Regulating Cocaine
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:41 PM

Here's a short paper on regulating cocaine through a behavioral economics lens, employing the double default approach.

Labels: cocaine, drugs, licensing

 
Man Acquitted of Possessing Crack Cocaine -- Gets 15 Years
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:23 PM

Fortunately, this sort of thing could not happen in a country where juries provide the ultimate check on the power of the state to punish. The case just described, for instance, derives from some remote, tyrannous locale called "Wisconsin". The defendant was found guilty of possessing powdered cocaine -- a conviction that might have netted him three years in prison. He simultaneously was acquitted of a charge of possessing crack cocaine. The farsighted magistrate, the Solon of the Seventh Circuit, Judge John Shabazz, nevertheless sentenced the possessor of the unapproved substance(s) to 18 years in prison, relying on precedent that allows judges to alter sentences based on charges for which defendants are acquitted. The Supremes let the injustice stand. (Of course, the injustice would be little eased had the defendant been convicted of the crack charge. Our whole vilification/prohibition of cocaine is so unnecessary, and so accidental. (Naturally I am not claiming that cocaine is a safe drug -- it obviously is not.) Remember when popes used to say good things about coke?)

Thanks to a Friend of Vice Squad for the pointer.

Labels: cocaine, sentencing

 
Things Going Better With Coke?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:34 PM

The Caribbean coast of Nicaragua is enjoying economic development thanks to... flotsam:

A combination of law enforcement, geography and ocean currents has washed tonnes of [cocaine], and millions of dollars, into what was one of the Caribbean's most desolate and isolated regions. Villages that once eked an existence on shrimp and red-tinged lobster have been transformed. In place of thatched wooden huts there are brick houses, mansions and satellite dishes.

Most of the coke is thrown overboard by drug runners when they are in danger of apprehension. Others then turn up at the villages along the shore and pay a finder's fee: "Colombian traffickers and Nicaraguan middlemen trawl villages offering finders $4,000 (£1,960) a kilo, said [a police chief] - seven times less than the US street value but a fortune to a fisherman."

Labels: cocaine

 
One Month for Fake Coke Sale
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:48 PM

When you are ripped off in a transaction involving an illegal drug, just try going to the police. But when one of their informants is ripped off, well then, that is a different matter entirely. In the Pittsburgh area, Lloyd Amos just pleaded guilty to "theft by deception":

Police busted Amos in 2003 for selling a plastic bag of about 5.9 grams of bread crumbs to a police informant who paid $180 for what was supposed to be an eighth-ounce of cocaine.

Mr. Amos had been in jail for a month prior to the guilty plea, so the judge granted an immediate parole from a sentence with a 30-day minimum jail term.

Fake coke stories on Vice Squad date from our second day of operation.

Labels: cocaine, informants, policing, sentencing

 
How to Fight Methamphetamine?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:45 PM

The most curious vice story out of the UK in recent days concerns a non-barking dog. Specifically, the large increase in the prevalence of meth use that might have been expected has failed to materialize. The police have a ready explanation:

Crystal meth, predicted by some to become Britain's deadliest drug, has so far failed to take off in the UK because cocaine remains so cheap and popular, according to senior police officers.

Ensuring inexpensive and plentiful cocaine as a policy for reducing social costs from the use of illegal drugs; this is not your granddad's harm reduction.

Labels: Britain, cocaine, methamphetamine

 
Cocaine in New York City
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:11 PM

Today's New York Times runs an article in its Sunday Styles section about the prominence of cocaine in the city's nightlife (and in the lifestyle of the creative set more generally). There's a claim that the resurgence of coke use among young New Yorkers -- a resurgence that does not seem to have much statistical evidence in its support -- is in part due to 'generational amnesia.' The idea here is that the generation scarred by John Belushi's death was driven away from cocaine, but that the younger generation has not seen the same tragedies associated with the drug. This is a version of the usual 'new drug' problem. The use of addictive drugs tends to bring current pleasure and future pain. When a drug is new, few users are paying the cost, so it looks a bit better than it will turn out to be. New or rediscovered drugs develop better reputations, for a time, than they deserve. And the lack of a convincing statistical portrait of use is one of the raft of negative consequences stemming from drug prohibition.

'Coke is the new weed,' in terms of the acceptability of its open use in certain circles, according to one quote in the article. Another observer notes that the use of cocaine is much more socially acceptable than...smoking a cigarette. There's even a claim that the campaign against methamphetamine has made users think of cocaine as a safer alternative.

Labels: cocaine, methamphetamine, New York, Prohibition

 
Keystone Canine Cops
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:52 PM

Can't really blame the dogs this time, though. Seems that they were trained to find, er, talcum powder. In Australia, a pouch of the powder was accidentally labelled as cocaine, and used in sniffer dog training. Yes, a dog "alert" now constitutes probable cause to search you for that fresh, just-showered feeling.

Thanks to a friend of Vice Squad for the pointer; I see that Ken at Crim Law was on top of this one, too.

Labels: Australia, cocaine, dogs, search

 
Saturday morning reading
- posted by Michael @ 10:36 AM

What would a Saturday morning be without some exciting drug-related tidbits? None of the information below is really “new news,” but by some coincidence I learned it all within the last 2 hours.

1. First I found out that the war on drugs must have been finally won, at least in Europe. A Russian-language news site reported that the Austrian police has recently confiscated the largest shipment of cocaine in the country’s history. The cocaine weighed in at 143 kilos and, according to the Austrian police, it was high quality stuff. The street price is estimated to be more than 100 mln. euros. The interesting thing to me was that the shipment apparently originated in Colombia and traveled via the Bahamas, the US, and France. I have always wondered why these things sometimes travel in such a roundabout way, including through the countries where they are supposed to be consumed, before ending up in some location from which they have to travel back to those final consumption countries. I am sure there are rational explanations and I can even guess what they are. But it would be interesting to know the details. Incidentally, Austria is apparently far behind the US in its war on drugs. The same story reported that the previous shipment handled by the same drug ring was much bigger (277 kilos) and was confiscated in South Carolina, apparently without setting any records.

2. The News of the Weird column for January 9, 2005 reports about a Dutch retirement home in Rotterdam that specializes on serving the “incorrigible heroin addicts.” Apparently it has a long waiting list. I do not know whether the retirement home seeks to provide rehabilitation services, but it appears it does not. Also, it looks like the police are not interested in raiding it. Wouldn’t it be nice indeed if at least the retired people who can afford it could enjoy whatever drugs they want to consume in the privacy of their homes? But perhaps they already do in some more enlightened countries. BTW, this is not really a selfish wish. My drugs of choice are alcohol and caffeine. I am already able to consume them in the privacy of my home.
3. And here is my favorite item from the same News of the Weird column. In Salt Lake City late last year, federal judge Paul G. Cassell was forced by the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines to sentence a 25-year-old small-quantity marijuana dealer to 55 years in prison. The sentence was so harsh because the dealer had a gun on him during two of the transactions. Two hours before that, Judge Cassell sentenced a man to 22 years in prison for killing an elderly woman by beating her to death with a log. The latter crime was not subject to the mandatory minimum guidelines. This is weird indeed.

Labels: addiction, cocaine, drugs, Europe, marijuana, Netherlands, sentencing, treatment

 
Lazy Link-Based Post
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:59 PM

(1) Ken Lammers at Crim Law doesn't think that the Supreme Court will recognize dog sniffs as a "search". He also manages to use the word "thaumaturgic," which I had to look up. Pete at Drug WarRant is pessimistic about the outcome of the sniff case, too.

(2) Via The Agitator, we learn of Jacob Sullum's piece at Hit and Run exposing the DEA's backtracking from its own advice to doctors about pain treatment. Seems like following their old advice might have left docs open to, oh, DEA prosecutions and long jail sentences. This whole DEA idea is working out so well that I think we ought to extend it to other commodities. How about a Cabbage Enforcement Administration?

(3) Libby at Last One Speaks has the word on an extremely dangerous vice criminal, thankfully to be held in custody more-or-less permanently. Pete at Drug WarRant notes that case, too, as well as that of another vicious miscreant held only for a couple of years, alas, though some extra-judicial abuse also was inflicted. This leniency is sure to lead to a crime wave.

(4) It looks like crack cocaine is losing out to heroin as the analogy used to demonize somethin' you're agin', as Radley at The Agitator demonstrates here and here.

Labels: cocaine, dogs, pain, search, Supreme Court

 
The Crack Dealers of Anderson County
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:13 PM

Scott Henson of Grits For Breakfast has been tracking a recent episode in which 72 people, all of them black, have been charged with dealing in crack cocaine in a rural Texas county. (Here's one of Scott's previous posts; Pete at Drug WarRant explained the absurdity/tragedy of it all, too.) Yesterday Scott brought word of an article about the Anderson County case in The Texas Observer. When reading the article, it might be useful to keep in mind the Vice Squad mantra, that the high and mighty purpose served by our war on drugs is to make it a little bit harder for some of our friends and neighbors to consume a substance that they want to consume.

Does this Anderson County case sound familiar?

Labels: cocaine, sentencing, Texas

 
Cocaine Banished From the Earth Forever...
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:01 PM

...now that the US Coast Guard has seized 56,000 pounds of the stuff in two recent interdictions.

The prohibitionists seem to want to point to big seizures as evidence that their policy is working. What developments would constitute evidence that prohibition is a failure?

Labels: cocaine, Prohibition

 
Guatemala Wants One of Those Colombia-style deals
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:59 PM

With Plan Colombia, the US has set an interesting precedent. If you are a major source country for currently illegal drugs, and are willing to play ball with us (or say that you are), we will give you and your military millions of dollars. Now Guatemala, already an anti-drug aid recipient, wants more; from this week's Drug War Chronicle:

Just days after once again being named to the State Department's list of major drug-producing or transiting countries, Guatemala called on the US to pay up if it wanted better results in the Central American nation long known as a major transshipment point for cocaine heading north from Colombia.

In remarks reported by the Chinese news agency Xinhua, Guatemalan President Oscar Berger said the US must provide more financial and material assistance if his country is to be more efficient in prosecuting drug traffickers. "Guatemala is and will continue being a good partner of the United States in the combat against drug-trafficking," Berger asserted. "Should the United States want more efficiency, then it ought to be a better partner. They have the resources and must strengthen the Guatemalan army with speedboats and helicopters," Berger said. "The only resources we count with in the combat against drug trafficking in Guatemala are ourselves," he added.

Labels: cocaine, drugs, military

 
Smoke or Swim? Supra-Immediate Gratification
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:56 PM

Friend of Vice Squad Dima Masterov sends along this notice of a man who had to make a quick decision when the car he had been driving was sinking into a pond with him in the driver's seat. Fortunately, he didn't panic: he decided to smoke some crack.

Now, one of the explanations of how choices concerning drug consumption might not be fully rational has to do with an excessive focus on present pleasure, but this case is fairly extreme even for the present-oriented.

For more on immediate gratification, see this paper (31 page pdf) by economists Ted O'Donoghue and Matthew Rabin. And speaking of immediate gratification, I am so pleased -- really, too pleased -- with the new search feature at the top of Blogger blogs! I might search Vice Squad all night long. I'll search on "the", or "and", or "snus". Oh, won't it be grand?

Labels: cocaine, dynamic inconsistency, solipsism

 
Maybe They Won't Get Your House After All
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:03 PM

Yesterday, in lamenting the use of asset forfeiture laws to combat vice offenses, I facetiously suggested that instead of just grabbing cars, the government should destroy homes. Will Baude at Crescat Sententia reminds me that there's actually a chance the Supreme Court would not go along with that move! Following a 1998 precedent, the Court might conclude that such a penalty would constitute an excessive fine in violation of the 8th Amendment.

Speaking of forfeiture....a fellow was arrested on three-year old cocaine charges last winter in Wisconsin. Bail was set at $25,000, and some of his friends came up with cold, hard cash. After the money was posted for bail, a drug dog alerted on six of the bills, apparently, so the money was seized, of course. Now his lawyer wants the money back.

Labels: asset forfeiture, cocaine, Supreme Court

 
Vicewire, 7/11/2004
- posted by Ryan @ 8:59 PM

1) Another pilot has been arrested for operating a plane under the influence of alcohol. Earlier this week, two other pilots who were accused of being drunk in the cockpit were indicted.

2) A cocaine kingpin from a Colombian drug cartel has been captured after attempting to get to Mexico. He was responsible for around $10 billion worth of cocaine entering the United States.

3) More air news: the foudner of Peru's largest airline, Aero Continente, has been accused of drug trafficking, and prosecuters are seeking 15 years penalty.

4) A new ad campaign links pirating DVDs to terrorism and drug dealing.

5) Little victory: the island of Sark has lifted a ban on gambling on its annual sheep race Saturday.

6) Bad celebrities: Ja Rule, Judakiss, Marty Stuart, a Belgian cyclist named Christophe Brandt (found with methadone, by the way), Scott Weiland...that's enough for now.

Labels: alcohol, cocaine, gambling, Vicewire

 
The Benefits of Math Knowledge
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 3:36 PM

For one thing, if you learn enough math, you will not have to rely upon others to convert your kilos of cocaine into ounces for sale:

Confused about how to divide "kilos" of cocaine into ounces for sale, two teens from a Saanich [British Columbia, Canada] private school turned to their math teacher for help, provincial court heard Monday.

Thanks to ever-vigilant Friend of Vice Squad Dima Masterov for the pointer.

Labels: Canada, cocaine, teens

 
Please, Fumigate Our National Parks
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:38 PM

This is the request, apparently, of Colombia's Vice President. Why does he want parkland to be sprayed with chemicals? Oh, it's just the logical next step in the war against cocaine. First you criminalize users and sellers; then you criminalize materials that can be employed in the production or consumption of cocaine: of course this criminalization applies to coca plant cultivation. Then you use aerial spraying on the farms of those poor peasants who ignore your prohibition on cultivation. They respond by planting cocoa not on their own land, but on national park land, which so far is exempt from your fumigation program. So by this obvious route, you come to the conclusion that the parks must be sprayed.

The national park problem is noted in this article (registration required) in today's Chicago Tribune, though the main thrust of the story concerns how opium production in Colombia has been able to withstand the anti-cocaine efforts. In another victory in the War on Drugs, however, many Colombian farmers are abandoning opium production -- because the price has fallen substantially (through increased supply and not, it seems, decreased demand.)

Labels: coca, cocaine, opium, policing

 
Colombia Adjusts to Coca Crop Eradication
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:55 PM

You know that things are not going well for your administration when you start pointing to the war on drugs as one of your success stories -- but that is what the Bush administration is doing, according to this article in today's New York Times. The "good news" is that the attempted eradication of coca production in Colombia is being claimed to be "working," sort of: "In March, after a string of setbacks that saw Colombia's coca crop expand threefold to more than 400,000 acres from 1995 to 2001, authorities said new estimates showed a startling 21 percent decrease in the cultivation of coca in 2003. Coming on top of a more modest decline in 2002, the development validated for American authorities the $3.2 billion spent here since 2000, mostly for crop eradication." I always enjoy the precision in such estimates: 21 percent, not 20 or 22 percent! "All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot."

As for eradication, well, even after the recent proclaimed success...

The amount of cocaine produced here is, in fact, more than enough to satisfy demand in the United States, estimated at 250 to 300 metric tons annually, and in the rest of the world, for that matter. One result is that on American streets, the price of cocaine remains low - just $20,000 in New York for a kilogram, 2.2 pounds - and the purity level remains high, what drug experts say are indicators of a perfectly healthy business.

The Times goes on to talk about how the eradication program has led to smaller, more isolated coca plots (even of the eco-friendly shade-grown variety!) and the development of coca plant varieties with higher concentrations of cocaine.

Have qualms about the morality of dumping tons of poison on the crops of poor peasants? Obviously you don't understand that this is an evil plant, and any and all measures that can eradicate it are not only acceptable but desirable. So you shouldn't worry about the impending death by firing squad of this cocaine smuggler, either. His death surely will make society better off -- at least if society can survive being mired, defiled, in such filth, such an abuse of "justice."

Labels: coca, cocaine, drugs, sentencing

 
Crack Babies
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:48 AM

One of the more emotionally-charged arrows in the drug prohibitionists' quiver is crack babies. If drug legalization were to lead to a substantial (or perhaps any) increase in the number of stunted, cocaine-addicted infants brought into this world, well, that would provide good reason even for committed drug policy reformers to reconsider.

And yet, the media reports of crack babies from the late 1980s and early 1990s probably created an impression that is much worse than reality, bad as reality is. (Or at least, the nature of the problem was misdiagnosed.) Infants born to crack-addicted mothers face a very tough row to hoe in life -- but not, apparently, because of the maternal crack use per se. From "When Pregnant Women Use Crack," by Harold Pollack:

All else equal, healthy pregnant women who consume moderate amounts of cocaine usually deliver healthy infants (Inciardi, Surratt, and Saum, 1997; Finnegan & Kendall, 1997). But all is not equal. Heavy users often drink to manage side-effects of cocaine use (Kleiman, 1993). Many are malnourished, in part because they squander scarce resources to finance their habit and perhaps because cocaine suppresses appetite. Some users frequent crack houses where they are vulnerable to violence and sexually-transmitted disease (Edlin, 1994).

The May 26, 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association provides a new study that looks at cocaine-exposed infants when they reach four years old. Here are the study's conclusions:

Prenatal cocaine exposure was not associated with lower full-scale, verbal, or performance IQ scores but was associated with an increased risk for specific cognitive impairments and lower likelihood of IQ above the normative mean at 4 years. A better home environment was associated with IQ scores for cocaine-exposed children that are similar to scores in nonexposed children.

For the conclusion of this post, let me borrow the end of the Pollack article:

In any event, the most important task is not to resolve basic moral questions, but to improve the capacity of beleaguered bureaucracies to accomplish what obviously must be done under any reasonable view. The reproductive rights debate would be less divisive and less necessary if we had systems to track severe substance abusers regardless of pregnancy, if effective drug treatment, family planning, and medical care were carefully linked with correctional and social service systems, if child protective services offered continuing and competent supervision of known offenders. Can we create such systems given the poor starting-point of essential institutions? After 15 years, public discourse that disparages or excuses drug-using women will not help us answer that question.

[UPDATE, June 1: Pete Guither at Drug WarRant looks at some of the legacy of the crack baby panic.]

Labels: cocaine

 
Blogging is the Crack Cocaine of Web Publishing
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:14 PM

It seems that whenever someone wants to emphasize the reinforcing qualities of a good or an activity, or just its undesirability, the phrase "the crack cocaine of [fill in the blank]" is likely to emerge. In yesterday's excellent Times Magazine story on slot machines, it is noted that "Anti-gambling activists refer to slots as 'the crack cocaine of gambling.'" A quick Google search reveals that spam is the crack cocaine of modern advertising; video lottery terminals are the crack cocaine of gambling; casinos are the crack cocaine of gambling; cybersex is spiritual crack cocaine, even for women; and of course, our nation's drug czar, Mr. Walters, finds Canadian hydroponic cannabis to be "the crack of marijuana."

One of the interesting elements concerning the common use of the crack cocaine metaphor is just how darn unpopular crack cocaine actually is. In commenting on the recent Reinarman et al. paper finding that decriminalization does not seem to increase the prevalence of use of currently illicit drugs, Pete Guither at Drug WarRant reproduces a chart on the consumption of various drugs in San Francisco and Amsterdam. In San Francisco, 1.1 percent of those surveyed had used crack in the past three months; in Amsterdam, 0.5 percent had used crack in the past three months. The survey group consisted only of folks who had used significant amounts of marijuana during their lifetime.

Labels: cocaine