no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Ending the Drug War: Going Mainstream?

May 22nd, 2009

There has been a lot of mainstream political talk about drug decriminalization/legalization lately. Tom Tancredo risked whatever’s left of his political career by openly and seriously endorsing the legalization of drugs using the following anecdote to underscore his argument:

“It is now easier for a kid to get drugs at most schools in America than it is booze,” he said.

I think it just shows how little politicians know, how out of touch with reality that they actually are. He says “now” like there’s been a sea-change that’s just recently been brough to everyone’s attention—that up until “now” it was difficult for kids to get teh drug. My guess is that ever since they raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 in the mid 1970s (and also prior to lowering the drinking age to 18), that it’s been easier for a kid to get drugs at most schools in America than it is for a kid to get booze. Much easier.

Even the White House “drug czar”, Gil Kerlikowske, has called for an “openness to rethinking the government’s approach to fighting drug use.” In fact, he wants to end to the war on drugs.

Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.

Good for you!  People don’t deserve to be shot for doing drugs.  They don’t deserve to have their lives destroyed by your goons, so if you’re not at war with people in this country, then stop acting like it! The fact of the matter is that the primary focus of a good portion of America’s law enforcement industry is dedicated to waging war on American citizens, in the name of a plant. James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police puts the institutional incentives in perspective:

“While I don’t necessarily disagree with [Kerlikowske’s] focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don’t want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences.”

Yes, yes… “Rule of law” scam and all. Translation: I don’t want to end the war on drugs if it means we don’t get to play Cowboys-and-Indians anymore. I don’t want to end the war on drugs if it means that police officers will lose their jobs. Talk about withholding the cure to profit from the sickness—the zenith of moral bankruptcy. So, as long as people like Pasco are in any position of influence or authority, expect your protectors to continue waging the war.

Although it’s encouraging to hear more and more talk about decriminalization and legalization in the mainstream news outlets and from the major political parties, until I see it happen, I’m not holding my breath.

Drug War Victim Wants to Apologize

April 22nd, 2009

There are now reports that Derek Copp (who you might recall, was unintentionally shot by an Ottawa County Sheriff’s deputy Ryan Huizenga, during the execution of a drug-raid on his partment over 1/8 of one ounce of marijuana) would like to apologize to the officer who shot him.

Read it again.  Copp, the fucking coward, is not asking for an apology from the Jackboot who shot him, he’s asking for permission to apologize to the Jackboot who shot him.

Although the shooting was an accident, and Huizenga has since been charged with careless discharge of a firearm, (better than nothing, but not good enough, IMO) I can’t help but think that if Copp had been holding a gun, or had “carelessly” discharged one on accident that evening, he’d be very, very dead today.  In fact, given the circumstances, he’s very lucky to even be alive.

And he’s the one who wants to issue an apology?  This is very upsetting, and I can’t help but wonder, just WTF Copp is thinking? And from what sort of battered-victim syndrome is he suffering?*

Maybe a little humor will lift your spirits? It might help to imagine something like this:

sorry

+++

*My guess is that Copp’s attorney thinks that this might improve his chances in the “justice” system. Maybe it will. This is how it works: if you confess your “crimes,” if you bow obediently before the State and ask forgiveness, your punishment will be less severe. This is how injustice is perpetuated: by threatening you with severe injustice, you’re browbeaten into accepting a somewhat milder injustice. Your obedience/deference is seen by others as penance, as an admission that you really were the bad guy all along, and thus legitimizes the draconian actions taken by the police, and enabled by the courts.

Deputy Reinstated After Shooting Unarmed Student

April 14th, 2009

About a month ago, Derek Copp, a 20 year old Grand Valley State University student was shot during the execution of a drug warrant on the apartment in which he lives.

Ryan Huizenga, the 37-year old officer who accidentally shot Copp, will probably face nothing more than a slap on the proverbial wrist. He was initially placed on unpaid leave pending investigation. And although yesterday, Huizenga was charged with “careless discharge of a firearm,” a misdemeanor offense, he has also been reinstated, and is now performing “administrative duties.”  In other words, he’s being paid to do nothing. What’s alarming is the Undersheriff’s logic for reinstating Huizenga:

Undersheriff Gregory Steigenga says Huizenga was reinstated because it could take a long time for the case to wind its way through the court system.

I’d be less offended if they just put up the Blue Wall and cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Let’s think about it for a moment: If you’re pointing a gun at someone, it’s pretty impossible to “carelessly” discharge it. The only reason you point a loaded gun at someone, is because you plan to (or anticipate that you might) shoot him. It might well have been an accident, but it wasn’t “careless”.  No — it’s never merely “careless” to point a loaded weapon at anyone who is not posing a clear and immediate threat — it’s reckless and criminally negligent.

If Copp had had “carelessly discharged a firearm” at one of the officers, and lived to tell about it (in all likelihood he’d be very, very dead), he’d most certainly be facing several felony charges.

Particularly discomforting, is the blind deference to the authorities summed up in a statement from Joe Putra, one of Copp’s neighbors who although describing Copp as a “real nice guy”, automatically assumes that Copp must be guilty of something and implies that he probably deserved whatever he got:

It must have been something more than just weed

Otherwise he wouldn’t have been shot, right? Because the police can’t make mistakes, right? Because kicking down some college kid’s door in the dark of night with guns drawn is not a recipe for disaster, right?

And what if it was “just weed”? Did he deserve to be shot?

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics