A federal court issued a ruling recently allowing restrictions on methadone clinics in Baltimore County to remain in place. The ACLU and a treatment provider had filed suit to have the county-imposed restrictions thrown out because, they claimed, such restrictions are violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, however the court failed to rule on that issue.
The Baltimore Sun reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("Drug Clinic Limits Stand") that "With a less-than-definitive opinion from a federal appeals court, Baltimore County officials say they have no intention of scrapping their restrictions on the location of methadone clinics. As a result, at least one proposed methadone clinic in Baltimore County could find it harder to open. A panel of federal judges, sitting one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, issued an opinion this month, finding that a Pikesville methadone clinic should be allowed to stay open. But the appellate court didn't directly answer whether the county law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act - which was the chief complaint made by a Pikesville methadone clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland."
According to the Sun, "The opinion handed down by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacates an injunction issued by a federal District Court judge that had prohibited the county from enforcing its law on the location of clinics. But the appellate court decision also allows the clinic, A Helping Hand, to request a new trial on the ADA questions. The clinic owner and the ACLU of Maryland said they have not decided whether to seek a new trial. 'Part of our decision hinges on what the new injunction says,' said Deborah A. Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland. 'We have to weigh the costs and the benefits of a new trial.' County officials say they don't plan to revise the regulations on methadone clinics."
The Sun noted that "The Baltimore County Council passed a zoning law in 2002 requiring additional approval for methadone clinics and other state-licensed medical facilities that want to open less than 750 feet from homes in areas zoned for business and office uses. The law allows the clinics to operate in areas designated for manufacturing without special approvals."
It should be noted that according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, "Baltimore is home to higher numbers of heroin addicts and heroin-related crime than almost any other city in the nation and these problems tend to spill over into adjoining counties where many heroin distributors maintain residences. The enormous demand for heroin in the Baltimore metropolitan area led to an increase in the drug's abuse among teens and young adults, who routinely drive into the city to obtain heroin for themselves and other local abusers."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
IMF: Afghan Farmers Made $1 Billion From Opium In 2007
The International Monetary Fund has issued an analysis of the Afghanistan economy which estimates that opium production is worth $1 billion to Afghan farmers. Meanwhile the United Kingdom, the nation which leads international anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, has cut back its funding for the Afghan anti-narcotics ministry. This move comes as international development experts estimate that development efforts to eliminate the opium economy there will cost at least one billion pounds and take some 20 years.
First, the Financial Times reported on Feb. 25, 2008 ("Afghan Drug Body Hit By UK Funding Reversal") that "The country's narcotics economy has grown in strength in the six years since the overthrow of the Taliban regime, which had successfully banned poppy cultivation in 2000. Last year Afghanistan produced its biggest harvest, with output up 17 per cent on 2006. It has also moved into the lucrative business of refining raw opium into heroin inside its own borders. This week the International Monetary Fund said poppy production was worth $1bn to farmers. The value to the drug refiners and traffickers is far greater."
According to the IMF's Staff Report for the 2007 Article IV Consultation, issued Jan. 28, 2008:
According to the Financial Times, the Afghan anti-narcotics agency faces a funding crisis. They report that "The Afghan ministry set up to tackle the drugs trade is facing a staffing crisis after the UK, on the instructions of the Kabul government, withdrew funding for salaries. The best-educated workers at the fledgling ministry of counter-narcotics, which is intended to play a key role in reducing the country's poppy crop, have been looking for other jobs after pay for senior staff dropped from $1,500 (UKP762) to $200 a month. The ministry said 30 senior workers had left since November when pay was cut. One official, a senior aide to counter-narcotics minister General Khodaidad, said he could no longer afford the rent on his Kabul flat and was trying to find an information technology job in one of the NGOs in Kabul, which pay far more than government jobs. Other staff members claim to have received no pay since November. Britain, 'lead sponsor' of anti-drugs efforts in Afghanistan, withdrew its subsidy as part of a process designed to bring pay into line with other ministries."
Recently however the UK government and the World Bank released a joint report in which they estimate that eliminating Afghanistan's opium economy will take an investment of at least one billion UK pounds over a 20 year period. The Guardian reported on Feb. 6, 2008 ("Opium Economy Will Take 20 Years and UKP1BN to Remove") that "Afghanistan's opium economy will take up to 20 years to eradicate and require a UKP1bn investment from world leaders, according to a government study published yesterday. The 102-page report was welcomed by the international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, even though it contains some highly critical messages about the effectiveness of some of the aid programmes. Compiled by the Department of International Development and the World Bank, the analysis suggests at least an extra UKP1bn needs to be invested in irrigation, roads, alternative crops and rural development to attract farmers away from the lucrative and growing opium industry. Its conclusions came as the UN produced fresh figures on the opium trade. The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime ( UNODC ) believes this year's crop will be similar to, or slightly lower than, last year's record harvest. In 2007 Afghanistan had more land growing drugs than Colombia, Bolivia and Peru combined."
According to the Guardian, "Highlighting the lack of coordination in the current aid effort, the report warns: "The result of weak Afghan leadership and poor donor adherence ... will be some very messy and ill co-ordinated development activities. "In rural livelihood programmes for example some donors have agreed to consultations, but nevertheless finance programmes outside the budget with scant reference either to the government or agencies." It says less than a quarter of the total aid to Afghanistan currently goes through the Afghan national budget, and also criticises the military forces in Afghanistan for not sourcing goods and products from within Afghanistan. "The economic growth needed to displace the opium economy and the development of the necessary infrastructure and governance to support it will take at least one or two decades"."
The Guardian noted that "The report recommends investments of $550m ( UKP275m ) to boost rural enterprise development, and $400m for rural road planning, construction and maintenance. Overall, Afghan farmers need start-up assistance, matching investment grants, cost sharing market development and a commitment to deliver through community development councils with the aid itself seen as coming from the Afghan government, and not the true donor."
The report, Afghanistan: Economic Incentives and Development Initiatives to Reduce Opium Production, concludes:
First, the Financial Times reported on Feb. 25, 2008 ("Afghan Drug Body Hit By UK Funding Reversal") that "The country's narcotics economy has grown in strength in the six years since the overthrow of the Taliban regime, which had successfully banned poppy cultivation in 2000. Last year Afghanistan produced its biggest harvest, with output up 17 per cent on 2006. It has also moved into the lucrative business of refining raw opium into heroin inside its own borders. This week the International Monetary Fund said poppy production was worth $1bn to farmers. The value to the drug refiners and traffickers is far greater."
According to the IMF's Staff Report for the 2007 Article IV Consultation, issued Jan. 28, 2008:
Opium remains, by far, the largest cash crop in Afghanistan. Opium production has increased steadily from 185 metric tons in 2001 to 8,200 metric tons in 2007. As a result, Afghanistan has become the world’s largest opium producer, with its share of the total world supply increasing from 52 percent in 1995 to 93 percent in 2007. The increase in production has resulted in a decline in the farm-gate price of fresh opium at harvest time. Although opium prices declined in 2004–07, they were still three times higher than in 1994–2000. In 2007, about 81 percent of the opium production was located in the south and south-west regions of Afghanistan, where anti-government elements are most active.
The impact of opium cultivation on the economy has been substantial. About 12 percent of the population (or 3.3 million people) were involved in opium poppy cultivation during the 2007 season, with the farm-gate value of the opium harvest amounting to $1 billion (11 percent of projected licit GDP). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that the total value of the opium harvest (accruing to farmers, laboratory owners, and traffickers) was about $4 billion in 2007, compared with $2.7 billion in 2005.
According to the Financial Times, the Afghan anti-narcotics agency faces a funding crisis. They report that "The Afghan ministry set up to tackle the drugs trade is facing a staffing crisis after the UK, on the instructions of the Kabul government, withdrew funding for salaries. The best-educated workers at the fledgling ministry of counter-narcotics, which is intended to play a key role in reducing the country's poppy crop, have been looking for other jobs after pay for senior staff dropped from $1,500 (UKP762) to $200 a month. The ministry said 30 senior workers had left since November when pay was cut. One official, a senior aide to counter-narcotics minister General Khodaidad, said he could no longer afford the rent on his Kabul flat and was trying to find an information technology job in one of the NGOs in Kabul, which pay far more than government jobs. Other staff members claim to have received no pay since November. Britain, 'lead sponsor' of anti-drugs efforts in Afghanistan, withdrew its subsidy as part of a process designed to bring pay into line with other ministries."
Recently however the UK government and the World Bank released a joint report in which they estimate that eliminating Afghanistan's opium economy will take an investment of at least one billion UK pounds over a 20 year period. The Guardian reported on Feb. 6, 2008 ("Opium Economy Will Take 20 Years and UKP1BN to Remove") that "Afghanistan's opium economy will take up to 20 years to eradicate and require a UKP1bn investment from world leaders, according to a government study published yesterday. The 102-page report was welcomed by the international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, even though it contains some highly critical messages about the effectiveness of some of the aid programmes. Compiled by the Department of International Development and the World Bank, the analysis suggests at least an extra UKP1bn needs to be invested in irrigation, roads, alternative crops and rural development to attract farmers away from the lucrative and growing opium industry. Its conclusions came as the UN produced fresh figures on the opium trade. The UN's Office on Drugs and Crime ( UNODC ) believes this year's crop will be similar to, or slightly lower than, last year's record harvest. In 2007 Afghanistan had more land growing drugs than Colombia, Bolivia and Peru combined."
According to the Guardian, "Highlighting the lack of coordination in the current aid effort, the report warns: "The result of weak Afghan leadership and poor donor adherence ... will be some very messy and ill co-ordinated development activities. "In rural livelihood programmes for example some donors have agreed to consultations, but nevertheless finance programmes outside the budget with scant reference either to the government or agencies." It says less than a quarter of the total aid to Afghanistan currently goes through the Afghan national budget, and also criticises the military forces in Afghanistan for not sourcing goods and products from within Afghanistan. "The economic growth needed to displace the opium economy and the development of the necessary infrastructure and governance to support it will take at least one or two decades"."
The Guardian noted that "The report recommends investments of $550m ( UKP275m ) to boost rural enterprise development, and $400m for rural road planning, construction and maintenance. Overall, Afghan farmers need start-up assistance, matching investment grants, cost sharing market development and a commitment to deliver through community development councils with the aid itself seen as coming from the Afghan government, and not the true donor."
The report, Afghanistan: Economic Incentives and Development Initiatives to Reduce Opium Production, concludes:
There is an asymmetry between the political expectations of government and donors for rapid changes in the opium economy and the reality of the one to two decades that are realistically needed before the opium economy dwindles. Effective counter-narcotics efforts inevitably are a combination of economic development, the provision of social services, and better governance and the rule of law. This will take considerable time, massive and sustained financial commitment, and political vision and stamina.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Under What Circumstances Can Police Search Cars?
The Supreme Court will soon clarify the circumstances in which police officers, who do not have a warrant, can conduct a vehicle search of an arrestee. The Court will consider the case of Rodney Gant, who was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia.
According to the February 25, 2008 New York Times ("Justices Take Vehicle-Search Case"), "The justices agreed on Monday to review the case of Rodney Joseph Gant, whose arrest on Aug. 25, 1999, raised questions that have sharply divided Arizona courts. State officials are asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last July by the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that a search of Mr. Gant's car violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence must therefore be thrown out."
The Times reported that "After Mr. Gant was convicted of possession of a drug with intent to sell plus possession of drug paraphernalia, his lawyers continued to try to have the evidence against him suppressed, asserting that there had been no justification for the warrantless search of his vehicle. The Arizona high court agreed, holding that because Mr. Gant and the other suspects had been cuffed and the scene was secure, 'neither a concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified the warrantless search of Gant's car.'"
The Times noted that "Courts at all levels have wrestled over the years with the circumstances under which the police can search cars ( and houses and people ) without warrants. Warrantless searches have often been upheld in situations that demand quick decisions by police officers, either to protect human life or preserve evidence or both. This fall, the justices will hear arguments on how Mr.Gant's case fits into those considerations."
According to the February 25, 2008 New York Times ("Justices Take Vehicle-Search Case"), "The justices agreed on Monday to review the case of Rodney Joseph Gant, whose arrest on Aug. 25, 1999, raised questions that have sharply divided Arizona courts. State officials are asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a ruling last July by the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that a search of Mr. Gant's car violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence must therefore be thrown out."
The Times reported that "After Mr. Gant was convicted of possession of a drug with intent to sell plus possession of drug paraphernalia, his lawyers continued to try to have the evidence against him suppressed, asserting that there had been no justification for the warrantless search of his vehicle. The Arizona high court agreed, holding that because Mr. Gant and the other suspects had been cuffed and the scene was secure, 'neither a concern for officer safety nor the preservation of evidence justified the warrantless search of Gant's car.'"
The Times noted that "Courts at all levels have wrestled over the years with the circumstances under which the police can search cars ( and houses and people ) without warrants. Warrantless searches have often been upheld in situations that demand quick decisions by police officers, either to protect human life or preserve evidence or both. This fall, the justices will hear arguments on how Mr.Gant's case fits into those considerations."
Monday, February 25, 2008
New Hampshire Considers Shifting To Civil Penalties For Minor Marijuana Possession
The New Hampshire legislature is considering a measure which would "decriminalize" possession of small amounts of marijuana by creating a civil penalty instead.
The Boston Globe reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("NH Bill Would Decriminalize Marijuana") that "Two first-term state representatives from Nashua have filed legislation to decriminalize the possession of up to 0.25 ounce of marijuana, hoping that New Hampshire might join 12 other states that have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of pot. The bill, which is expected to be voted on by the House next month, would make the possession of such quantities a civil violation that would carry a $200 fine instead of a criminal misdemeanor that could result in up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,500. 'I think the penalty should be reduced. Young people are experimenting, and if they make a bad choice, their conviction shouldn't come back to haunt them later in life,' said Representative Andrew Edwards, a 21-year-old Nashua Democrat who cosponsored the bill. 'The culture is changing, and I think the law should reflect those changes.'"
According to the Globe, "Representative Jeffrey Fontas, another 21-year-old Democrat from Nashua, who cosponsored the legislation, said he was not surprised the full House committee did not approve the bill. 'But we did have an open discussion of the issue. Mistakes early in life, like a possession charge, can be devastating to the futures of our young people,' said Fontas, adding that a single drug arrest can lead to the loss of a college scholarship, the ability to serve in the military, subsidized housing, and federal welfare like food stamps. Conley said it is rare for first-time offenders to get jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana. 'As far as someone getting arrested and their lives being ruined, I don't think that that's the case,' he said. 'Employers are more forgiving in this day and age, and police prosecutors frequently reduce marijuana cases down to violations. The threat of criminal prosecution gives them leverage to encourage youths to attend a drug rehabilitation program.' Hudson Police Chief Richard E. Gendron said he is also opposed to the bill. 'It's a slippery slope that won't lead us anywhere.'"
The Globe noted that "On Feb. 14, when a working group of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted, 4 to 1, in favor of the lighter penalty, it was the first time in more than 20 years that a group of Granite State legislators had recommended the decriminalization of marijuana. On Feb. 19, however, the full committee voted, 13 to 5, to recommend that the House not pass the law. The bill is scheduled to go before the full House March 5."
The Boston Globe reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("NH Bill Would Decriminalize Marijuana") that "Two first-term state representatives from Nashua have filed legislation to decriminalize the possession of up to 0.25 ounce of marijuana, hoping that New Hampshire might join 12 other states that have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of pot. The bill, which is expected to be voted on by the House next month, would make the possession of such quantities a civil violation that would carry a $200 fine instead of a criminal misdemeanor that could result in up to a year in jail and fines of up to $2,500. 'I think the penalty should be reduced. Young people are experimenting, and if they make a bad choice, their conviction shouldn't come back to haunt them later in life,' said Representative Andrew Edwards, a 21-year-old Nashua Democrat who cosponsored the bill. 'The culture is changing, and I think the law should reflect those changes.'"
According to the Globe, "Representative Jeffrey Fontas, another 21-year-old Democrat from Nashua, who cosponsored the legislation, said he was not surprised the full House committee did not approve the bill. 'But we did have an open discussion of the issue. Mistakes early in life, like a possession charge, can be devastating to the futures of our young people,' said Fontas, adding that a single drug arrest can lead to the loss of a college scholarship, the ability to serve in the military, subsidized housing, and federal welfare like food stamps. Conley said it is rare for first-time offenders to get jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana. 'As far as someone getting arrested and their lives being ruined, I don't think that that's the case,' he said. 'Employers are more forgiving in this day and age, and police prosecutors frequently reduce marijuana cases down to violations. The threat of criminal prosecution gives them leverage to encourage youths to attend a drug rehabilitation program.' Hudson Police Chief Richard E. Gendron said he is also opposed to the bill. 'It's a slippery slope that won't lead us anywhere.'"
The Globe noted that "On Feb. 14, when a working group of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted, 4 to 1, in favor of the lighter penalty, it was the first time in more than 20 years that a group of Granite State legislators had recommended the decriminalization of marijuana. On Feb. 19, however, the full committee voted, 13 to 5, to recommend that the House not pass the law. The bill is scheduled to go before the full House March 5."
Cleveland's US Attorney Decides Truth Does Matter
More than a dozen residents of Mansfield, OH, have returned home from prison after being freed when an informant's lies came to light. The drug sting operation, which yielded 26 prosecutions, is now the focus of a grand jury investigation and a special prosecutor appointed by the US Justice Department.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("A Frame-Up Falls Apart") that "Federal judges, acting on an unprecedented request from a prosecutor, have freed 16 Mansfield residents from prison because of an undercover drug investigation that turned into a law-enforcement scandal. U.S. Attorney Greg White of Cleveland said their convictions for selling crack cocaine were tainted by an informant who admits framing innocent people. Mr. White does not call the Mansfield defendants innocent, but he says the cases against them were built on lies. He said he had to let them out of prison because they were wrongly convicted. 'The government has an obligation to do the right thing. The truth matters,' Mr. White said in a recent interview. In all, the discredited drug sting in Mansfield resulted in prosecutions of 26 people. The cases against 23 have been dismissed by judges or have ended in acquittals by juries. This month alone, 15 men came home from prison."
According to the Post-Gazette, "The Department of Justice appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Teitelbaum of Pittsburgh as special prosecutor in the Mansfield inquiry. Mr. Teitelbaum says he is focusing on drug investigations in which federal and local law officers used a convicted killer named Jerrell Bray as their paid informant. Mr. Bray, 36, says he lied with impunity to implicate Mansfield residents in drug crimes. Worse, he says, law officers, led by a federal agent named Lee Lucas, helped him railroad many of those people into convictions. Mr. Bray pleaded guilty in December to two counts of perjury and five charges of violating the civil rights of Mansfield defendants. Sentenced to 15 years in prison, he has agreed to help in the ongoing investigation of the Mansfield cases. By cooperating he could reduce his sentence to 11 years."
The Post-Gazette noted that "Richland County Sheriff J. Steve Sheldon declined to be interviewed about the tainted cases, but he issued a statement last week saying his detectives did nothing improper. Many of those who were wrongly imprisoned tell a different story. They say in civil lawsuits that Sheriff's Detective Metcalf lied under oath about them selling drugs. They say his testimony -- or the threat of it -- proved powerful in winning over juries or obtaining guilty pleas from the accused. Most of the Mansfield suspects had prior convictions for selling drugs. Many pleaded guilty in the new round of charges in exchange for reduced prison sentences instead of taking their chances at trials in which decorated law officers would testify against them."
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Feb. 24, 2008 ("A Frame-Up Falls Apart") that "Federal judges, acting on an unprecedented request from a prosecutor, have freed 16 Mansfield residents from prison because of an undercover drug investigation that turned into a law-enforcement scandal. U.S. Attorney Greg White of Cleveland said their convictions for selling crack cocaine were tainted by an informant who admits framing innocent people. Mr. White does not call the Mansfield defendants innocent, but he says the cases against them were built on lies. He said he had to let them out of prison because they were wrongly convicted. 'The government has an obligation to do the right thing. The truth matters,' Mr. White said in a recent interview. In all, the discredited drug sting in Mansfield resulted in prosecutions of 26 people. The cases against 23 have been dismissed by judges or have ended in acquittals by juries. This month alone, 15 men came home from prison."
According to the Post-Gazette, "The Department of Justice appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Teitelbaum of Pittsburgh as special prosecutor in the Mansfield inquiry. Mr. Teitelbaum says he is focusing on drug investigations in which federal and local law officers used a convicted killer named Jerrell Bray as their paid informant. Mr. Bray, 36, says he lied with impunity to implicate Mansfield residents in drug crimes. Worse, he says, law officers, led by a federal agent named Lee Lucas, helped him railroad many of those people into convictions. Mr. Bray pleaded guilty in December to two counts of perjury and five charges of violating the civil rights of Mansfield defendants. Sentenced to 15 years in prison, he has agreed to help in the ongoing investigation of the Mansfield cases. By cooperating he could reduce his sentence to 11 years."
The Post-Gazette noted that "Richland County Sheriff J. Steve Sheldon declined to be interviewed about the tainted cases, but he issued a statement last week saying his detectives did nothing improper. Many of those who were wrongly imprisoned tell a different story. They say in civil lawsuits that Sheriff's Detective Metcalf lied under oath about them selling drugs. They say his testimony -- or the threat of it -- proved powerful in winning over juries or obtaining guilty pleas from the accused. Most of the Mansfield suspects had prior convictions for selling drugs. Many pleaded guilty in the new round of charges in exchange for reduced prison sentences instead of taking their chances at trials in which decorated law officers would testify against them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)