Us Drug Policy “single issue” folks, ever eager to demonstrate ties between Prohibition and other problems in our society, have long suggested that but for law enforcement resources tied up on chasing potheads, the September 11 incidents might have been prevented.
We find confirmation from an unexpected source, a report by Justice Department’s Inspector General, released in redacted form in the Massoui trial. history of Report’s release
The redacted, unclassified version of the report can be accessed at the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at: links to 9 pdfs
Below, from the story, in the San Diego Union-Tribune (letters: letters@uniontrib.com)
Local FBI faulted for pre-9/11 errors
Report: Office too fixed on drug investigations
By Kelly Thornton
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERJune 9, 2005
The FBI failed to seize at least five opportunities to intercept two 9/11 hijackers before the attacks, including two instances in San Diego County when the terrorists lived with an FBI informant and were befriended by a subject of a previous FBI investigation.
According to a report released yesterday by the Justice Department’s Inspector General, the FBI office in San Diego erred by focusing too much on drug investigations before Sept. 11, 2001.
“Despite the fact that FBI headquarters had established counterterrorism as a top priority of the FBI in 1998, the San Diego field office was continuing to pursue drug trafficking as its top priority in 2001,” the report stated.
Among the missed opportunities described in the report: The hijackers’ associations with two people known to the FBI – Omar al-Bayoumi, the friend who helped them find their first apartment in San Diego and who introduced them to the local Muslim community; and an FBI “asset,” Abdussattar Shaikh, from whom they rented a room.
“Single issue?” Yeah, if the issue is getting our constitutional rights back. Thanks for this, Ben.
I answered < 2% because I think law enforcement needs to put some energy into dealing with folks who are drunk and/or stoned out of their minds and disorderly and/or operating a vehicle. Drugs and alcohol make some folks act a little crazy, and we do need to handle those who can’t handle themselves.
We also need to spend $ on drug and alcohol treatment programs.
That’s about driving while intoxicated. And millions of people do that with perfectly legal drugs. So it really has nothing to do with the legal status of drugs.
I voted 0%. I see no benefit whatsoever from making drugs illegal–except on the commercial side. Which is why I favor decriminalization, rather than legalization. If only we had taken this approach to tobacco, we wouldn’t have all these tobacco companies profiting from mass murder.
“–except on the commercial side. Which is why I favor decriminalization, rather than legalization.”
but then, next post, you say“vast underground economy, including widespread smuggling and money-laundering systems, which make it much easier to engage in terrorist activities, as well as trafficking in prostitutes, indentured servants, and outright slaves. ”
Unless you use the terms decriminalization and legalization to mean something very different from my understanding, these posts sharply contradict.
Without a legal, and presumably regulated market, removing possession penalties tends to make illicit production and distribution even more profitable. The Dutch and Canadians have somewhat mitigated this by a policy of defacto tolerance for production, with ensuing overproduction holding prices down, effectively encouraging export. This is not a problem for the exporting country. attitudes in the importing country will vary.
Legal drugs can legally be sold. Decriminalized drugs can legally be prevented from commercial distribution–and from advertising. This leaves distribution by the state. Cost of production, plus costs associated with treating health care costs, treating addiction, etc. leads to a price far lower than street prices in a prohibition environment. Then there are the enormous savings on the criminal justice side. A huge boon to the economy, as well as the health of entire communities. All because there’s a simple socialistic solution.
I’d call that a particular model for legalization. Could handle it for most currently “Controlled” substances, but I fear the Govt. would not produce particularly good weed. besides, you’d then have to have an annoying bureaucratic oversight of agricultural hemp production to make sure none was leaking in to compete with the State marijuana monopoly. I’d prefer marijuana distribution on the neighborhood Farmers Market model, supplementing grow your own.
have gov’t regulated “hard drugs” – cocaine, heroin, etc. – distributed through free clinics with treatment options for those who need or want it, and leave utterly harmless stuff like pot to be grown as needed by whomever wants to, same as home-brewing alcohol. keep restrictions for use by minors and while operating heavy machinery, but focus the laws on antisocial behavior that actually infringes on the rights of others. regulate what needs regulation, hands off the rest.
i’d plant some in my backyard if it were legal to do so, but there’s no way i’d risk it with the police state tactics popular now. i wonder how long it’ll take before a state decides to really thumb its nose at the feds and legalize it altogether, not just medical cannabis?
Home growing was found by the State Supreme Court to be protected by the explicit Right to Privacy in the State Constitution in the 1979 Ravin decision. Recently reaffirmed. A crime occurs when you carry your stash off your own property.
It could be like municipal water districts. A structure that “government” solely for the purpose of one specific function, rather than part of a much larger–and therefore not very transparent or accountable–structure. Or it could even be administered by non-profits, just as many social welfare programs are.
I’m all for using these sorts of mixed systems that actually increase the level of democratic participation. It’s much more “socialist” in the true sense of the word to involve people in these sorts of porous governance system than it is to run everything from a centralized bureaucracy.
The drug war is largely responsible for creating a vast underground economy, including widespread smuggling and money-laundering systems, which make it much easier to engage in terrorist activities, as well as trafficking in prostitutes, indentured servants, and outright slaves.
The drug war is just unbelievably stupid once you step back a few hundred miles and look at all it has done to weaken and corrupt our society. Not to mention all the knaves and fools it has got elected to high office. And don’t even get me started on the racism.
Exactly. But who could have known that a prohibition would increase usage, enrich gangs, and encourage government corruption?
Less that 2% with the caveat that they be made legal and regulated, ie tested labeled etc.