Back in 2006, then-U.S. Attorney for Western Washington John McKay appeared on 60 Minutes to defend his attempts to arrest and extradite Canadian marijuana seed seller Marc Emery. McKay argued that Emery was a drug kingpin and a threat to Americans. Four years later, Emery ended up in an American prison.

But after being pushed out by the Bush Administration later that year, McKay has had an interesting change of heart about our drug policies in the years since then. And in a guest column Friday in the Mommy Journal, he expands on his newfound enlightenment:

As Emery’s prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official, however, I’m not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety.

Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a “Schedule One” drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it. Perhaps this is because millions of Americans smoke pot regularly and international drug cartels, violent gangs and street pushers work hard to reap the profits.

Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana. Brave agents and cops continue to risk their lives in a futile attempt to enforce misguided laws that do not match the realities of our society.

I applaud McKay for speaking out on this now, and I hope that this does move the ball forward. He’s right to point out that many in law enforcement know exactly what he’s saying is true, but are afraid to say so publicly. Part of it may be that they fear having their professional hypocrisies exposed. McKay clearly doesn’t, and it would be pointless for me to harp on that – other than to encourage him to request a pardon for Emery, who was very far from the “drug kingpin” McKay accused him of being.

But one other thing did stick out to me. McKay’s column is dripping with his still-lingering contempt for those who actually do use marijuana. He calls them “idiots”, and despite even acknowledging that it can have medical benefits for some, he still thinks that it’s “dumb” to want it. I think this also plays a large role in why so many in law enforcement cling to this outdated policy. There’s still a strong element of contempt for those who drive the market.

Over the years, marijuana use has gone from being representative of counter-culture rebellion to being far more mainstream. Most of the people I know who use marijuana are regular folks who enjoy it the way many people enjoy a glass of scotch or a microbrew, but the idea of it being part of some sort of reckless rebellion still lingers. Even for those who’ve seen the light on what this devastating policy has done to our country, there’s still a blind spot to the fact that for a lot of people, it’s not by default a “dumb” thing to do.

Last week’s contest was won by Dan Robinson. It was Nettleton Middle School in Nettleton, MS, which came under fire last week for having race-based criteria for those running for class office positions.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Today’s news from The Onion:

“All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts,” said Gentries, who threatened to leave the room if presented with the number of Muslims who live peacefully in the United States, serve in the country’s armed forces, or were victims themselves of the 9/11 attacks. “Period.”

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa. It was the Islamic Center in Temecula, CA, whose leaders have run into some opposition with their desire simply to move the location of their center.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Tennessee No Evil
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I’ve recently started reading Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, a book that I’ve long wanted to read, but never got around to until now. Friedman has been a fascinating figure to me because he’s someone who was far ahead of his time in understanding the futility of the drug war, yet is also someone whose libertarianism is associated with fascist views. I’ve always wanted to know how much of what we think of Milton Friedman is based upon the things he actually advocated, how much is based on people’s misunderstandings of the things he actually advocated, and how much is based upon what’s happened in American society and our economy since he wrote it.

I’m only through the first 4 chapters, so I’m not quite ready to tackle that entire subject yet, but there were two things this week that compounded my thinking on this subject. First was the intense back and forth at Balloon Juice between E.D. Kain and John Cole. As someone who sits somewhere inbetween the liberal and libertarian poles of thinking, I’ve been incredibly impressed with Kain’s ability to balance the two. I’ve long believed that this is where the real debates need to happen, but that far too often libertarians fall back on overly simplified mantras rather than engaging on the merits. Kain didn’t do that, and in turn, some of the commenters (but not all) chose to fall back on overly simplified mantras about libertarians rather than engaging on the merits of the argument he made.

The second item that got me thinking about Milton Friedman and his influence was this post from Stefan Sharkansky about Mayor McGinn’s jobs plan, which perfectly illustrates what I’m talking about when I use the term “overly simplified mantras”:

So. We’ll let city bureaucrats who have no experience creating jobs in the private sector pick and choose the entrepreneurs whom they feel can (1) do the best job of creating jobs in the private sector, or (2) be the most attractive recipients of patronage. That’s destined to turn out well.

Maybe instead of raising taxes on the private sector so inexperienced bureaucrats can destroy even more wealth in the private sector, we just let private enterprises use their own resources to make their own purchasing, investment and hiring decisions?

Nah.

This is a common sentiment among libertarians; that government “bureaucrats” are like a black hole for public funds meant to boost employment, and that in order to really boost employment, only someone from corporate America can be trusted with such a complex task. Reading through Free to Choose, it’s easy to pick out the passages that lead to this belief, but Sharkansky takes this to an absurd extreme that I’m not even sure Friedman would go along with.

On top of that, Sharkansky doesn’t even seem to understand what he’s arguing against. Here’s a section of the Times article he didn’t excerpt:

The plan didn’t include many new announcements. Much of the money involved is federal stimulus funds applied for under the previous administration. But it teams up the mayor with the business community after an uneasy eight months and puts on paper a collection of things the city can do even in a difficult economy.

George Allen, lobbyist for the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, said the plan plays off the mayor’s strength — bringing together a diverse group of people and ideas — and will make a true difference in recovering local jobs.

The idea that McGinn isn’t working with the private sector on this is completely baseless. Not to mention that the largest chunk of the money is going to small businesses in the forms of loans and tax breaks, so that they can make their own choices about how to manage that money. You could potentially argue that one of the particular beneficiaries listed in the article is unworthy of assistance because the work they do isn’t going to benefit us in the long run, but Sharkansky is too lazy to do that. Instead, he just repeats a tired old stereotype about government bureaucrats and pretends he’s made some kind of argument. He hasn’t.

I don’t dispute that there are differences between public and private institutions. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. But how bureaucratic an institution becomes has more to do with its size, rather than whether it exists to serve the public, serve shareholders, or serve itself. There are public institutions that are nimble and serve the public well, and there are private companies that are unbelievably bureaucratic (I’ve worked for several). The key to encouraging job growth tends to be about boosting small-scale entrepreneurship, which much of McGinn’s plan seems focused on. The real tragedy of Sharkansky’s brand of “glibertarianism” is that it often does the exact opposite of that, through giveaways to large scale private institutions that do little to create American jobs or move our economy forward. What I remain unclear about still is whether or not idiocy like this is the logical extension of Friedman’s philosophy, or if this is a bastardization that ignores a significant amount of nuance. At this point, I still think it’s the latter, but it’s a topic I’m hoping to explore in some upcoming posts.

If they’d made this up on The Wire, critics would have laughed at how unrealistic it was:

The Department of Justice is seeking to hire linguists fluent in Ebonics to help monitor, translate, and transcribe the secretly recorded conversations of subjects of narcotics investigations, according to federal records.

A maximum of nine Ebonics experts will work with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Atlanta field division, where the linguists, after obtaining a “DEA Sensitive” security clearance, will help investigators decipher the results of “telephonic monitoring of court ordered nonconsensual intercepts, consensual listening devices, and other media”

And it just made me think of this:

Last week’s contest was won by Don Joe for the second week in a row. It was the area north of the Laredo, TX, where some wingnuts are still claiming that Mexican drug cartel The Zetas overtook some American ranches.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

– This weekend is Seattle Hempfest. During the festivities today, Sensible Washington is expected to announce their plans to try again in 2011 to get a marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot.

– Proposition 19 in California picked up another great endorsement this week, the National Black Police Association. At their conference in Sacramento, they pointed to the racial disparity in drug arrests and the overall negative impact on black communities in supporting the effort. However, not all police groups are supporting Proposition 19. Susan E. Manheimer, the president of the California Police Chiefs Association, throws down this whopper in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Prop. 19 allows a state and a workplace where any driver over the age of 21 can get on the road with marijuana in their system.

Proposition 19 does absolutely nothing to change the laws with respect to driving while intoxicated. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana will still be illegal in California. Manheimer was very clever in how she constructed this sentence, talking about “marijuana in their system”, rather than being under the influence. If someone smokes pot today, they’ll still have marijuana in their system three days from now. At that point, to insist that they’re still incapable of driving is foolish, but Manheimer seems to indicate that she may actually believe that.

– Dominic Holden notes that the number of marijuana arrests in Seattle has shot up sharply this year. And this is despite the fact that City Attorney Pete Holmes refuses to prosecute any of those arrested. Every person who gets arrested solely for marijuana possession in this city is being arrested for no reason. It’s not clear whether the increase in arrests is the result of SPD being more aggressive towards marijuana enforcement, or if Seattle residents are less afraid of using marijuana openly in the city, but this is another good piece of evidence demonstrating that Mayor McGinn was absolutely correct for opposing additional hires for SPD. If they have time to do this (and enforce jaywalking), it’s really hard to argue that we should be hiring additional officers in the budget crisis we’re in.

– Also in The Stranger this week, Brendan Kiley has an interesting piece on how much of the cocaine making its way into this country is cut with levamisole, a drug that can do a lot of damage to your immune system. What’s odd about this is that illegal drugs generally aren’t cut with anything until they make it into the United States, but this appears to be an instance where the levamisole is being added closer to the source of production. One data point that Kiley neglected to collect was whether or not the same trend was being seen in Europe, where large amounts of South American cocaine are also consumed.

The blow-up over the Burlington Coat Factory Islamic Center is quite possibly the most impressive display of American ignorance in my lifetime. From the inability to comprehend the actual purpose and location of the project to the completely inaccurate characterizations of the folks behind it, a majority of Americans are now opposing something that just about none of them seem to understand. After years of demanding that moderate Muslims speak out against terrorism, we encounter a moderate Muslim who’s spoken out against terrorism, and promptly call him a terrorist and tell him his religious freedom is conditional. We’ve become a nation that doesn’t deserve the great legacy of religious tolerance we’ve inherited from those before us.

If there’s one underlying truth to this sad episode, it’s that Americans don’t see a distinction between moderate and radical Islam. And I think one of the reasons that many Americans don’t make this distinction relates back to how Islam has grown as a faith in this country. African Americans often converted to the religion in what was seen as an act of defiance against a nation that long didn’t consider them equals. It was the religion of Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. Throughout the years, Islam has become synonymous with black radicalism. Wealthy and moderate immigrants from places like Jordan, Iran, and Egypt – who co-exist happily with America’s cosmopolitan elite – don’t fit into that stereotype.

Obviously, 9/11 did much more to cement this view in the minds of Americans and broaden it to include more than just black Americans, but also those in the Middle East. And far too many now imagine that Islam is a religion premised upon a defiance of American values. The reality of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would thoroughly shatter that illusion, so instead Americans end up believing that he’s someone he’s not (with a big assist from media personalities who are trained to never shatter the illusions of those whose comfortable loyalty comprise their ever-precious ratings).

And it’s this phenomenon that explains why a growing number of Americans claim to believe that the President himself is a Muslim. It’s rather obvious that Obama isn’t a Muslim. He doesn’t worship at a mosque or pray to Mecca five times a day. He drinks beer, he eats pork, and he’s certainly not fasting for Ramadan right now. Not to mention that he attended a Christian church in Chicago for most of his adult life. But when you internalize the belief that Islam is a religion based upon rejecting American values, another person’s religion isn’t about what they actually do, it’s about how you perceive their background and their motivations.

UDPATE: Another bizarre perspective on this topic comes from Franklin Graham:

“I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name,” Graham told John King. “Now it’s obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed and he has renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done, I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said.”

…

“Well, you know, you can be born a Muslim, you can be born a Jew, but you can’t be born a Christian,” said Graham.

All day, I’ve been wondering if people with a Jewish father and a Muslim mother are like seedless grapes. And what’s even sadder is that it appears that Franklin Graham believes that you can be born Muslim, but being gay is a choice.

Mark Kleiman once again lays out his “grow-your-own” idea for legalizing marijuana use while keeping the sale of the drug illegal. This is an argument he’s made before, and one in which I’ve written about my disagreements.

This time around, E.D. Kain at Balloon Juice does a superb job of addressing the shortcomings of Kleiman’s proposal. I don’t really have anything to add to what Kain wrote (or to Pete Guither’s long post here). Yet I noticed today that Adam Serwer, an excellent blogger on civil liberties, attempts to defend Kleiman’s idea:

E.D. Kain doesn’t like the idea, and prefers outright legalization and commercialization:

Furthermore, I’m much more afraid of violent drug dealers, over-eager SWAT teams, and the whole awful black market cycle of violence than I am about the lobbying arms of a few big corporations which apparently fill Kleiman with fear. I’ll take lobbyists over drug cartels any day.

I think Kain is missing at least part of Kleiman’s point. The whole idea behind decriminalizing marijuana possession is to eliminate the “black market cycle of violence”; since people wouldn’t necessarily be dependent on dealers, dealers would have a hard time plying a lucrative trade, and paramilitary SWAT teams wouldn’t be shooting dogs and old ladies trying to get at the hidden cannabis stash of a 72 year-old with cataracts.

And I think Serwer isn’t quite grasping Kain’s point. To clarify, I’m assuming that Serwer is talking about more than just decriminalizing possession here (which was already done back in the 1970s in a number of states and won at the ballot box in Massachusetts in 2008 with nearly 2/3 of the vote); he’s talking about fully legalizing the ability for someone to grow marijuana on their own – or as part of a co-op. Serwer thinks that this would put the drug dealers out of business. Kain is arguing (correctly, in my opinion) that it won’t.

As Kain points out, you will still have large numbers of marijuana consumers who have little interest in growing their own or being part of a co-op. They simply want to buy their marijuana like any other product and they’ll prefer to buy it from a grower who knows how to produce a quality product. On the flip side of that, there will always be people who see growing marijuana as their preferred avenue for making money and will become very good at it. These two forces simply won’t be outweighed by armies of marijuana consumers being proactive in order to comply with the law. This should be obvious. In the end, sales of the drug will still occur, and law enforcement will still be tasked with stopping it. And as long as that combination exists, we’ll still see paramilitary SWAT teams shooting dogs and old ladies because the police thought that they were going after an illegal seller.

Second, while I’m not quite sure where I stand on the choice between legalization and criminalization, I do think that marijuana abuse is a relatively minor problem. I’d like to preserve that status quo while eliminating the draconian penalties and absurd amount of law-enforcement resources devoted to preventing people from toking. But I think Kain is being a bit to dismissive in arguing that there would be no adverse consequences from the mass marketing of marijuana. It seems entirely possible to me that commercializing the drug could create a problem where none really exists — businesses have to make a profit; someone growing their own doesn’t. A world where a smaller, less profitable illicit market that continues to exist looks a lot like our own without the outsize penalties and adverse consequences of over-enforcement. I’m not sure what a world with a fully commercialized marijuana industry that profits from turning people into potheads looks like, but it makes me nervous.

We currently have a commercialized alcohol industry that profits from turning people into alcoholics, and we’ve grown quite accustomed to it. Hell, it’s impossible for me to go through a single day where I’m not exposed to some form of marketing for booze. Despite this barrage, and despite the relatively non-minor problems caused by alcohol (car accidents, domestic violence, liver disease, alcoholism), people in this country remain far more concerned about Muslims building swimming pools in Lower Manhattan than they do about alcohol.

I completely agree that a legalized marijuana market could lead to companies engaging in bad behavior. I’m rather certain it would happen. But there are ways to deal with that other than by resorting to an unrealistic prohibition-lite. You could make laws against advertising. You could even have the state control the distribution. Either of those proposals are far superior to continuing to enforce a ban on the sale of the drug.

Congrats to the Auburn All-Stars for making it to the Little League World Series. They play Fairfield, CT on Friday at 10am to start off the tournament.

The General connects the dots to expose the secrets of Obama, Mexican Muslim drug cartels, and the Clenis.

Josh Marshall wants some answers on the “Ground Zero” mosque story

For most of us who are anything but quite young, we grew up in America where Islam, as a domestic social or cultural reality, was close to invisible. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any Muslims in the US. The fact that some of our most searing and for many of us some of our first experiences with Islam came in the form of a catastrophic terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals and creates a situation ripe for exploitation. And here we have it. We’re in a midst of a spasm of nativist panic and raw and raucous appeals to race and religious hatred. What effects this will have on the November election strikes me as not particularly relevant. What’s important is compiling some record of what’s afoot, some catalog for understanding in the future who was responsible and who was so willing to disgrace their country and their principles for cheap advantage.

Justin Elliott provides some of those details in a War Room post here. The backstory is certainly disgraceful, but it’s also a good lesson in how this stuff works.

Back in December, no less than Laura Ingraham on Fox News thought that the mosque was a good idea when interviewing Daisy Khan, whose husband is leading up the project. However, after a New York Post article in May, things went haywire on right-wing blogs. None of the criticisms of the mosque had even a remote connection to reality, but no matter – eventually Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich were all pandering to this firestorm of ignorance.

And then yesterday, I watched Village idiot Matthew Dowd on the Sunday morning shows trying to claim that “tolerance runs both ways” and that Obama really stepped in it – by taking a position that was more conservative than what Laura Ingraham said only 8 months before. The fact that bigots with blogs can have this much influence over our national discourse should give everyone pause about what’s happening in this country right now.

Last week’s contest was won by Don Joe. It was the Our Lady of Mount Carmel School in Roseto, PA, where they held a carnival with a controversial game involving the President.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!