DEA and National Security

The Washington Post reports on the reorganization of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama.

The NSC will bring new agencies to the table such as DEA.

Given the centrality of opium and heroin prohibition to the Afghanistan conflict and the prohibition violence in Mexico, this makes a lot of sense.

Elevating the issue can help clarify that the intrinsic ineffectuality of drug prohibition is a serious aggravation of our national security.

Sphere: Related Content

State vs. Michael Phelps

A South Carolina sheriff is investigating whether to prosecute Michael Phelps for using marijuana at a party somewhere in South Carolina last fall.

Stanton Peele noted in The Wall Street Journal that thousands of young adults are arrested for marijuana every day -- but in New York City, which leads the nation in marijuana arrests -- 83 percent were black or Hispanic. In general, it would be pretty remarkable for someone like Phelps to be arrested.

Why should Michael Phelps be arrested? Smoking marijuana is against the law. Correct, but why should anyone be arrested for smoking marijuana?

A person should only be arrested because they are suspected of committing a crime.

What is a crime?
A crime is an act that interferes with rights of some one else -- hurting them in some way like an assault or taking their property -- or an act that is a failure to do a duty like paying taxes. For an official to take a bribe is the failure to provide honest services to the employer, typically the public.

It is not sufficient a reason to make something a crime because some in society -- even a majority -- do not like the behavior.

For example, would it be an appropriate exercise of the government's power to punish to make smoking tobacco cigarettes a crime?

No. It would not be moral to make smoking cigarettes a crime. Only when a person smokes cigarettes in a way that interferes with another person's ability to inhale uncontaminated air is he or she doing something that might be criminal. The typical level of interference might be a summary offense. Perhaps the conduct would be a misdemeanor if the interference were substantial in time or degree.

But it would be wrong for the state to attempt to punish a person for smoking cigarettes privately or with other persons who are smoking cigarettes.

Would it be a legitimate use of the government's power to punish to punish adults who smoke cigarettes in order to send a message to young people that they should not smoke cigarettes? No. It is wrong to punish people simply as a way to communicate a message or lesson to other people. This is known as collective punishment.

The extreme examples of collective punishment illustrate why it is wrong. During World War II, there were instances in which the German SS troops killed all the people in a village because someone in the village harbored Jewish refugees, escaped prisoners of war, or a person who had sabotaged a munitions train. This was collective punishment, and this conduct was determined to be a war crime.

When you hear someone saying that punishment is necessary to send a message to others, think of collective punishment. This is, of course, a different case from one in which someone has done something wrongful, such as raping a person, and in imposing a sentence the court says that it is imposing a long sentence as a way of sending a message to deter potential rapists.

Along these lines it is wrong for the government to punish a person said to be a role model simply because the person behaved inconsistently with our notion of what a role model should do.

We should distinguish between Olympic stars and Olympic stars with endorsement contracts. Is the fact that a person an Olympic gold medalist a ground for the state to punish the person for a minor transgression? Of course not.

If one has an endorsement contract, again, there is no role for the government. The issue is whether the company with the contract has the legal right to suspend its contractor for behaving in a manner that is disreputable and that brings the company into disrepute. What might be such conduct?
Cutting in line at the post office or the movie theater?
Leaving an ungenerously small tip for a waiter at a restaurant after a meal?
Cheating on a girl friend?
Drinking too much at a party?
Driving too fast on the highway?
Smoking marijuana?

If the company canceled the contract for such conduct, it is within their right, but does the company look small and petty?

We could ask, do role models ever go off duty? Do role models have any privacy?

This brings us to the question of whether any of us have any privacy?
Should people be entitled to privacy at all?
Do we have any kind of right to anonymity?
Can we just be unidentified as we mind our own business walking down the street, down the boardwalk, or in the mall or at the beach?

Or are we -- the moment we walk out our door -- fair game to spy upon, to examine, to comment about, to ridicule? Can anyone publish photographs of me, including my unattractive body parts that I am not most proud of?

Are we always in public, on the public stage? Are private events like a private party, now public events? Is there any longer an event at which you can let your hair down and "go wild?" Can young people any longer be young?

Sphere: Related Content

Drug money now keeping banks afloat in crisis, UN crime chief says

If we are concerned about criminals in the finance industry, like Bernie Madoff, perhaps we ought to think about the role of illegal drug money keeping our banking system liquid. How much more power do we allow criminals to get before we change our failed strategy of fighting them?

International Herald Tribune
U.N. crime chief says drug money flowed into banks

Reuters
Sunday, January 25, 2009

VIENNA: The United Nations' crime and drug watchdog has indications that money made in illicit drug trade has been used to keep banks afloat in the global financial crisis, its head was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Vienna-based UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said in an interview released by Austrian weekly Profil that drug money often became the only available capital when the crisis spiralled out of control last year.

"In many instances, drug money is currently the only liquid investment capital," Costa was quoted as saying by Profil. "In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor."

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime had found evidence that "interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities," Costa was quoted as saying. There were "signs that some banks were rescued in that way."

Profil said Costa declined to identify countries or banks which may have received drug money and gave no indication how much cash might be involved. He only said Austria was not on top of his list, Profil said.

Sphere: Related Content

Putting a period on the end of a sentence.

After a person has been convicted of a crime they get sentenced. Is there a period on the end of that sentence? Not if they are looking for work and every job application asks them if they have been convicted of any offense more serious than a traffic offense. John Christoffersen writing for Associated Press says that at least six major cities have dropped the question from the municipal job application. Boston's chief of human services, Larry Mayes, asks, "What are these folks [ex-offenders] going to do if they cannot work? You're creating a permanent underclass."

Sphere: Related Content

Obama: Seeks public comments for his program. What about marijuana legalization?

Norm Stamper, former Seattle Police Chief, a leading spokesman for Cops Say Legalize Drugs, and author of Breaking Rank, has a thoughtful op-ed in the Salem, OR News on President-elect Obama's Change.gov website's response to the enormous public support for legalizing marijuana to raise money to pay for economic recovery.

Sphere: Related Content