BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

drug war Archive

Friday

18

July 2014

0

COMMENTS

Government Moves to Shake Down FedEx Because They Don’t Spy on Packages

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

You would think that enforcement of terrible US drug laws would be the responsibility of the myriad government agencies lavishly funded to harass American citizens based solely on what they put in their own bodies. But according to the government, enforcement is apparently actually the responsibility of FedEx.

FedEx Corp. was indicted for delivering prescription pain pills, sedatives, anti-anxiety drugs and other controlled substances for illegal Internet pharmacies.

The operator of the world’s largest cargo airline was charged by the U.S. with 15 counts of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and misbranded drugs and drug trafficking that carry a potential fine of twice the gains from the conduct, alleged to be at least $820 million for it and co-conspirators. The company, while denying the allegations, said today in a regulatory filing that conviction could be “material.”

…The criminal case is an unprecedented escalation of a federal crackdown on organizations and individuals to combat prescription drug abuse, said Larry Cote, an attorney and ex-associate chief counsel at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

“Targeting a company that’s two, three steps removed from the actual doctor-patient, pharmacy-patient relationship is unprecedented,” said Cote, who advises companies in the drug supply chain on compliance matters.

Note that we’re not talking about delivering cocaine for the cartel here, but rather medicines that government artificially restricts and keeps from patients and those who need them. Nevertheless, the government insists not only that selling medicine is a no good, horrible bad thing, but that it furthermore is the responsibility of FedEx to know what is in every package they deliver to ensure that that no one is daring to deliver cheap medicine.

The whole thing is, in other words, typical government thuggery at its ugliest:

As it turns out, the feds say that “as early as 2004, DEA, FDA and members of Congress” told the delivery company that willing buyers and sellers were engaging in transactions that make politicians very, very sad. FedEx apparently established internal systems for tracking online pharmacies, but shipments still got through. This makes the feds even sadder, and they insist FedEx has been “conspiring” to let the packages through.

FedEx says this is all bullshit. The company insists that, in response to the government’s crusade to keep Uncle Bob from buying his little blue pills at a discount, it’s asked the feds for a list of suppliers it shouldn’t service. The feds haven’t gone beyond the bitching phase to offer anything helpful.

…So, what do the feds want FedEx to do? The indictment isn’t specific, but FedEx hints that the government wants the company to paw through everything it ships and block the stuff that officials don’t think people should be allowed to send from place to place.

 

Friday

4

May 2012

2

COMMENTS

Nancy Pelosi Blows the Whistle

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

The dog whistle, that is:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants President Barack Obama to lay off the weed.

Reacting to an ongoing crackdown on medical marijuana facilities in California, Pelosi said in a Wednesday statement, “I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California.”

The California Democrat said that medical marijuana is “both a medical and a states’ rights issue.

States’ rights? States’ rights? Doesn’t Nancy know that invoking states’ rights is dog-whistle racism? Or so the left tells us anytime someone on the right points at that, no, the federal government cannot just do whatever it wants and, yes, states do have sovereignty over some areas in which the federal government has no authority.

Nancy Pelosi is actually right for once; the federal government is grossly overstepping its bounds in pursuit of the “drug war.” And I should point out that “states’ rights” is actually a misnomer, as only people have rights. States have sovereignty. Regardless, since she is using the language of the racist small-government types, I am eagerly awaiting* the usual leftist uproar directed at the former Speaker.

*And by eagerly awaiting, I mean not holding my breath.

Thursday

24

November 2011

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Collateral Damage Edition

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Anyone concerned about the size of government should be weary of the ongoing “Drug War”, which has gotten completely out of hand and employs numerous freedom-limiting methods. The latest example shows just how little our rights matter to those pursuing the self-righteous prohibition (Hat-tip: The Agitator):

Eighty-eight-year-old retired metallurgist Bob Wallace is a self-described tinkerer, but he hardly thinks of himself as the Thomas Edison of the illegal drug world.

He has nothing to hide. His product is packaged by hand in a cluttered Saratoga garage. It’s stored in a garden shed in the backyard. The whole operation is guarded by an aged, congenial dog named Buddy.

But federal and state drug enforcement agents are coming down hard on Wallace’s humble homemade solution, which he concocted to help backpackers purify water.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and state regulators say druggies can use the single ingredient in his “Polar Pure” water purifier — iodine — to make crystal meth.

Wallace says federal and state agents have effectively put him out of business, because authorities won’t clear the way for him to buy or sell the iodine he needs for his purification bottles. He has been rejected for a state permit by the Department of Justice and is scheduled to appeal his case before an administrative judge in Sacramento next month.

Meanwhile, the exasperated Stanford University-educated engineer and his 85-year-old girlfriend said the government — in its zeal to clamp down on meth labs — has instead stopped hikers, flood victims and others from protecting themselves against a bad case of the runs.

This is the new standard for freedom in an overgoverned country. “Can someone possibly use an ingredient to make drugs? Then it’s off limits!” What’s worse is the busy bodies refuse to take responsibility for their choice to limit individual freedoms in pursuit of drug purity:

“Methamphetamine is an insidious drug that causes enormous collateral damage,” wrote Barbara Carreno, a DEA spokeswoman. “If Mr. Wallace is no longer in business he has perhaps become part of that collateral damage, for it was not a result of DEA regulations, but rather the selfish actions of criminal opportunists. Individuals that readily sacrifice human lives for money.”

As the chronically overgoverned, we’re all potential collateral damage.

Friday

17

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Let's Do That 'Crack Cocaine Thing'

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Are members of Congress on crack? Reading the garbage routinely passed off as “law,” one would think so.  Alas, it was only one Senator, not the entire chamber, that seemed to confess on Thursday.

The top Republican at Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court hearing was talking about trying to schedule a Judiciary Committee hearing on the disparity between the sentencing of powder cocaine abusers and crack cocaine users.

Sessions said he and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., had been talking about it. “Sen. Leahy and I were talking during these hearings, we’re going to do that crack cocaine thing you and I have talked about before,” Sessions said.

The hearing room cracked up.

Funny.

As to the substance, the disparity between sentencing for crack and powder cocaine (the former sometimes resulting in sentences 100 times greater than the latter) is gross.  It also has the appearance of being racially motivated, which certainly doesn’t help racial tensions in America.

Friday

27

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Obama’s Web Townhall

Written by , Posted in Education

Yesterday President Obama hosted the first ever online town hall, where questions were submitted online, and voted on, by citizens across the nation.  I commend the President for attempting to bring modern technology into his government.  Sadly, he faced none of my piercing questions.  But here they are for you:

1. “Why do you believe that you can allocate resources in a manner that is not prohibitively wasteful when no government in the history of the world has ever been able to successfully do so? What makes your technocrats better informed than free markets?”

2. “How does an energy tax not equal a tax on middle and lower income earners? Do you think we don’t use any energy? It’s money out of our pocket just the same as an income tax increase.”

3. “How do you justify prosecuting Madoff for running a pyramid scheme while the federal government continues to force us into one (Social Security) at the point of a gun? At least Madoff’s was voluntary!”

They were particularly hostile to my swipe at their beloved Social Security, voting question 3 down at a 2:1 ratio.  Question 1 did surprisingly well at almost a 1:1 ratio, garnering 19 positives for 23 negatives.

As for the substance of the event, it was as disappointing as one would expect from President Obama.  The first question Obama took was on education, and his answer was dreadful.  He identified two problems with education: lack of resources and a 19th century education model.

On the first problem, he says that there “aren’t enough teachers,” that they “aren’t getting enough of the training they need,” and that there’s a “shortage of supplies.”  He adds, “There are schools that I’ve seen that were built in the 1850 that are still being used but haven’t been upgraded the way they need to.”  He uses all this as evidence that there aren’t enough resources.  But this does not follow.  He refers to the second problem as “one that money alone cannot solve,” giving the impression that he thinks the first problem can be solved by money alone.  But if that were true, the problem would have been solved already.  Spending on education has continuously risen, while the problems described by the president have not gotten any better.

The problem is not lack of resources, but how those resources are allocated.  Specifically, the government run system lacks accountability and has little incentive to spend money improving education instead of padding administrative salaries.  The only way to solve this problem of allocation is to move to a market model, where competition will reduce inefficiencies and spur innovation.

On the second problem Obama similarly misses the mark.  Yes, our system is outdated.  Yes, we still have time off during the summer, despite the fact that most students aren’t going home to help with the harvest anymore.  But what is the reason?  The reason we have a 19th century model still operating in the 21st century is because a government run system is necessarily going to be unwieldy and unresponsive to changing circumstances.  Until we break the government monopoly on education, we will continue to toil in educational backwardness.

I noticed from the online voting that the most popular questions all had to do with marijuana legalization.  Obama did not ignore these questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Three point five million people voted. I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy — (laughter) — and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience — (laughter) — but I just want — I don’t want people to think that — this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy. (Applause.)

So — all right.

He did, however, dismiss them without satisfactory answer.  Treating this issue as nothing more than a question of economic recovery, he ignored the larger dissatisfaction with the failed drug war and its consequences.

Most of the other questions were stupid, but you can read the rest of them here.

Friday

6

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Freedom Is Never A Bad Export

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, Liberty & Limited Government

I recently sent the following letter to the Boston Globe.

To the Editor:

Your recent editorial blaming Mexico’s drug violence on our gun laws (“A lethal export to Mexico,” March 3) missed the mark. It is not insightful to say that 90% of guns picked up in Mexico are from the U.S. Of course they are; we are the closest supplier. But that does nothing to show that restricting sales in the U.S. would make them unavailable to Mexican criminals, as your editorial suggests. In fact, the evidence shows that view is simply false.

Mexican drug cartels are currently fighting police with machine guns, grenades and even RPG’s. None of these items are legal to purchase in the U.S. There is simply no connection between gun laws and the ability of criminals to arm themselves.

Our drug prohibition has created a black market which the must unsavory characters are willing to fight over. But there is nothing inherent to drugs that makes its trade violent. If the U.S. outlawed meat, there would be meat-related violence in Mexico as criminals vied to smuggle meat to U.S. consumers willing to pay black market prices. If we really want to help Mexico, the best thing we can do is expand our freedoms, not restrict them.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

Thursday

19

February 2009

2

COMMENTS

Mexico’s Coming Implosion

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

A lot of talk was given to foreign policy during the recent Presidential campaign.  Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran dominated the debate, while little attention was given to the dangerous developments on the other side of our southern border, where both the number of incidents of drug-related violence and their severity have increased dramatically.  Mexican military and law enforcement personnel find themselves out-gunned by traffickers and gangs, while corruption plagues all levels of public and private life. The country is on the brink of a complete collapse that would have profound implications for U.S. national security.

Violence is taking an increasingly heavy toll in Mexico.  In 2005 there were more than 1,300 deaths to drug-related violence.  By 2007 that figure had doubled.  In 2008 it almost doubled again, with estimates of more than 4,500 deaths by mid-November.  The cartels are also becoming increasingly bold in their recruiting and tactics.  One group hung a banner on a major thoroughfare offering “good salary, food and benefits for your family.” Several grenade attacks have also been directed at police in the last week.  In one such attack, police attempted to apprehend several armed men spotted riding in a vehicle.  After the men fled to a nearby residence, they engaged police with grenades and RPG’s.

Corruption is also undermining the legitimacy of the governing authorities.  Drug cartels have subverted many local authorities and law enforcement, and public sentiment is becoming increasingly hostile toward authorities.  Multiple protests have broken out on claims that soldiers have been robbing, raping and murdering civilians.

The nation’s escalating instability poses significant security implications for the United States.  As the situation deteriorates, violence and fleeing civilians are likely to spread across the border. A failed state with a 2,000 mile border with the U.S. also poses a unique opportunity for well armed terrorists seeking to enter the U.S. As the flood of immigrants increases, it will become harder to protect from such breaches.

The underlying cause of the situation is clear. Our drug laws have created a lucrative black market that attracts the most ruthless criminal elements.  Just as the violence in Chicago ended after the end of Prohibition, so to can the violence in Mexico.  But so long as these powerful financial incentives remain, the violence and social collapse in Mexico will continue. In the short run, the situation may require a U.S. military presence on the border, but in the long run only a change in drug policy can allow Mexico to recover and protect America’s security interests on the southern border.

Sunday

15

February 2009

0

COMMENTS

That’s Not How To Measure It

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society, Waste & Government Reform

A Weekly Standard blog, “Measuring Success in the Drug War,” describes a paradox in the war on drugs as the author sees it.  Specifically, that successfully removing drug leaders results in a temporary increase in violence as the small fish fight to fill the void left by the loss of their big fish.  Thus, he says, the successful prosecution of the drug war creates a falsely troubling perception.

He just assumes, without logical explanation, that removing these kingpins is itself a success – that it is moving toward the end goal of the drug war (which presumably is to win).  But this is not true.  The movement itself is also illusory.  The very fact that the underlings are fighting to take over should make this point self-evident.  No matter how many big fish you remove, there will always be more to take their place. You cannot “win” by pursuing a strategy of removing an infinitely replaceable resource.

So long as the little fish have so much incentive to try and become big fish, attacking the drug lords is a massive waste of time and resources.  A better strategy is to remove the power and economic opportunity presented by being a drug lord, but that would require revisiting our draconian prohibition policies.

Saturday

6

December 2008

0

COMMENTS

Happy Belated Repeal Day

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Liberty & Limited Government

Friday marked the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition. Notice I use a capital ‘P’ in Prohibition, because lowercase prohibition is still alive and well.

For 13 years the 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol, with trivial exceptions. The results were clear: a modest reduction in consumption, but also a significant increase in both the number of alcoholics and fatalities from contaminated liquor. It also created a black market, which lead to the rise of Al Capone and organized crime.

It turns out that, when you ban a substance, the net effect is a lot more complicated than just the predicted drop in use. Yes, there was less alcohol consumption. Prices rose significantly as predicted, and as predicted consumption went down. But demand didn’t completely go away. The rise in prices, unsurprisingly, served to attract new producers into the market. The fact that it was an illegal market insured that those with the least respect for the law were most likely to enter.

The high risk/high reward environment not only insured that competition would be fierce and deadly, but also that the product itself would be much more potent. Because of the uncertainties of smuggling and the ever increasing risk of police interception with every shipment, suppliers needed every shipment to be carrying the maximum value possible.  They weren’t going to risk getting caught just to sell cheap beer.  This is a large reason why there was an increase in the actual number of alcoholics.

What’s the relevance of all this today?  Isn’t Prohibition over with, never to return?  Unfortunately, the lessons of prohibition are very relevant to today.  Complete alcohol prohibition is unlikely to ever return, but there is a neoprohibition movement working away at the edges of legal drinking.

Restrictive state laws distort the market, enforcing a three-tiered system of alcohol distribution.  Granted significant government protections, middlemen distributors account for a significant percentage of the cost of alcohol, while taxes also raise costs by 20%.  Direct sale from manufacturers to retailers, or consummers is banned.  Wine is a notable exception, as direct sale has been allowed recently in many states, though often times they engage in protectionism that restricts consumer choice.

The attacks on legal drinking includes arresting citizens just for being drunk in bars.  Thousands of individuals have been nabbed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in sting operations.  These people have done nothing wrong. They did not drive drunk, get in a fight or otherwise harm anyone.  Texas, however, thinks they are criminals.

The fascist attack on drinkers isn’t the only prohibition movement alive in the modern day.  There’s a well-funded and highly visible tobacco prohibition movement.  Fatty foods are also under attack, which achieved a temporary success with Chicago’s fois gras ban. Other movements have achieved even more success.  There’s currently a blanket prohibition on prostitution,  with the predictable result being the rise of a criminal class (pimps) and increased exposure to disease from those who (unsurprisingly) ignore the ban.

Worst of all, however, is the current prohibition on drugs.  Everything that went wrong with alcohol prohibition is being repeated with the drug war.  The rise of drug cartels and gangs is a direct result of the prohibition.  Our southern neighbor is seeing the worst of it, as Mexico is quickly turning into the next Colombia.  Chaos next door is a security threat to America.

While trillions of dollars have been spent on the drug war (which far exceeds the economic costs of drug use), little good has come from it.  Drugs are much stronger than they would otherwise be (if not for the drug war, there likely would have never have been such a thing as crack cocaine).  Police officers are becoming ever more corrupted by the fight, as happened during prohibition.  They are also increasingly militarized, executing raids on low level users (and often innocents) that result in numerous unjustified deaths every year.  Our prison’s are overflowing with non-violent offenders, and our court system is choking on the backlog.

So while we raise our glasses to celebrate the end of one of the worst legislative mistakes in American history, let us try and learn from it.  Prohibition was wrong in 1920, and it’s wrong in 2008.