Law Enforcement Against Prohibition : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

The Week In ScienceBlogs: Sign up for our newsletter.

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Do Nothing Wrong, Forfeit Your Money | Main | Rowe on Calvinism and Revolution »

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Category: Law
Posted on: August 21, 2006 12:38 PM, by Ed Brayton

I'll gladly join Radley Balko in promoting the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). LEAP is a group of 5000 former DEA agents, prosecutors, police chiefs, and judges who are speaking out against drug prohibition and the corrosive effects it has on our legal system and our society. The drug war has resulted in massive corruption of our police forces and courts. It's resulted in an astonishing increase in our prison population (the incarceration rate in the US is vastly higher than any other nation, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to house each of around 4 million inmates). It's resulted in the increasing militarization of law enforcement, with often tragic results. It's resulted in the civil forfeiture laws with which the government literally steals millions of dollars from people never convicted of any crime. Below the fold, I'll post a video from LEAP.

Comments

Thanks for the link.

Unfortuantely I think he first thing that needs to be done is for the authorities to admit that it is not in their power to stop people taking drugs. As long as it's thought there's a chance that the war on drugs will work ending prohibition will just be seen as encouraging drug use.

Posted by: Chris Hyland | August 21, 2006 2:03 PM

I also wonder if the alleged "war on drugs" has also resulted in a more nefarious trend - the de-scandalizing of jail time. There was once a time in this country when families were shocked and appalled when their relatives were arrested - even for such virtuous causes as the Civil Rights Movement. Now such events are unimportant - the only thing that shocked people about Gibson's arrest were his anti-Semitic remarks, not the fact that he got arrested at all.

Is it possible that, with all the non-violent drug offenders we have locked up, we have so mainstreamed jailtime that more serious offenders, even violent ones, are considered less anti-social than they once were? When huge numbers of young, typically minority men, are incarcerated, and often (at least the first time) for non-violent offenses, should we be shocked that the "thug life" is glamorized? Have we turned jail from something to be avoided into a stepping stone to respect on the "street"? Those are the questions I have.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 21, 2006 2:20 PM

I worked with Jerry Cameron (The first gentleman to appear in the video) on his (unfortunately) unsuccessful campaign bid for a state house seat in FL. He was a huge inspiration and major contributor to my current mindset for the world of politics.

It's great to see their message getting out there.

Posted by: Mike Horn | August 21, 2006 2:48 PM

OK, I'm trying to get my head around this. I agree that the "War on Drugs" is a dismal failure and that legalization and regulation would in fact take power away from the drug dealers. But what form would regulation take? What is the appropriate way to distribute meth, cocaine, heroine, et al to the public? I guess, in order for me to support legalization, I'd like to see a breakdown of the steps we would need to take to reverse our policies without a disasterous backlash.

Posted by: Curt Rozeboom | August 21, 2006 3:25 PM

California has 172,000 inmates in prisons designed to hold fewer than 90,000, and they expect to incarcerate another 21,000 in the next five years. They're building ten 500-bed re-entry facilities, expanding existing prisons, and building two new ones (they have 33 prisons and 12 "community correctional facilities").

Posted by: Jim Lippard | August 21, 2006 4:05 PM

Curt: The Dutch model would clearly be an improvement. It's also well worth looking at the Finnish model for incarceration in general.

Posted by: Jim Lippard | August 21, 2006 4:29 PM

That's an interesting video. A few comments:

1. There are similarities where you can substitute "War on Drugs" with "War on Terror" regarding effectiveness and methods. In 20 years we'll have people giving similar testimonials about how killing the terrorist that hides among civilians doesn't work when you use exceedingly blunt instruments.

2. The video smacks of rehabilitation and desire for redemption -- like the McNamara and Kissinger books do when they get on the obligatory book tour. Yes, we did what we did, sometimes knowing that we did wrong but had duty, position, salary, responsibilities. We were children of our times. I feed terrible and shamed about the thousands of teenagers that I put in jail; I didn't think it immoral than, but I do now. I fear judgment now, can someone help me expiate? How about you, the girl in the third row. Tell me you understand.

Retirement is wonderful that way.

3. I was well through my copy of The High Times Encyclopedia of Recreational Drugs when I found an exciting job that I liked. The job required a merciless regimen of piss-tests, often and at random; the oppotunity to revert was nil. Fear works.

4. Served on a jury four times. Each time alcohol was central to the charges. A legalized drug that we never got a handle on for [you pick the reason]. Two convictions, two acquittals, but all made stupid by lack of alcoholic control. People need a buzz because real life is boring I guess.

Is it possible that, with all the non-violent drug offenders we have locked up, we have so mainstreamed jailtime that more serious offenders, even violent ones, are considered less anti-social than they once were?

We've taken sentencing out of the realm of individual thought and into the realm of incarceration by formula, automating what should be a deliberative process into a procedural checklist. I think this relates to our desire to automate human interaction with the added benefit of becoming willing executioners of what's been pre-approved.

Posted by: Ted | August 21, 2006 9:29 PM

An additional point to ponder - I'm not certain that this is true, but I've been told that a large number (most? All?) of non-military prisons are run by private contractors, not directly by the government.

If true, there are one or more corporate entities who are profiting mightily off of our tax dollars (and expanding their business rapidly) for the "War on Drugs". (I worry about the "War on Terror" - if it works like the "War on Drugs" we'll have terrorists on every street corner - and in Congress - within a decade. Well, "even more so" in the case of Congress...

Posted by: SMC | August 21, 2006 11:45 PM

CPT Doom - Damn, did you get me thinking. I can quite easily see why you would get to that thinking - it makes a lot of sense.

But what form would regulation take? What is the appropriate way to distribute meth, cocaine, heroine, et al to the public? I guess, in order for me to support legalization, I'd like to see a breakdown of the steps we would need to take to reverse our policies without a disasterous backlash.

I would tend to think that a distrobution system similar to WA cuurent distribution of hard liquor would be appropriate. Stores that specialize only in the sales of "hard" drugs. I tend to think marijuana would be fine in more venues. But for the rest, stores that sell only those and strictly disallow minors would be appropriate. Also, strict laws governing such as driving high - public nuisance - would be neccesary, in most places they already exist.

Curt: The Dutch model would clearly be an improvement.

The problem with the Dutch model is that it doesn't take reasonable responsability for the "hard" drugs that have not really been decriminalised but are not enforced either. The other problem is that I would like to see serious tax revenue come out of the legalization of these drugs. I think we need to think long and hard about what to do with that revenue but education - drug education would be an appropriate expendeture. Health care is another one but that comes from my desire to see universal healthcare. With universal health care I think should come increased taxes on alchohol, tobbaco, junk food (a tough one to define legaly)and legalized drugs.

On top of the tax revenue obviously there would be tremendous savings from the billions wasted on the "war on drugs."

Posted by: Treban | August 22, 2006 10:19 AM

One important fact that you didn't state -- I haven't had time to check the video yet, I'm rushing this before cat-feeding time. Much of the so-called 'drug-related' crime stems directly from the fact that drugs are illegal. Partially the illegality raises the price -- alcohol may be the cause of many crimes but not the need to get money to buy what is, after all, an addictive substance. (It happens, sure, but so does the desire to get money for anything.)

But more importantly, a lot of 'drug crime' comes because neither the buyer nor the seller has the right to legal protection. If a marijuana dealer takes money from me for a couple of ounces and disappears, I either have to take the hit (as I did) because I am basically a non-violent person, or I have to shoot him. I can't call the local cops and have him arrested. If someone gets another drug on credit and doesn't pay up, if someone tries to rip off or rob a dealer, etc., the only solution is violence, because there is no legal protection. Even turf wars occur because the police can't intervene in favor of one side or the other.

And the question of corruption is a really major one. I would make a guess that 99% of police corruption comes from 'vices.' Not many police will take money to protect burglars or murderers -- and the few cases I know of started with protection 'vice criminals,' gamblers, drug dealers, prostitutes.

More later, but I have a 17 pound cat on my lap telling me to feed him now, and three others waiting.

Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | August 22, 2006 10:17 PM

About freaking time someone starts telling it like it is. All drug use, alcohol included, is merely a means to alter consciousness. Everybody generally wants to, look at children with their "spinning in circles" game, what is that for, to get to a disoriented state, an altered state of consciousness. It is part of basic human needs otherwise most people would never bother but most people do either drugs or alcohol at some point through their lives. Let's not forget the "runners high" as well...

Posted by: Paul Merda | August 23, 2006 9:40 AM