New at Reason
When drug warriors start to fret about expiring grants, they respond the best way they know how: Staging a raid to prove they need those grants. Radley Balko investigates and explains.
Comments to "New at Reason":
herodotus | April 15, 2008, 8:01am | #
Radley Balko is the best libertarian ever.Issues like this are what libertarianism should be about.
Why not leave the anti-war effort to the gazillions of idealistic liberal types who will be anti-war no matter what, and concentrate on this shit?
Intelligent, literate criticism of the drug war, divorced from special pleading hippies who end every sentence with '.....man'.
The chances of ending this drug war in the near future would be slim, even if the meager collected resources of libertarianism were completely concentrated on that one target.
But when half of those resources are spent supporting an already thriving anti-war movement, those chances dwindle down to nothing.
Focus people!
Taktix® | April 15, 2008, 8:10am | #
One leading senate proponent of re-funding the grants is, unfortunately, Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama.Let's hear everyone say how they will tolerate Obama's socialist economic views in exchange for a better track record on civil liberties.
Better on civil liberties my... aching... ass...
Rhywun | April 15, 2008, 8:23am | #
No politician who supports this crap is going to earn my vote. Oh well, guess it's back to not voting.latte libertarian | April 15, 2008, 8:32am | #
better than Mcain...libertarianjim | April 15, 2008, 8:56am | #
Maybe we need a Marijuana Political Party! At least that would get some attention on the mainstream media, especially if it raised a great deal of Grass Roots money:)LarryA | April 15, 2008, 9:10am | #
In fact, the situation got so bad in Texas that the state eventually banned multi-jurisdictional drug task forces.Good Lord. If even we get it right, how hard can it be?
J sub D | April 15, 2008, 9:16am | #
But here's a different possibility: If police in Kentucky can go out and find 2,400 pounds of marijuana in 24-hours anytime they want, just to make a political statement, that might be a pretty good sign that the grants—and the drug war in general—aren't working.Here's a third possibility. Law enforcement authorities tolerated dangerous criminal activity to continue while allowing children to remain in dangerous situations*, just so they could get extra news coverage for their one day blitz.
* Law enforcement boilerplate language, not necessarily agreed to by me.
Do these Byrne grants all have the same date of expiry? We just had a major drug enforcement sweep here on Long Island. I'm sure there's no connection...
I thought Obama was the go to guy for the drug vote, looks like there's no candidate for the election that stands for a sensible policy on the war on non-pc drugs anymore.
JimmyChanga | April 15, 2008, 9:48am | #
Reinmoose | April 15, 2008, 8:57am | #Is that nausea? 'Cause I got something for that.
I think I'm going to be sick
The Democratic Republican | April 15, 2008, 10:00am | #
where is joe to defend his good friend Obama? I need someone to remind why he is the Savior of American Politics.Elemenope | April 15, 2008, 11:48am | #
Instead of whining like bitches y'all might actually do some good by writing to Obama's campaign telling *him* that you will not support any candidate that supports predatory drug-war grants. (I already did.)Or would that be too pro-active for you?
Johnny Wishbone | April 15, 2008, 11:49am | #
the situation got so bad in Texas that the state eventually banned multi-jurisdictional drug task forces.What am I supposed to do now?
The Chief of Police | April 15, 2008, 1:35pm | #
It's high time we formed a joint task force to smoke out the drug offenders with a grass-roots effort under the Weed and Seed program. Our officers are in hale and hearty shape, and we do bequeath all of our best efforts to . . .What?
Excellent article Mr. Balko. The failure of the drug war aside, it's also been my observation that Byrne grants have been instrumental in the militarization of police forces across the country and the rise of the thug mentality that accompanies it.
Blake Dewitt | April 15, 2008, 5:27pm | #
Can anyone explain the D/R split here? Why are the Dems in favor of this? Why are the Reps opposed? Something is missing here. I'm sure Radley will get to the bottom of it.Drug..."warrior"? Real warriors ,throughout history , usually choose not to fight losing battles,or lost causes.But then, these jackbooted taskthugs ,are not really warriors,are they? Just simple minded bureaucrats with machine guns...cool.
madmikefisk | April 16, 2008, 11:09am | #
Do these Byrne grants all have the same date of expiry? We just had a major drug enforcement sweep here on Long Island. I'm sure there's no connection...Ding ding ding... we have a winner!
Can anyone explain the D/R split here? Why are the Dems in favor of this? Why are the Reps opposed?If I were to hazard a guess, it would have something to do with the federal government unnecessarily meddling in the operations of state and local police departments, which could be seen as a greater move toward nationalizing police. I know some Republicans wouldn't mind such a thing, but the state's rights angle is the best thing I can think of.
Clay Harlowe | April 17, 2008, 10:31am | #
Given the history of many of our elites becoming wealthy on outlawed substances, I don't believe for a minute that the drug war is about preventing drug abuse.The only sensible conclusion one can reach is that the drug war is about propping up black market drug profits.
The drug war is just another gang of thugs at work guarding their territory and eradicating competition.