I had the opportunity to see drug war victim Cheye Calvo speak this afternoon at the Cato Institute, discussing the heavily-publicized botched drug raid in which police raided his home and killed his two dogs before discovering that he was actually the mayor and had nothing to do with the package of marijuana they’d tracked through the mail to his address.

Calvo’s story is well known and video of today’s event should be online soon (also featuring excellent presentations by Radley Balko and LEAP founder Peter Christ), so I won’t recap the conversation, except to say that I admire Calvo’s enthusiasm for pursuing accountability on behalf of the many voiceless victims of these same abusive police tactics.

But I would like to address a point raised by Radley Balko prior to the event:

A few commenters have asked why no one taking the pro-hyper-militarized police position will be speaking. As I understand it, several possible candidates were invited, but none accepted. I've actually sought out several opportunities to debate this issue in the past, and had similar problems finding opponents.

I was reminded of this as Calvo described the horrific thoughts that ran through his head upon being ordered to the ground by armed men in his own home. He enumerated several distinct acts of incompetence and brutality that characterized the raid on his home and the killing of his dogs.

*That they never checked who owned the home before raiding and initially literally thought he was delusional when he claimed to be the mayor.

*That they argued their violent entry was his mother-in-law’s fault for "compromising" their operation because she screamed when she saw them pointing guns at her through the kitchen window.

*That they continued to accuse him of behaving suspiciously even after learning who he was and observing considerable evidence of his innocence.

*That they essentially hunted his dogs down within the home, yet insist that the dogs "engaged" officers.

*That the police spokesman told the press that the raid had been conducted appropriately before anyone spoke with the Calvos to hear their side of the story.

This list just goes on and on. We would be dreaming if we thought that anyone would actually come forward to defend these things in a forum that provides equal time and allows questions. Fortunately, unlike so many botched drug raids before it, this incident isn’t going to be forgotten. The FBI is currently investigating the officers’ actions and, to his credit, Mayor Calvo doesn’t seem the least bit interested in letting this go.

Moreover, while there may well have been some actionable violations of protocol, I think the likely conclusion is that the totality of what took place here was essentially legal under Maryland law. While I’d certainly be pleased to see some officers face disciplinary action, I’m much more interested in whether political leaders in Maryland recognize the systemic conditions that brought this outcome about. And that won’t happen if a couple officers take the fall Lynndie England-style. Until the law itself is exposed as an instrument of violence against the innocent, we can be sure the next bloody botched drug raid fiasco is only days away.

Yesterday I noted Cato Unbound’s online discussion series surrounding the terrific article Towards a Culture of Responsible Psychoactive Drug Use. Cato has now published the first in a series of responses, entitled Is Responsible Drug Use Possible? by Jonathan Caulkins. I had a hard time with it.

As noted by Pete Guither at DrugWarRant, the whole thing begins with a cavalier dismissal of what Caulkins calls the "by-now dull legalization debate," which just made me cringe. It’s not just that I support legalization, or even that I would still willingly debate it if I didn’t. Rather, I’m just amazed that Caulkins has shown up today to write about drug policy on the Cato website if he finds the drug policy debate boring.

Think about how silly that is. The whole point of this online discussion is to bring together experts to share differing views on drug use and the policies surrounding it. Is Caulkins going to get bored when he reads Jacob Sullum’s upcoming contribution to this same discussion? Will he excuse himself from subsequent dialogue when the conversation inevitably turns towards the efficacy of prohibition itself? I assume not, but his word choices beg these questions and it truly escapes me why he would feign disinterest in the exact debate he just voluntarily entered into.

This aversion to the drug war debate is at least partially explained in his concluding paragraph, which adopts the classic copout that drug policy reform isn’t going to happen, so we can only evaluate our options within the confines of the current policy:

American voters appear to have decided that even though responsible drug use is possible ex post, society is better off if the ex ante gamble is prohibited. Given that reality, is it responsible to willfully flout laws that are constitutional and produced by a generally fair and open democratic process? I would argue no. Civil disobedience has its place as a form of political expression, but stealthily using drugs with the objective of getting away with breaking the law is an act of selfishness, not civil disobedience. The responsible decision is to obey the law, even if doing so forecloses some pleasures, and in that respect responsible drug use is not possible in today’s society, even ex post.

I just don't agree that following the law is always inherently "responsible," except to the extent that the law will sometimes get back at you for non-compliance. Moreover, he’s responding to an article that went to great lengths to explain how prohibition interferes with the ability to use drugs responsibly (e.g., unknown purity of black market merchandise, breakdown of communication between users and medical professionals, laughably bad anti-drug education, etc.). Caulkins is entitled to his belief that it's always irresponsible to break the law, but that’s somewhat beside the point.

The concern that you can’t use drugs responsibly in violation of the law is a problem with the law, not a problem with drugs.