The Debatable Land

Mr Webb Returns To Washington

There were all manner of reasons for Barack Obama to pick someone other than Jim Webb as his running-mate (though there was a case to be made for Webb too). But, via Ross Douthat, here's a reminder of why Webb is, as he might put it himself, a serious politician:

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."

It is a gamble for Webb, a fiery and cerebral Democrat from a staunchly law-and-order state. Virginia abolished parole in 1995, and it trails only Texas in the number of people it has executed. Moreover, as the country struggles with two wars overseas and an ailing economy, overflowing prisons are the last thing on many lawmakers' minds.

But Webb has never been one to rely on polls or political indicators to guide his way. He seems instead to charge ahead on projects that he has decided are worthy of his time, regardless of how they play -- or even whether they represent the priorities of the state he represents.

I don't blame the Washington Post reporter for focusing on the political risks Webb runs in taking this stance. That's the natural horse-race way to view these things. More notable is the note of surprise, even wonder, in that final paragraph: Imagine charging ahead on worthy projects regardless of how they play! How long can a guy like that survive in Washington?

Now it's true that Webb's bill only seeks to create a national panel that will make recommendations on improvements to a criminal justice system that currently incarcerates nearly 2.5m people. Clearly this is a long way from actually pressing states to reform their prison systems. But it's a start and a reminder that, for all his excesses of pride and cussedness, Webb's one of the more interesting, even admirable*, members of the United States Senate. 

Anyway, it would be good  - chnge we can elieve in, even - if the new President supports Webb. (Politically, of course, Webb's doing Obama a favour: the President-elect has an interest in these matters, but it's more convenient if the initiative comes from the Senate, not the White House.)

As always, I can't really recommend Robert Timberg's The Nightingale's Song strongly enough. It's still, I think, the best book on Webb. (And one of the best on John McCain too.)

[*That's just because he's embraced stuff you like, ain't it? Plus the whole Appalachian, Scots-immigrant thing. If he comes out in favour of school vouchers you'l be totally in the tank. You betcha.]

Whither the Drug War?

Mike Crowley asks whether Barack Obama will offer any "substantial" change to America's drug policy. There's an easy, short answer to that: No.

At least, during the campaign Obama offered little reason to hope that he'd adopt a saner drugs policy. Now, true, that was just the campaign, but his website suggested that there'd be little fresh thinking on, say, Plan Colombia and, of course, Joe Biden was the inspiration for the first "Drugs Tsar" in the first place. More to the point, ending the "War on Drugs" would use up valuable political capital that Obama most probably has better, more urgent uses for. Still, to be fair, he hasn't disappointed us on this, yet and so, for the time being at least, hope breathes...

Mexico Dispatch

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times:

At least 38 people have been killed in Tijuana since Saturday, nine of them decapitated, in escalating drug-related violence that appears to have left in tatters a Mexican military offensive launched two weeks ago.

To which NRO's Mark Krikorian responds: "Better Get That Fence Built". I suppose that's a point of view, but a more rational response might be to rethink the drug policies that have a) been such a success in Colombia and b) are now being exported to Mexico. That might do more good than fretting about the possible impact all this might have on the American border.

Letter from a Florida Prison

Conrad Black:

The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved.

Yup. And that's capitalism with the government getting in the way...

[Via Andrew Sullivan who observes that "Alas, it never occurred to Conrad Black to be in favor of reform until he was locked up himself." True, of course, but what is it the Good Book says? I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.]

Tales from Brave New Scotland

Good grief. Needless to say, one of the more depressing elements to this story is the fact that it won't prove terribly controversial. That's to say, there won't be a fuss or a rumpus and you won't - alas - see any outrage from politicians in any party.

Pub-goers in Aberdeen are facing a drugs test before entering bars as part of a crackdown by Grampian Police.

Officers in the force will be the first in Scotland to use an Itemiser - a device which can detect traces of drugs from hand swabs in a matter of seconds.

The test is voluntary, but customers will be refused entry if they do not take part. They could be searched and even arrested if traces are found.

The device was trialled by the police force in the area earlier this year.

The Itemiser allows police officers or door staff to swab customers hands as they enter a pub or club. It can tell almost instantly if drugs are present - including cocaine, cannabis, heroin and ecstasy.

Customers who get a green reading are allowed entry to the pub, those who get amber are given a drug information pack and those who get red could be searched by police.

Det Supt Willie MacColl, national drugs co-ordinator for the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), said: "This project offers an opportunity for collaborative working to implement an alternative intervention that will help change attitudes and reduce demand for controlled drugs.

"We hope that over time the model can be developed and used by community partnerships in other towns and cities across Scotland to reduce the harm caused by drugs."

Ch Insp Innes Walker, of Grampian Police, said that as a result of the trial period in October "people had a greater confidence that they could enjoy a night out without fear of encountering drugs".

So, no need for anything like probable cause, no need for anything as quaint as the presumption of innocence and, naturally, it will be a "voluntary" scheme unless you want a drink. So, not so very voluntary. But, sure, it's only the people with something to hide who have anything to fear, right? Wrong. Who needs ID cards when we suffer this level of intrusion anyway? (Though ID cards will, of course, only make matters worse). Ghastly.

Plucky Honduras!

Meanwhile, there is good news from Latin America. Cato's Juan Carlos Hidalgo reports that the President of Honduras is the latest Latin American leader to call for an end to the "War on Drugs". Argentina and Mexico have made similar noises in the past. Some of this, for sure, is because the continent is turning to the left and is less concerned about upsetting Washington. Some of it, too, becase the failure of the "War on Drugs" is ever-more apparent. But Hidalgo suggests another reason too:

Another important factor is that many Latin American countries are now less susceptible to punishment from the United States, thanks in part to free trade agreements. A decade ago, all Latin American countries but Mexico depended on unilateral trade preferences to export to the U.S. market. Upsetting Washington could represent losing these preferences. Today, 11 Latin American countries have implemented (or are in the process of implementing) permanent trade agreements with the United States that ironically gives them more stability in their relationship with Washington.

This, I must say, is perilously close to a (rare) win-win situation for libertarian-minded chaps. As such I am, of course, suspicious...

UN Report Makes Sense: Can it Actually Exist?

Well, this is common-sense. So, obviously, don't expect it to have an impact.

A report on cannabis prepared for next year's UN drug policy review will suggest that a "regulated market" would cause less harm than the current international prohibition. The report, which is likely to reopen the debate about cannabis laws, suggests that controls such as taxation, minimum age requirements and labelling could be explored.

The Global Cannabis Commission report, which will be launched today at a conference in the House of Lords, has reached conclusions which its authors suggest "challenge the received wisdom concerning cannabis". It was carried out for the Beckley foundation, a UN-accredited NGO, for the 2009 UN strategic drug policy review.

There are, according to the report, now more than 160 million users of the drug worldwide. "Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco," according to the report.

A regulated market for cannabis might, mind you, be a "gateway" to regulated markets for other drugs, including cocaine and heroin and that, obviously, cannot be countenanced, let alone permitted. Better to stick with current successful policies...

Winning and Losing in Afghanistan

A rather interesting development in Kabul. The French satirical newspaper Le Canard Enchaînė (France's Private Eye) claims that the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, has told the French that the war is lost. According to Le Canard:

The British ambassador and his deputy have in turn contacted me to pass on their analysis of the situation before the Franco-British meeting on Afghanistan. These were their main points:

-- The current situation is bad. The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the government has lost all trust. Our public statements should not delude us over the fact that the insurrection, while incapable of winning a military victory, nevertheless has the capacity to make life increasingly difficult, including in the capital.

-- The presence -- especially the military presence -- of the coalition is part of the problem, not the solution. The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them. In doing so, they are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis (which, moreover, will probably be dramatic.

The British Ambassador also told the French:

The reinforcement of the military presence would have a perverse effect: it would identify us even more clearly as an occupying force and it would multiply the number of targets (for the insurgents).

We have no alternative to supporting the United States in Afghanistan... but we should tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one.

"Within five or ten years from now... (it would be positive) if Afghanistan were governed by an acceptable dictator... This outlook is the only realistic one and we should prepare our public opinion to accept it... In the short term we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan.... The American strategy is destined to fail.

Now, of course, a) this may not be true and b) is only one, admittedly well-placed, man's view. Nonetheless, let's suppose that this is an accurate summary of the British Embassy's views. What does it mean?

At the very least one might hope it will cause some people to ask some questions. We like to think of Afghanistan as the "good" war. But what does that mean? Allied troops have been in Afghanistan for six years now and a military victory remains elusive. Is this merely a matter of resources? If it's not, then how useful are promises to pour more troops into Afghanistan? And what does victory look like anyway? How sustainable are current operations? In fact, are we more concerned with "winning" the "war on drugs" than with pacifying the Hindu Kush and Helmand province? To what extent is the drug war compromising our ability to achieve our other objectives? Furthermore, what sort of threat does the Taliban (and a rump al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan pose to the non-Afghan world? Is it containable absent a military occupation? How long should our current occupation last? Dare we tell the public? Can we win? What are the adverse consequences, if any, of winning?

I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions. But I'd be interested in seeing them asked in Washington and London and Paris. The Ambassador, if he's been quoted correctly, may well be wrong. But what if he's right?

[Hat-tip: Art Goldhammer]

Lance Armstrong: A Sceptic Writes...

More Culture11: I've a piece arguing that no-one should be terribly happy about Lance Armstrong's decision to come out of retirement next season. Snippet:

Unlike fans in other sports, such as baseball or track and field, many cycling fans simply don't see doping as a criminal or ethical offense. In its way, then, cycling is the purest distillation of the logic behind elite sport: Super-human performance demands supra-human resources. It is the cost of doing business.

We might more profitably ask why our attitudes to drug-use have changed. Everyone has known for decades that the peloton has been a pharmacy on wheels. Until recently, this bothered few people. These days, the cycling controversies say more about society's wider drug-related hysteria than they do about the ethics and mechanics of professional cycling itself. Paradoxically, Armstrong's inability to fail a drug test exacerbates rather than alleviates this problem.

So, hate me people, I'm a Lance-sceptic. One thing I didn't mention in the piece is how Armstrong destroyed his chance of being considered the greatest cyclist of all time. Sure, he has seven Tour victories, but he never even attempted, let alone achieved, the Giro-Tour double. That remains the greatest feat any grand tour rider can aspire to achieve. Not everyone has managed it - indeed it's only been done 12 times - but all the great riders have at least ridden both races and most have won both tours, even if not always in the same year. All, that is, with the exception of Armstrong.

It's this failure  - a failure of ambition, a failure of romance and a failure to honour the past - that in my view ensures Armstrong doesn't, despite everything, rank alongside Eddy Merckx (Giro-tour doubles in 1970, 72 and 74), Fausto Coppi (the first to do it, in 1949 and 52) and Bernard Hinault (1982, 85). Heck, even Miguel Indurain won a brace of Giro titles to go alongside his five victories around the Hexagon. To fail is one thing, but to not even attempt it is quite another...

Palin's Background

Where is Sarah Palin really from? Matt Welch gets the inside dope from an Alaskan who knows, civil liberties campaigner Bill Scannell. This may be the most entertaining commentary on L'Affaire Palin I've yet seen:

Q: I was just talking to someone who claimed to have knowledge of Alaska to some degree, and they say where Sarah Palin comes from it's the equivalent of Humboldt or Chico in California, like, of course, you know, she'd have a Girls Gone Wild phase, and smoking pot. Is this just wishcasting, or what can you tell us about her geographical background?

A: So the Mat-Su Valley, you know, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, otherwise known as Upper Wingnuttia, is full of right-wing libertarian militia fundamendalist Christian gun-toting, pot-growing dope-heads.

Q: Awesome.

A: Yeah. If Jerry Falwell rolled his own, you would have the Mat-Su Valley. I live in South Anchorage, and my raspberry plants, courtesy of 22 hours of daylight in the summer, grow eight and a half foot high. That's a raspberry bush. Can you imagine what a single pot plant would turn into? [...]

Whole thing here.

The Streets of Baltimore

If you like The Wire you should definitely read this piece in the Washington Monthly. And if you don't like The Wire that must be because you haven't seen it yet. If that's the case, you have a treat in store: 60 odd hours of the best television series ever made.

I mean this sort of thing is horrific. Yet also horrifically compelling:

What would become the fifth and final murder charge in the case of Willie Mitchell and his cohorts took place two months later. This time, only Mitchell’s friend Shawn Gardner was directly involved. It began with a man named Darius Spence, who had found out that his wife, Tanya, was cheating on him with a local drug dealer everyone called “Momma.”

Spence decided to have Momma beaten up severely. To accomplish this, he negotiated with another drug dealer named Willie Montgomery. Would Montgomery be willing to beat up Momma in exchange for money? But Montgomery had another proposition altogether. Beating Momma up didn’t make sense, Montgomery argued, because then Momma would undoubtedly try to kill Montgomery. It was better just to kill Momma outright, and for five thousand dollars, Montgomery would be glad to do the job. Spence said he’d think it over.

Unfortunately for Darius Spence, Montgomery wasn’t interested in waiting around for an answer. Instead, sensing opportunity, Montgomery decided to tell Momma about the hit. If I turn down the deal, Montgomery explained, then Spence will probably just hire someone else to kill you. Therefore, Montgomery reasoned, you should hire me to kill Spence first. Momma was persuaded. (As Montgomery later explained to the prosecutors, “I guess he like that idea better than Darius Spence’s idea.”)

Department of Common-Sense

Sometimes the news isn't terrible:

A doctor caught with 14 ecstasy tablets at a music festival has been allowed to keep his licence to practise.

A General Medical Council panel told Dr Fraser Gibb they were satisfied he only used drugs to enhance his life and not to "prop it up".

However, it found him guilty of misconduct and imposed conditions on his licence over the next 18 months.

But suppose Dr Gibb were popping the occasional pill to "prop-up" his life? Why would that be an affront to civilised society and all that's sweet and wholesome on this planet?

After all:

Colleagues at Dumfries and Galloway NHS Trust said the locum consultant psychiatrist at Crichton Royal Hospital was an asset to the trust and preventing him from working would not serve any purpose for patients.

This would, presumably, continue to be the case if Dr Gibb continued to take E while attending music festivals. Function seems rather more important than form in this, or any other drugs-related, case.

Argentina Shock: Good News!

Argentina is one of my favourite countries, so it's especially pleasing to note that, for once, there's some happy news from that melancholy land. Cato's Juan Carlos Hidalgo reports that a federal court has decriminalised the consumption of drugs. According to this account (in Spanish) the court ruled that arresting young people for possessing marijuana and ecstasy was pointless, serving only to create "an avalanche of cases targeting consumers without climbing up in the ladder of [drug] trafficking".

The case now moves to the Supreme Court, but the ruling is in line with President Cristina Kirchner's own preference for decriminalisation, while the Minister of Jstice, Anibal Fernandez, has also stated that targetting consumers has been a "total failure".

Department of Incentives*

This time in poor Colombia:

Funded in part by the Bush administration, a six-year military offensive has helped the government here wrest back territory once controlled by guerrillas and kill hundreds of rebels in recent months, including two top commanders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

But under intense pressure from Colombian military commanders to register combat kills, the army has in recent years also increasingly been killing poor farmers and passing them off as rebels slain in combat, government officials and human rights groups say. The tactic has touched off a fierce debate in the Defense Ministry between tradition-bound generals who favor an aggressive campaign that centers on body counts and reformers who say the army needs to develop other yardsticks to measure battlefield success.

*ie, the importance of getting them right.

Brain cancer? You need to do better than that, Miss...

America's drug laws are wicked. So too are the scandalous conditions inside American prisons. And sometimes the people running those prisons are crueler than you might think possible. Radley Balko has the details of what is, alas, just another outrage.