Of Course Drug Laws Have Racist Component

Rand Paul, speaking in Iowa, points out the fact that our nation's drug laws disproportionately target African-Americans and Hispanics.  From Media-ite:

Paul spoke out against the racial biases present in U.S. drug laws. “I think drugs are a scourge. I think we’ve maybe gone too far and that marijuana is a problem,” Paul said. “And yet I also think it’s a problem to lock people up for 10 and 15 and 20 years for youthful mistakes.”

The history of the origin of laws against marijuana show their explicitly racist origins.

The truth is that our perceptions of marijuana—and in fact all of our drug laws—are based on early 20th century racism and “science” circa the Jim Crow era. In the early decades of the 20th century, the drug was linked to Mexican immigrants and black jazzmen, who were seen as potentially dangerous. 

Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (an early predecessor of the DEA), was one of the driving forces behind pot prohibition. He pushed it for explicitly racist reasons, saying, “Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men,” and:  

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

Good for Rand Paul for taking this on.  Now if Republicans would get serious about supporting charter schools and vouchers as well, they might make inroads with black and Hispanics.

Mexican Vigilantes, the War on Drugs, and Gun Rights

Armed vigilantes are battling drug cartels in Mexico.  Business Insider has a great set of photos about recent events.

The WSJ also reported on the vigilantes successful take over of Neuva Italia, a small town in Michoacan.

Hundreds of armed vigilantes stormed a town in rural Mexico on Sunday morning, forcing out most of its local government, witnesses said, and declaring they were close to ousting a powerful drug cartel that has menaced the region.
The takeover occurred in the southern Mexican town of Nueva Italia and was led by one of the area's so-called self-defense groups: armed squads of vigilantes that are making fast gains in some areas against organized-crime groups that Mexico's security forces have failed to defeat.

The LA Times is reporting that the vigilantes are holding 11 local police in custody, whom they blame for collusion with the Knights Templar drug cartel.

Vigilantes in Nueva Italia say they are liberating the area from the cartels.

This has implications for U.S. policy.

First, our brain dead drug policies are partly to blame for the situation.  Legalization of marijuana and other drugs would vastly reduce the money available to the cartels to fund weapons buys.  I don't approve of abusing drugs, I just know that preventing drug abuse through police enforcement is a cure worse than the disease.

Second, the government is ineffective in Mexico at maintaining the law.  It must take high levels of fear and frustration to get ordinary people to turn to vigilantism to defeat criminal gangs.  This is one reason why citizens have an inherent right to possess firearms; you ultimately can't fully rely on government to protect you.  Governments the world over have failed to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Third, the anarchy in Mexico doesn't bode well for our ability to maintain economic ties, which depend on a reasonable ability to cross the border with goods and services.  The worse the anarchy, the tougher we will end up making the border crossing.

What You Should Be Reading

• WC Varones details the disappointment of a few folks who are actually helped by the ACA and details more flaws in the system.
• Ari Fleischer rebuts Obama on the roots of income inequality.
• The latest polling on the San Diego Mayoral race; because electing a junior council member who was Filner's closest ally on the council would be a travesty.

The War on Drugs - A Tea Party Perspective

I ask my fellow Tea Partiers and Americans in general to consider the lack of wisdom in our war on drugs. The news story that prompted me to return to this subject are the wikileaks involving the DEA. The extent to which a civilian law enforcement agency has come to operate an international intelligence gathering mission is astounding in its breath. It is also frightening in that we have historically built protections between agencies and the armed forces dedicated to defeating foreign foes, and domestic law enforcement agencies, to protect the rights of average American citizens. The cables reveal the extent to which drug trafficking is enriching foreign despots and the way in which these leaders seek to co-opt the DEA to do their dirty work for them.

So why is this a Tea Party issue? Here is my case:

• Cost. The article points to the ubiquity of drug trafficking world wide. Effectively winning a war on an inanimate substance requires huge resources that we just don't have. Drug legalization would simultaneously put the drug kingpins out of business while vastly reducing the need for law enforcement spending on interdiction, etc. Those resources could be split between returning the money to the taxpayer and more effective policing elsewhere.
• Control of the Border. The steady flow of narcotics across the border makes securing the border much more difficult. While the bandits that traffic in human beings are violent enough, adding the military paraphernalia of the drug cartels has made border enforcement a nightmare. The nation needs to solve the border security issue, the cross-border flow of drugs makes this that much more difficult.
• Death. Americans keep dying in the war on drugs. Either innocent bystanders or government agents are regularly dying at the hands of the drug cartels. The money to pay for their weapons would dry up if drug manufacture were normalized.
  
• Freedom. This is the ultimate Tea Party issue. We believe in free markets, except when we don't, like in the case of drugs. But drug use is not different in any significant way from alcohol or tobacco use (or Four Loko use) for that matter. We don't interfere with Americans' rights to recreational activities, even if some of them overindulge. When people overindulge, we hold them accountable and get them help, if necessary (and I don't mean government help, I mean the kind of help you give to friends.)
  

I would love to hear from Tea Party supporters as to why I am wrong about the war on drugs. But you better bring your best arguments, defending a "war" started by Nixon that we have been losing for almost 40 years is pretty tough.