Oh, wait…

No, that was Washington, DC in 1814. Sorry.

My bad.

Ah, here we go.

Um… no.

That’s from the fictional movie “Independence Day.”

Hmmm…

Where are all the scenes of destruction from today’s cataclysm?

…

DC Legalizes Pot, Ignoring House Republicans

Mark Kleiman delivers what may be his most tortured and convoluted attack on marijuana legalization to date.

Over at “About News,” where they ironically credit Kleiman as their “Marijuana Legalization Expert,” he writes: Racism and Reefer Madness

He starts by mentioning that Johann Hari’s book talks about the racist origins of marijuana prohibition (“it’s a staple of the anti-prohibition literature” Mark says), and then he goes off the rails.

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the U.S. military in civilian law enforcement. Sounds like a pretty good idea, right? We want our soldiers fighting foreign enemies, not arresting random bad guys. The example of Mexico shows us that, in particular, we don’t want our military engaged in fighting the “drug war.”

But – as Lt. Colombo would have said – there’s just one thing. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 as the consummation of the corrupt bargain in which the Republicans were allowed to steal the Presidency for Rutherford B. Hayes in return for ending all attempts to protect the rights of black people to vote in the South. The passage of the act marked the transition from Reconstruction to the Jim Crow era and the acknowledgement of white racial hegemony. There could hardly have been a more racist piece of legislation: not just in effect but in intent. (When President Eisenhower sent troops to enforce school desegregation the South in the 1950s, he had to invent a legal way around Posse Comitatus.)

Does the racial background behind the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act mean that we should now repeal it, and allow the military to arrest civilians for ordinary crimes? Of course not. But then why are we supposed to believe that the racial animus that motivated Harry Anslinger most of a century ago has some sort of direct relevance to the question of how to change the drug laws now?

Really?

Apparently because one good law came about, according to him, as an indirect result of racism, that weakens the argument for legalizing cannabis.

That’s just the most bizarre thing ever.

Now, if the only thing wrong with cannabis prohibition was its racist origins, and it otherwise was good policy, that might be a logical argument. But no legalizer has ever made that claim.

No. Legalizers have a massive list of things wrong with cannabis prohibition. The racist origin aspect is primarily a counter to the completely untrue notion (often put forward by prohibitionists) that criminalization came about due to scientific reasons. Talking about the racist origins of cannabis prohibitions also sheds light on the fact that enforcement is hugely racist in its impact today (something Mark clearly doesn’t want to discuss, and it’s hardly touched on in his “Marijuana Legalization” book).

But Kleiman has used this kind of anti-legalizing argument in the past – attacking one legalization argument at a time (amount of tax revenue likely to be generated, amount of impact on cartels, etc) as being imperfect in some way by itself, thereby supposedly negating the entire argument against criminalization.

The fact is, there is a huge list of reasons for ending prohibition, and countering legalization requires addressing the whole.

And his counter to legalization, in my view, is clearly insufficient:
1. The notion that legalization, unless we follow policies his way, will “increase the number of minors who damage their life-chances by spending too many teenage hours stoned, or to increase the prevalence of diagnosable Cannabis Use Disorder,” (with no proof of this supposed apocalypse) and
2. His ‘Mark knows best’ nanny-state approach is the only way to conduct reform.

Because Mark does consider himself a reformer. He says that the laws as they exist are bad. And yet he finds it necessary to attack legalization advocates whenever he can with completely nonsensical arguments (because he doesn’t have any good ones?), as if that will somehow bolster his position.

Mark, if you truly believe that your approach is right, then show it, prove it, or convince people to try it. But using this kind of dishonest approach to tearing others down really cheapens everything you have to say.

Unlikely Cause Unites the Left and the Right: Justice Reform

Usually bitter adversaries, Koch Industries and the Center for American Progress have found at least one thing they can agree on: The nation’s criminal justice system is broken.

Koch Industries, the conglomerate owned by the conservative Koch brothers, and the center, a Washington-based liberal issues group, are coming together to back a new organization called the Coalition for Public Safety. The coalition plans a multimillion-dollar campaign on behalf of emerging proposals to reduce prison populations, overhaul sentencing, reduce recidivism and take on similar initiatives. Other groups from both the left and right — the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Tea Party-oriented FreedomWorks — are also part of the coalition, reflecting its unusually bipartisan approach.

This is pretty huge. Getting such diverse players from all parts of the political spectrum, including groups that normally hate each other, all working together for criminal justice reform, that gives it a lot of weight.

In the past, reform efforts have often been hamstrung because of politicians afraid of being targeted for “soft on crime” ads, but with institutional political support on both sides of the aisle, that’s less likely to happen.

Here’s their website: The Coalition for Public Safety

It’s not going to do everything that needs to be done, but it sure could help get us moving in the right direction.

Vanity Fair has a pleasant piece by Micah Nathan: A Nice Bowl of Weed

When I think about my experiences with cannabis, I find no fewer than 10 outstanding rules for enjoying the perfect bowl of weed. Orwell had 11 rules for his cup of tea, and he claimed at least four were controversial; I have no comparison. Controversy, as one would expect among marijuana enthusiasts, is soon lost in a warm, smoky haze. Or vapor, if I’m being literal.

The guidelines seem quite appropriate, to me. You may have differing opinions…

Remember the NHTSA study from last week that showed no significant increase in crash risk from using marijuana? It didn’t fit their narrative, so, while they had to release it, they did it on a Friday afternoon (in government terms, that’s called “putting it out with the trash”) in the hopes of getting decreased coverage, and then they used such weasel-wording in the release, that useful idiots like Ashley Halsey III managed to completely screw it up.

Contrast that with this tweet from Kevin Sabet today:

There will be a BIG study released from embargo tomorrow about marijuana. Stay tuned!

Whatever it is, it’s likely to be something negative about marijuana (even if it’s a bad study of the kind that has been regularly debunked before). They already know what the study says, but are waiting until Monday to release it, in order to get as much publicity mileage on it as possible.

Whatever you call this, it’s certainly not science.

Update: Yawn….

It turns out it’s more of the same psychosis nonsense, acting like links are the same as causation. The pure truth of the matter is that they keep coming up with this kind of “data” without knowing enough about psychosis to have a clue as to what caused it in any individual.

Update 2: Good analysis by Suzi Gage at the Guardian: So smoking skunk causes psychosis, but milder cannabis doesn’t?. She makes the point that this research could be useful if it wasn’t getting manipulated, exaggerated, and misstated by prohibitionists to be some kind of smoking gun against the normalization of cannabis use.

And, as Transform and others have noted, if anything this study may give more reasons for having regulated and legal cannabis, rather than having the black market control the structure of cannabis products.