because I'd never done drugs, I had feared and expected everything - a spinning head, a creative mind, a hideous paranoia, a craven addiction and a desire to dance all night while dragons crossed the diamond sky with Lucy.

"It doesn't widen the doors of perception, it just slows you down enough to let you look in," I wrote [contemporaneously, in the notebook he had with him]. "This is what being stoned is about. I must get my bags from the hotel. Focus now. The end."

What an awful experience for Patrick. It is a good thing that the US arrests more than 700,000 folks per year for pot possession.

Labels: abstinence, arrests, Britain, marijuana

 
Medical Marijuana Use: States vs. the Congress
- posted by Michael @ 3:03 PM

The recent decision by the California Supreme Court upholding the right of employers to fire employees who use marijuana for medical purposes in compliance with California’s Compassionate Use Act has continued the troubled history of medical marijuana use in California and other states that have made such use legal. One of the arguments of the Court’s majority was that marijuana use for any purpose remains illegal under federal law and California law “does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs.” This discussion reminded me of a paper by Robert Mikos that he presented at the Midwestern Law and Economics Association meetings in October of last year. The paper, which was a work in-progress, discusses medical marijuana use as a case study of the power of the states to authorize activities prohibited under the federal law (here is an abstract). I think the paper makes some interesting points with respect to medical marijuana use and it might be useful to summarize Mikos’s central argument here.

As Mikos points out, when the US Congress has the authority to regulate an activity, this authority trumps the conflicting state laws. It follows that when the Congress authorizes an activity prohibited by state law, the latter is unenforceable and, therefore, irrelevant. The situation is different, however, when Congress prohibits an activity that is permitted by the state. This is because the Congress does not have a general authority to command the states to undertake a certain action. Therefore, as long as the states that permit medical marijuana use limit themselves to not prosecuting the users (as opposed to actively assisting marijuana growers, helping them procure marijuana, etc.) there is nothing that the federal authorities can do against the state. Of course, the federal authorities can still prosecute medical marijuana users under federal law, but the feds simply lack the enforcement powers to do this on a massive scale (Mikos cites another source stating that only about 1% of all marijuana cases are handled by federal authorities). The state, however, may not be able to protect effectively information it gathers as part of its registration process about medical marijuana users and their enablers (e.g., caregivers or doctors who prescribe it) because the feds do not have to respect state confidentiality laws. Therefore, if the state wants to control and monitor medical use of marijuana by registering users and enablers, it puts them in danger of federal prosecution. This results in two potential problems. First, states may decide not to register medical marijuana users, as California, Maine, and Washington have apparently decided to do. Second, in the states that require registration, the eligible users might not want to register. Neither outcome is presumably desirable either from the state or even from the federal point of view. For example, if the states do not require registration of eligible medical marijuana users, such eligibility may be ascertained ex post, making it costlier for the state law enforcement to verify it. Also, the eligible users may suffer confiscations and even brief incarceration while their eligibility is verified. All this may significantly reduce the desire and ability of the state’s law enforcement agencies to prosecute all marijuana users, whether eligible for medical use or not.

Mikos’s policy conclusion is that “Congress may find it worthwhile to shield state registries from federal law enforcement agents, in order to preserve some level of control of marijuana at the state level.” My view is that it is hard to expect this level of rationality from our lawmakers on this issue. Otherwise, the current complete prohibition regime with respect to marijuana at the federal level would have probably ended a long time ago.

Labels: federalism, marijuana

 
A Euro 2000 Hooliganism Tale
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:30 PM

It has been a while since Vice Squad drew upon Paying the Tab, Phil Cook's alcohol control monograph. On page 151, Phil recounts the story of the Euro 2000 soccer tournament, which was hosted by Belgium and the Netherlands. The Dutch city of Eindhoven elected to combat British soccer hooliganism by reducing the alcohol content of beer sold during the tournament ("Festival Beer") to 2.5 percent, about half or less of the standard beer alcohol content. (Phil doesn't mention it, but Eindhoven also chose to further liberalize the rules surrounding cannabis, hoping to entice visiting soccer tourists out of the bars and into the coffee shops.) At any rate, the low-alcohol gambit seemed to work, as the England supporters were fairly well-behaved in the Netherlands, especially relative to their comportment in Belgium. Less successful was an attempt in Rome this year to ban alcohol sales for 24-hours around an important football match involving Manchester United; a cannabis tolerance in Portugal for Euro 2004 worked out fine, it seems -- the main violence around the tournament emanated not from the host country, but from a Portuguese-owned pub in England.

Labels: alcohol, Cook, marijuana, Netherlands, soccer

 
Marijuana Freakout
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:06 PM

The Freakonomics blog provides a public service today in the form of a debate concerning whether marijuana should be legalized. The Freaky final tally is three "yeas" and two "nays", plus some 60 comments or so. Pete goes the extra mile to point out the fundamental flaws in the "nay" arguments. To my mind, the "nay" position as articulated on the Freakonomics blog comes pretty close to the following pseudo-syllogism: (1) Marijuana is illegal; (2) marijuana is dangerous; (3) therefore, marijuana should be illegal. The naysayers don't really seem all that comfortable with actually punishing those dangerous pot users severely, though. Why not? After all, marijuana is illegal, marijuana is...

Dr. Robert L. DuPont's "nay" position starts out:

Legalization of alcohol would solve the alcohol problem the way legalizing speeding would solve the speeding problem: it would remove the legal inhibition of a dangerous behavior, and thereby encourage the behavior.

Oh, I did take the liberty of replacing his use of the word "marijuana" with "alcohol." I was led to this substitution out of hope. Dr. DuPont's famous namesake, Pierre du Pont, supported the Eighteenth amendment that ushered national alcohol Prohibition into the US. His firm, the Du Pont Company, manufactured munitions, and for safety reasons Du Pont forbade its workers from drinking. (Actually, it was only one of his firms; the remarkable Pierre had been president of both Du Pont and, later, General Motors.) But Pierre du Pont saw the effects of Prohibition, and following the lead of two of his brothers, became active -- indeed, all-but-essential -- in repealing the 18th Amendment; here's a photo of the dangerous radical, who had untold explosives at his disposal! How about it, Dr. DuPont? Any chance of a similar conversion?

Labels: marijuana, Prohibition

 
Criminalisation, Criminals, and Compassionate Cannabis
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:52 PM

One of the costs of drug prohibition is that regular law-abiding folks who also want to use proscribed drugs sometimes have to deal in a criminal sub-culture to acquire their supply. Further, having drugs on hand makes one reluctant to call the police when one is a victim of crime, lest the victim become the target of the investigation. In England (we learn from this Guardian article), a woman who suffers from multiple sclerosis grew her own marijuana, which she smoked hourly for pain relief -- other remedies having failed her. The criminalisation of pot not only pushed her into self-supplying, it also made her grow operation quite valuable. Further, would-be thieves would recognize that she would be reluctant to report the theft of her marijuana. So her crop was stolen while she was away. A neighbor saw evidence of a break-in and did not have the same motive to avoid reporting the crime, and the police were called. As a result, the MS sufferer and crime victim was haled into court. On Monday, she received a conditional discharge -- one wonders whether a US court would have been as merciful -- but she faces ongoing legal trouble if she continues to use medical marijuana. So she asks, 'What can I do now? The government should either make cannabis available on the National Health Service or give people like me some sort of amnesty.' Or perhaps they could end the prohibition of marijuana more generally.

When the cost-benefit types examine drug prohibition, do they catch all of the angles -- the reluctance of drug users to report crimes (and hence the promotion of crime), the stifling of beneficial uses of the drug in question, the waste of police and court resources arrayed against people who have done nothing wrong....?

Labels: Britain, marijuana

 
Hemp March in Moscow
- posted by Michael @ 3:12 PM

As some of you might know, today was the 2007 Global Marijuana March day. Apparently, groups from 232 cities all over the world signed up for it. One such city was Moscow (see a brief and bland English language report here). The initial meeting of the march participants took place near the McDonald's on the touristy Old Arbat in downtown Moscow. Don't know about other cities (there has been remarkably little in the news about this event) but Moscow police did not treat the march participants kindly. A Russian-language news source reported the following events. By the time 20 or so participants gathered near McDonald's, the Moscow finest already awaited them. As soon at the would-be marchers unfolded their "Legalize marijuana" banner the police pounced on them and detained six people. The friends of the detained tried to free them. After a skirmish, the detainees were taken to the nearby police station. Their friends came up to the station too and started calling the detainees on cell phones. Suddenly, the police became really violent knocking down those who stood near the police station, twisting their arms, hitting their heads against nearby cars and walls, and dragging them inside the station, where the beating apparently continued. One of the detained was beaten up severely during the interrogation. Another detainee suffered an asthma attack and after a considerable delay was taken to a hospital. The police, however, does not acknowledge hurting anybody.

In truth, the police actions are not really surprising, given its treatment of other recent events (see, for example, here and here) organized without approval of the authorities. It is unclear, however, why they keep doing that. Without police brutality, few people would probably notice these events, at least not as much, although perhaps this brutality that by now has come to be expected deters many potential participants.

Labels: marijuana, police brutality, Russia

 
Devil's Tobacco?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:32 PM

Isn't that just tobacco? As it turns out, no: devil's tobacco is the common name for Lobelia tupa, a pretty perennial plant native to Chile. Apparently devil's tobacco, when smoked, acts as a type of hallucinogen. And therefore, of course, smoking Lobelia tupa has become something of a fad among some Chilean college students.

Labels: marijuana, tobacco

 
Smoking Bans and Dutch Coffee Shops
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:29 PM

Marijuana sales for recreational use are illegal in the Netherlands, like everywhere else (April 20, 2004), but they are tolerated, as is possession and consumption, in some 700 "coffee shops". But what happens when a public smoking ban, of the broad type that applies to bars and restaurants, comes into effect? Well, presumably the ban will apply only to tobacco smoking, so that marijuana smoking in the coffee shops will still be allowed. This is not to say that the shops will not be affected by a tobacco smoking ban -- it turns out, according to this linked story, that many customers (though not visiting Americans) like to mix their mj with tobacco when consuming it, and these customers might have to find a different means of consumption, or do their smoking at home. Americans, at least in the Amsterdam shop featured in the article that is owned by a "local conservative politician," prefer to use some sort of vaporizing mechanism that collects the smoke in a "balloon," from which it is then inhaled. In a reversal of what one might think is the usual European view, the owner/politician seems to appreciate a significant American presence: 'On good days, when the shop is full of Americans, we sell 100 or 200 of these balloons.'

Thanks to Alcohol and Drugs History Society for the pointer.

Labels: Europe, marijuana, Netherlands, smoking ban

 
The Blunt Ban
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:18 AM

A friend of Vice Squad writes in to let us know that the Bluegrass State refuses to be left behind in the race to ban the alcohol vaporizer. But he also brings to our attention the ridiculously sweeping anti-paraphernalia law that recently went into effect in Philadelphia. Nicknamed the "Blunt Ban," the ordinance bans the sale by convenience stores of tobacco-related products that could also be used for consuming some illegal drug apparently called "marijuana" (perhaps it's a Philly thing, like cheese steaks). The ban, adopted unanimously by the Solons of the City Council in December, covers cigarette papers, blunts, cigars sold singly, and matches. (OK, I made up the matches part.)

Vice Squad has noted in the past the impetus for such farsighted legislation. Once a substance is deemed to be evil, then there is no obvious stopping point in measures taken to combat it. Those who use the evil substance can be imprisoned. Those who fail to inform on those who use the evil substance can be imprisoned. Those who sell goods that can be used to consume the evil substance can be imprisoned....

Labels: inhaler, marijuana, paraphernalia, vaporizer

 
Valentine's Day Attempted Repression
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:38 PM

Looks like the annual attempt by some Hindu and Muslim groups to coerce others away from celebrating Valentine's Day hasn't had much success this year, at least in India. Police and rain played spoilers to the anti-festivity festivities.

Meanwhile, a Valentine's Day protest was scheduled for noon today in San Francisco, in opposition to higher fees for California state's medical marijuana id cards.

Two years ago in Vice Squad...

Three years ago in Vice Squad...

Labels: India, marijuana, Valentine's Day

 
Malaysian Madness
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:45 PM

Concerned about an upsurge in prostitution? Have you considered whipping the customers of prostitutes? No? Well, neither has the government of Malaysia. But whipping the prostitutes, now there's a policy worth considering: "Malaysian lawmakers have called for foreign prostitutes to be whipped as a deterrent to others considering coming here to work in the sex industry, a report said on Tuesday." Even Lear, in his madness, could see through that one:

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back;
Thou [Thy blood] hotly lust'st to use her in that kind
For which thou whipp'st her.

The Malaysian parliamentarian -- this learned Theban, this noble philosopher -- asks, logically enough, 'If we can impose whipping for drug addicts, why can't we do the same for prostitutes'?

Though flaying isn't bad enough and hanging would be fair, at least for those druggies, it seems. Four students, it is alleged, were found in possession of less than $2000 worth of marijuana. "The students face death by hanging under Malaysia's harsh anti-drug laws if found guilty."

Labels: Asia, marijuana, Prohibition, prostitution, Shakespeare

 
First Afghanistan....
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:16 PM

Pete Guither of Drug WarRant and many others have been protesting the DEA-sponsored exhibit at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. The connection between drugs and terrorism is an artifact of prohibtion -- note that there does not seem to be a connection between alcohol and terrorism. Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy has been making a similar point, arguing that prosecuting our War on Drugs in Afghanistan is bolstering the Taliban and hindering our ability to fight terrorists. Here's the final paragraph of today's post on this topic by Somin:

I recognize, of course, that it is politically unrealistic to expect the Bush Administration to abandon the War on Drugs completely. But I hope they can at least recognize the wisdom of stopping the poppy eradication campaign in Afghanistan. They need not even make a public announcement about it or admit that they were wrong. Reasonable people can differ about whether or not the War on Drugs is a good idea. But even those who support it wholeheartedly should consider whether it is really important enough to risk undermining the War on Terror.

Before I started working on vice policy I worked on Soviet/Russian reform, and one thing I learned from that exercise is that political constraints can shift quite quickly: look how many people forecast the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe even six months before it occurred. I have no insight into, or really any interest in, political strategy, but... presumably President Bush must think about his legacy. Right now it does not look as if history will treat his foreign policy as a shining success, though there are no guarantees on future judgments. What about his domestic policy legacy? Again, right now, I don't see it as being strewn with obvious success, and images of Katrina look like they will linger. In his final two years in office, why shouldn't President Bush take a few bold steps to relieve us from some of the worst of the War on Drugs? For instance, he could start by reclassifying marijuana and by calling off the DEA from harassing people operating legally under state laws with respect to medical marijuana. (OK, these aren't very bold -- they should be easy sells.) If political cover is needed, there are plenty of conservatives who are against the War on Drugs, including Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr.; indeed, de-escalating the drug war can legitimately be viewed as enhancing national security and being a form of compassionate conservatism.

Labels: Afghanistan, Drug WarRant, marijuana

 
Fifteen Years for Two Joints
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:43 PM

DRCNet tells the sad story of a fellow arrested in the Philippines for possessing two marijuana cigarettes -- probably after an illegal search -- and subsequently sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Even in Louisiana, it would take a third conviction for two joints to get you that much time. And the judge is willing to live with this injustice? "... but man, proud man,/Drest in a little brief authority,/Most ignorant of what he's most assured..."

Labels: Asia, marijuana, Philippines

 
The Final Victory
- posted by Michael @ 9:12 PM

Just when Vice Squad is (was?) about to give up, the victory in the War on Drugs is apparently at hand. We may be sorry it didn't take place in the homeland of the world's leading warrior, but I, for one, am happy it's finally over. According to gazeta.ru (in Russian) for several days now, the Japanese customs authorities have been holding a Russian freighter "Valery Kuz'min" in the port of Minamata. The police took the passports and cell phones of the 26-person crew and have confined the sailors to the ship, which is being guarded by about 50 policemen. The investigation is ongoing. All this started on June 10 when the customs officals discovered a suspicious bag in the ship's toilet. The preliminary analysis has determined that the bag contained almost 300 grams of marijuana. That's right, these must have been the last 300 grams that had to be apprehended for the complete and final Victory. (No wonder nothing was found in those school lockers in Pennsylvania.) The Russians claim they have no idea how the bag got onto the ship. But I don't care. I am happy Vice Squad and I have lived to see the day. As for all of this happening in Japan, I don't mind too much. Our homeland has had it's share of glory in the War on Drugs, for example, in the recent medicinal marijuana decision. On to glorious victories in our numerous other Wars! Cheers.

Labels: Japan, marijuana, Russia

 
Rhode Island Vice
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:11 PM

After the US Supreme Court decision was announced on Monday, the Rhode Island Senate went ahead and voted, 34 to 2, to give state imprimatur to medical marijuana. If the bill passes in the house as well, the governor intends to veto it.

Meanwhile, it turns out that Rhode Island is one of those states where the anti-prostitution statutes don't seem to cover some forms of commercial sex, in this case, indoor activity of the type that might take place in a brothel or a massage parlor. The mayor of Providence wants to broaden the language of the prostitution ban to eliminate this disparity. Before he goes too far, however, he might want to look at the "two-track" policy advocated by George Washington University sociologist Ronald Weitzer. Here's a sample from a newspaper article Professor Weitzer wrote in response to the attempt to more-or-less decriminalize prostitution in Berkeley:

...Many cities, but not all, devote enormous resources to combating escort services and to busting massage parlors -- even though citizens rarely complain about this indoor commerce. Some cities spend as much as half their vice budget on the indoor trade, and such operations typically involve elaborate, time-consuming stings to entrap the workers. Louisville, Ky. , for example, has recently spent a great deal of time and money on an undercover investigation of massage parlors, and the federal government has conducted its own stings in several states. Cracking down on discrete, indoor prostitution often has the unintended effect of increasing the number of streetwalkers, thus exacerbating the most dangerous side of the sex trade.

Labels: marijuana, prostitution

 
Supremes Happy to Add to the Misery of Deathly-Ill People...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:55 AM

...by denying them access to medical marijuana. Will Baude has the initial word, and links to the opinions.

I'm disappointed but not really surprised or even angry at the Supreme Court. It isn't the Supreme Court's fault that our drug laws grossly violate the most elementary standard of justice, that one shouldn't be punished unless one has done something wrong.

Here's the opening to Justice Thomas's dissent:

Respondents' Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Labels: Crescat, marijuana, Supreme Court

 
A Bali trip gone bad
- posted by Michael @ 9:59 PM

An Australian woman has just been sentenced to 20 years in an Indonesian prison for smuggling about 4 kilos of marijuana into Bali. The judge said that Schapelle Corby was "legally and convincingly" guilty of smuggling. Ms. Corby has maintained her innocence. She says that the drugs were planted into her lugguage by the baggage hadlers who were trying to use her as a mule without her knowledge in a drug smuggling racket. Apparently, both the defense and the prosecution are going to appeal. The defense will appeal the guilty verdict while the prosecution will appeal the lightness of the sentence.

Each country is entitled to have it own laws, but c'mon, 20 years in prison? And apparently it could have been (and still can be) a life sentence or even the death penalty. Shouldn't somebody invade Indonesia to bring true democracy and reasonable laws there? And when they are at it, perhaps they could take care of California as well?

Labels: Asia, marijuana