Is it Time to End Prohibition (Again)?

At this link is a post at Prof. Berman's Sentencing Law blog. The debate in the comments is interesting and well worth reading. I agree with those who are pushing to end the Modern Era of Prohibition we are living with today. For all the reasons Zack lists in the comments, I agree.

From Berman's post:

The main group behind all this call for a new repeal of old drug prohibitions is Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Here's what's up on their site today:

December is the 75th anniversary of when America's leaders had the good sense to end alcohol prohibition. Today, we have another ineffective, harmful and expensive prohibition, the "war on drugs." LEAP has made it easy for you to take action and let your legislators know that we can't afford prohibition in these tough economic times. Visit www.WeCanDoItAgain.net for more information.

Moral Panic

Over at Doug's blog, the latest in the saga of sex offender panic, and extra reading about this puritanical phenomenon:

"Moral Panic," by Philip Jenkins. Essentially a history of sex offenders in modern America. Also Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World," which has excellent chapters on the "satanic ritual abuse" fever that gripped the nation for a decade or more. Opened my eyes to the historical realities as much as Mike Gray's "Drug Crazy" did for the drug war when I was in high school.

Additionally, here is a post regarding our swollen prison population and which political party/politicians are responsible.

Drug War, Congress, Sentencing, SCOTUS

The drug war and the new congress, sentencing and the Sixth Amendment, and it was an eventful week at SCOTUS. Doc Berman's is still the place to go.

Lopez v. Gonzales: Trafficking does not mean help to possess

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Lopez v. Gonzales. IMHO
a Common Sense Definition (of "trafficking" in the INA) prevailed over a very Legalistic argument. Even if the State makes a crime a felony the INA's language is controlling. The conclusion is worth quoting:

In sum, we hold that a state offense constitutes a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Surprising, or not surprising, that what appears to be a VERY simple and straight-forward, as in fastball down the middle, question went all the way to the Supreme Court? But let it be noted that there was a lone dissent, by Justice Thomas.

IMHO he continues fighting the bad war on drugs with the get-tough approach; but let's do that someplace else, and not make bad law over it. Is he just making a political statement?

Policy Recommendations

Regarding changes in the law, and policy, my first question is, do we really need, "a long term, systematic, comprehensive, institutionalized counterterrorism policy for the United States" as Kenneth Anderson suggests here? If anything, my preference is to reduce bureacratization. The constitution adequately provides for practically anything, we already have a gigantic court system, including a counter-terrorism or FISA court, and our policy toward terrorists and terrorism is very clear already if not constantly evolving. An "institutionalized" policy sounds too much like a new cabinet level or deputy level position, sort of like "drug czar" and I'm not convinced that Anderson's reasons are good ones. The political argument seems to be that once Congress has acted courts must lay off, and that is simply not the way we work. Or is it?