Justice was finally served in the case of Kathryn Johnston, as three officers were sentenced to prison today for their role in the botched drug raid that took her life.

These officers crossed the often all-too-thin line that separates drug cops from common criminals, and they will pay for what they did, as well they should. We can only hope that today's outcome serves as a reminder to others in uniform who've forgotten what it means to protect and serve. Alas, this comment from the judge suggests that Atlanta's problems with rogue cops are far from solved:

A federal judge who sent three fallen cops to prison for a notorious drug raid that left an elderly woman dead said Tuesday that Atlanta Police Department performance quotas unduly influenced the officers’ behavior.

"It is my fervent hope the Atlanta Police Department will take to heart what has happened here," U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes said. At the close of an emotional two-day hearing, Carnes sentenced former officers Gregg Junnier, Jason R. Smith and Arthur Bruce Tesler to between 5 and 10 years in prison.

At the hearing, Tesler’s lawyer provided examples of other Atlanta police officers breaking the rules or violating the law and said a disturbing culture of misconduct pervades the force. [Atlanta Journal Constitution]

Thus, even in its finest hour, our justice system remains crippled by the enemy within. There is nothing unique about Atlanta's police culture that brought this tragedy to life. Everywhere the drug war is fought, you will find police who have become indifferent to the very laws they've sworn to uphold.

Scott West lost his legs fighting in the Iraq War and now he's lost his home thanks to the war on drugs:

Newlyweds Scott and Samantha West drove their SUV through the gate of the exclusive housing community, winding upward to an empty cul-de-sac that offers commanding views of the surrounding valleys.

For months, the young couple visited this site and dreamed of their bright future, ever since a charity that serves wounded veterans announced last year it was building a house for Scott at no charge.
…
In January, just two days after the couple had returned from their honeymoon, the charity took back its gift after learning that Scott West had been arrested on marijuana charges in 2007 and pleaded guilty in December to a felony of possession with intent to distribute. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

West maintains (believably, in my opinion) that the marijuana was for personal use and he's never sold any. His lawyer convinced him that he'd be better off pleading guilty than fighting the charges, so that's what he did. My guess is that large doses of marijuana were helping him cope with the pain of getting his damn legs blown off in Iraq.

Of course, the war on marijuana is predictably evil, but what about the charity that took West's house away? They didn't have to do that. Surely, they have a strong explanation:

Homes for Our Troops founder John Gonsalves did not respond to several requests for an interview.

Oh. Well, I'm not terribly surprised that they couldn’t find the words to defend passing judgment on wounded soldiers for which medicines they use to cope with their condition.

Someone should start a charity that gives free homes to medical marijuana patients who get their lives destroyed by the drug war.

Mark Kleiman has an interesting post observing the rapidly evolving political climate surrounding marijuana policy reform. He points to recent polling data and observes correctly that we're entering new territory in terms of public attitudes and political opportunities.

Of course, this is a Mark Kleiman post, so there's guaranteed to be something in there that I can't quite wrap my head around. Kleiman condemns the alcohol model, which he says "would provide a strong incentive for the marketing effort to aim at creating and maintaining addiction." He estimates that rates of marijuana addiction would double if it were sold like alcohol, so he proposes this instead:

So I continue to favor a "grow your own" policy, under which it would be legal to grow, possess, and use cannabis and to give it away, but illegal to sell it. Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales. But there wouldn't be billboards.

That beautifully-crafted policy has only two major defects that I'm aware of: it wouldn't create tax revenue, and no one but me supports it…

Well, I'd favor this over our current policy without hesitation, but is Kleiman serious that he only sees two significant flaws in his plan? What about the fact that marijuana would still be sold by criminals? It's the biggest cash crop in America and its distribution (absent for medical use in some states) occurs exclusively on the black market. Even under a "grow your own" model, marijuana entrepreneurs will proliferate. And when their door gets smashed down in the middle of the night, they still won’t know if it's an armed robbery or the DEA. People will still get shot and killed over an otherwise completely non-lethal drug.

Can anything be done about that, Mark?