MSU Debate Polls the Professors is an ongoing series where students from the MSU Debate Team interview professors and faculty at Michigan State to augment their yearly research. The year-long college debate resolution this year is “Resolved: The United States should legalize all or nearly all of one or more of the following in the United States: marihuana, online gambling, physician-assisted suicide, prostitution, the sale of human organs.” As part of the team’s research efforts, students ask questions pertaining to the topic of professors from Political Science, Philosophy, Criminal Justice, and Law.
David L. Carter is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice and Director of the Intelligence Program at Michigan State University. His expertise is in the areas of policing issues, violent crime control, law enforcement intelligence and counterterrorism. A former Kansas City, Missouri police officer, Dr. Carter was Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, Texas for 9 years prior to his appointment at Michigan State in 1985. He has served as a trainer, consultant, and advisor to many law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia on various law enforcement issues. In addition, he has presented training sessions at the FBI National Academy, the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar (LEEDS), the International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary; the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) in Tokyo; special programs for the Royal Thai Police, Hong Kong Police, the British Police Staff College at Bramshill, several British Police Constabularies and police “command colleges” of several states. He also served at the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Sciences Unit the first academic faculty exchange with the Bureau. Dr. Carter is an Instructor in the Bureau of Justice Assistance SLATT program, author of the COPS-funded publication, Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement; served as Project Director for three multi-million dollar national intelligence training programs funded by the Department of Homeland Security and co-Project Director of a National Institute of Justice grants to do a nationwide study on best practices and efficacy of law enforcement intelligence initiatives. Dr. Carter was also Team Leader of two Department of Justice assessments of the Homicide Units at the New Orleans Police Department and Puerto Rico Police Department. He is an Academic Fellow of the Foundation for Defending Democracies wherein he studied terrorism in Israel. He is the author or co-author of five books and numerous articles and monographs on policing issues and is a member of the Editorial Boards of various professional publications. Dr. Carter is also a member of the Justice Department’s Global Intelligence Working Group Training Committee and Privacy Committee
MSU Debate: Some argue that prohibition enforcement for marijuana is too much of a burden and legalization would benefit law enforcement (by freeing up resources) but others argue that legalization would have adverse effects on law enforcement. What is the impact on law enforcement if the federal government legalizes marijuana?
DLC: This question is more complex than it may seem - there is not single universal answer. It will have a different effect on federal law enforcement than state or local law enforcement.
In the "big picture" the current enforcement of marijuana laws does not cost most state and local law enforcement agencies much money -- most of the state laws and local ordinances on possession of marijuana are used when an officer happens to encounter marijuana possession. Proactive drug investigations by state and local law enforcement virtually also go after sellers and distributors. Generally speaking it is rare that marijuana is singularly targeted -- many drug distributors are supplying multiple types of controlled substances. If marijuana is legalized, then that is simply taken "off the list" but there are plenty more drugs that remain illegal. In the practical daily world of policing, the effect of legalization would have minimal effect and would not free up resources.
For federal law enforcement, legalization of marijuana is not a matter of ending an enforcement responsibility, but likely changing the focus. If there is federal legalization of use and possession of marijuana, there will be new regulations on packaging, quality control, and taxes. Federal law enforcement, such as DEA, will probably shift their focus from criminal law enforcement to compliance enforcement. Most likely, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would take on a new responsibility for tax enforcement much like they do for tobacco. Legalization also does not mean that marijuana can simply come into the country without controls. Just like their are regulatory, safety and tax controls on imported liquor, there will likely be the same for marijuana. Hence ICE and the Border Patrol will still seize marijuana that is smuggled into the U.S. that do not follow import regulations. "Bootleg" marijuana will no doubt still arrive in the U.S. and be sold at a price lower than commercialized marijuana. There will likely still be criminal law enforcement against bootleg marijuana distributors because they will no doubt be violating tax laws -- just like bootleg cigarette sellers.
MSU Debate: Many have said that legalizing marijuana would reduce a stream of revenue for terrorist organizations and/or Mexican cartels. What would the impact of legalizing marijuana be on terrorist organizations and/or Mexican cartels?
DLC: Legalization would have no effect on terrorists' organization. The only terrorist organization that has consistently and actively been involved in drug trafficking is the Taliban, and it trafficked in Afghan heroin. While some marijuana has been sporadically trafficked by terrorists groups, it's a small part of their revenue stream -- moreover, terrorists are driven by ideology, not profit, hence a disruption in financing from marijuana (which is minimal) has little effect on their goal.
The Mexican cartels are not terrorists organizations -- although they often act like. The cartels are criminal enterprises and are driven by profit, not ideology. As criminal enterprises the cartels make money in trafficking in marijuana, heroin and cocaine. They also profit in various forms of human trafficking, kidnapping, theft of vehicles and heavy equipment, money laundering, extortion and any other crime they can profit from. No doubt, their biggest profits come from drug trafficking, but they learned from their Colombian peers to also diversify their criminal portfolio. In short, legalization of marijuana in the U.S. does not stop the global demand nor will it stop the U.S. black market demand. There will likely be some profit loss from the cartels but it will not knock them out of business.
MSU Debate: What other revenue streams do terrorist organizations and/or Mexican cartels have? Are those more directly causing violent activity than drug revenue?
DLC: There is little that can be generalized. Domestic terrorist -- or criminal extremists -- operate on very small budgets, usually from personal funds and in some cases crimes such as theft, robbery and burglary -- there is a lot of variation here.
For international terrorists (essentially, Jihadists) the biggest revenue stream has historically been donations from wealthy supporters. As noted above we have also seen some drug trafficking. Most recently ISIS/ISIL has funded their operations by grand theft from banks, businesses and stealing equipment and materiel.
I described the Mexican cartels revenue streams above.
Remember, don't lump together the drug cartels and terrorists groups. They are all dangerous, but the threats they pose, the methods of handling the threats, the way they are investigated and how they operate are entirely different.
MSU Debate: More generally, what is the connection between Mexican cartels and terrorist activity in the United States? How big of a threat is that possible connection?
DLC: Despite some anecdotes and investigations on a connection, there are no formal connections and they generally don't trust each other. My sources are good on this. They do not pose a combined threat. The threat to the homeland by international terrorists is substantial, although most likely on a significantly smaller scale than 9/11. The threat to the homeland from Mexican cartel violence is minimal, particularly for people who have no connection to the illegal drug trade. The bigger picture of the threat from the illegal drugs impact on Americans and illicit profits is simply unknown.
MSU Debate Polls the Professors is an ongoing series where students from the MSU Debate Team interview professors and faculty at Michigan State to augment their yearly research. The year-long college debate resolution this year is “Resolved: The United States should legalize all or nearly all of one or more of the following in the United States: marihuana, online gambling, physician-assisted suicide, prostitution, the sale of human organs.” As part of the team’s research efforts, students ask questions pertaining to the topic of professors from Political Science, Philosophy, Criminal Justice, and Law.
Professor Bruce W. Bean began his international career upon graduation from Brown University as recipient of the first Thomas J. Watson Fellowship, which enabled him to spend a year in Southeast Asia studying student political activity. After receiving his law degree, Professor Bean clerked for Judge Leonard P. Moore on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He practiced law at Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett and then Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, where he worked closely with Rudolph Giuliani, later Mayor of New York City. Professor Bean then worked as Counsel for Finance & Planning at the Atlantic Richfield Company in Los Angeles. He returned to New York as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of a diversified financial services company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. While in this position Professor Bean continued his active involvement in mergers, acquisitions and divestitures and actively lobbied on behalf of his company's interests in Washington.
Professor Bean lived and worked in Russia from March 1995 to July 2003. He was Managing Partner of Coudert Brothers' Moscow office until June 1998 when he became Head of Corporate and Foreign Direct Investment for Clifford Chance - Moscow, at the time the leading law firm in Russia and the world's largest international law firm. While in Moscow, he was active with the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission and served as Chairman of both United Way Moscow and the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia. He iss one of the original founders of the Russian Institute of Corporate Law & Governance.
At the College of Law Professor Bean teaches Business Enterprises, Strategic International Transactions, the Global Law Colloquium, Doing Business in Transitional Political Systems, and the Jessup International Moot Court Competition. He also serves as Faculty Advisor to the International Law Review. Professor Bean is Director of the LL.M. for Foreign Lawyers Program. He has taught courses for the Law College in Lodz, Poland, Kaunas, Lithuania and for the MSU LL.M. program in Dubai. He has previously taught at the University of San Diego's Moscow Institute in Russia and at Columbia University's Harriman Institute.
MSU Debate: Do you think that the argument is correct that other countries "model" the US system of decentralized federalism? Is this true for a country like Russia?
BWB: Yes, we were an early federation, but is there any reason to think we invented this system? There are overwhelming political reasons to call a system a "federation."
No nation I am aware of has been crazy enough or desperate enough to create a system comparable to ours where each state in our federation has its own legal system. That has proven to be incredibly awkward and expensive, although great for lawyers.
MSU Debate: What are the potential benefits/concerns you see in Russia adopting a more decentralized approach to policy-making?
BWB: The Russian Federation has no interest in decentralizing. One of the first moves Putin made was to seek to gain control of the subjects of the RF. He appointed 7 regional administrators of the then 89 subjects of the federation and took control of designating governors. For Russia and the world this was actually a good thing, since some of the subjects were operated by criminal elements.
MSU Debate: Are there things that the U.S. could do that would benefit Russian governance in a meaningful way given the tensions between the U.S. and Russia
BWB: Is there any reason to think the US should take steps to "benefit Russian governance?" If by governance you refer to administration of the RF, why would we think we are better equipped than the Russians themselves to determine what would work best there? Indeed, under the Clinton administration Strobe Talbott and much of the US government did undertake that duty. Talbott was derisively referred to as "Proconsul Talbott" by the Russians and was uniformly despised. Of course, under Yeltsin, with oil prices under $20 for all of the 1990's, Russia was desperate for US economic support through the IMF and therefore tolerated the incessant interference into Russian governance that the US administration and hundreds of know it all academics presumed to offer.
[If by governance you refer to corporate governance, we have done some good things and private efforts continue to offer to discuss with Russian lawyers developments here and there that could be =of interest to them.., The American Bar Association's Section on International law has run a program in Moscow for the past 8 years where private lawyers get together. The next one is September 19.]
Carly, as one who was caught up in that "we-know-better" movement for years while based in Moscow, I can assure you the Russians know a great deal more about the US than we know about them. We should take care not to project our own ignorance of Russia onto the Russians and assume they know as little about the rest of the world, including the US.
As to your federation point, the slow deterioration of national sovereignty within the EU is a much better example of how others follow the US model. The EU has very gradually begun to do precisely what the States did while existing under the Articles of Federation immediately after our Revolution. The EU is currently a clumsy federation, but as the unavoidably need arises, they are moving very slowly closer to our model, often by decisions of the European Court.
MSU Debate: Your response was really very interesting. I apologize if our questions came off as overly "U.S. centered" - we debate about a resolution all year that asks what the U.S. should do and I think sometimes we forget that that does sound like "we-know-better." You're absolutely right to point out that, in reality, many countries are doing just fine without us.
BWB: You will note all kinds of nations commented on our issue in Ferguson last month. Maybe they have a point? were they wrong to lecture/criticize us since we do so much of that?
MSU Debate: I'm wondering if you would be willing to expand on your thoughts about the benefits of centralization in Russia. You say that a centralized approach allowed Putin to eliminate some criminal elements. Is that a process you see as largely completed or something that is still a work in progress?
BWB: There was a saying in Russia when we lived there that the farther one was from Moscow, the less significance Moscow's government had. When Exxon had a problem in Sakhalin Island (beyond Vladivostok) Exxon would simply appeal in Moscow after losing there, and get the decision overturned. Russia will continue to evolve until long after Putin has left. This is exactly what we did for more than a century.
MSU Debate: This has very little to do with our topic this year but we discussed it at length last year. I'm wondering what your take is on Russia and Ukraine. What are the primary motivating factors sparking conflict there in your opinion? It also seems like U.S. attempts to intervene have done more harm than good in some instances. Are there actions any international actors could take that would moderate tensions there?
BWB: The US has been actively opposing Ukrainian governments since prior to the Orange Revolution (which we paid for). The folks who truly believe we can redesign the world in our image, or at least to our liking, are the policy makers in Washington. This cannot be blamed on Bush since it continued under Obama without interruption. We must know better, or at least there are those in Washington are dependent upon our thinking this is so. Never underestimate the power of bureaucratic "experts" to continue their role long after it is needed. Exhibit A? NATO.