Drug WarRant

Hope everyone’s OK out there. Please be careful.

No real surprise here. The weedpass has been scrapped in the Netherlands, and, while they’re still planning on restricting access to foreigners, they’re letting local units determine that.

However, the coalition agreement goes on to say that determining how this residency requirement is applied will be done ‘in discussion with the local councils concerned and if necessary phased in’. This will allow a tailor-made approach per locality, the agreement states.

The mayors of the Netherlands four big cities Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht are opposed to the introduction of the cannabis card, saying it will lead to an increase in street dealing.

The coalition agreement would appear to pave the way for the big cities to determine their own policies, but there has not yet been any official comment on this.

Declare victory in the War on Drugs — then run like hell – interesting post by Laurence Copeland

…But then so was Soviet Communism, so back in the 1960′s the urge to rescue Vietnam from the clutches of the evil empire was understandable. As with the War on Drugs, the cost was in the end far far too high – and as with the War on Drugs, it was mainly borne by innocent civilians, the collateral damage in the fighting between the two sides. Just as, back then, the ever-rising body count was mindlessly quoted as evidence that America was winning, so today the value of drug seizures is cited as proof we’re winning – it isn’t, and we aren’t.

In the end, reality will catch up. Just as the U.S. military was unable to deliver the victory the politicians demanded in Vietnam, the same is plainly happening now with drugs, as more and more senior policemen – the generals in this crazy war – are ready to tell their political masters the truth, that it’s all over, we’ve lost, and the proof is out there on the streets for all to see, where the price of many drugs is at rock-bottom levels.

Even if we call a halt to the madness tomorrow, it will take decades to recover, but the sooner we stop it, the better. There is only one possible solution, and it is the one which got America out of Vietnam (and will end up getting us out of Afghanistan): declare victory – and run like hell.

Note: tomorrow, the Supreme Court will be hearing the latest case about drug-sniffing dogs. It will give the court the opportunity to undo some of the damage in the horrible case they decided in Caballes v. Illinois, or alternately, permanently enshrine those wielding drug-sniffing dogs as exempt from the Constitution.

The next and final Presidential Debate will be between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on Monday, November 5, the night before the general election (the date has been moved back due to the hurricane).

From the Free and Equal Elections Foundation:

Free and Equal Elections Foundation today announced the date of the second open-party Presidential debate has changed to November 5. The debate will feature Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, a line-up decided by voters last week after the first debate between Johnson, Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson.

The November 5 debate will be held from 9:00pm to 10:30pm Eastern Time at RT America’s state of the art studio and facility. RT America will open its studio and offer a live, neutral feed via satellite to interested media. The moderator will be announced next week.

Reason writers share their picks for the Presidential race (most plan to vote Johnson or not at all).

Lawrence O’Donnell gives the third-party debate some powerful coverage on MSNBC and essentially tells viewers to vote for a third party candidate if they’re in a state that is not in contention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oVUIgYleuE

I’m at a conference in Minneapolis (it’s a really, really busy month).

We’re into the annual craziness of the DEA’s Red Ribbon Week.

No, this isn’t about AIDS (the original Red Ribbon), but rather the DEA’s own manufactured cause to promote themselves and prohibition, usually with bizarre over-the-top events in schools around the country.

Check out the articles through the Google News Link and share some of the silliest things you find.

No, not the one Monday night. But The Tuesday Presidential debate.

Third Party Presidential Debate

Live at 9 pm Eastern (8 pm Central) tonight, October 23. It will be aired on C-Span, al-Jazeera English and RT, or Russia Today, and be streamed live online by Ora TV, Link TV and on the website of debate sponsor Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

The participants will include Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson. The hour and half event is being moderated by former CNN anchor Larry King and Christina Tobin, founder and chair of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

Go to the Free and Equal Elections Foundation site for more information, including how to submit your own questions.

And, you can be involved in determining who advances:

As a follow-up to Free & Equal’s October 23 debate at the Hilton Chicago, viewers of the first debate will choose which two candidates advance to the final debate on October 30 via instant runoff voting online. The debate will be broadcast live online and will focus on international issues.

How times have changed. As the new Marijuana Majority site shows, it’s getting easier to find people willing to speak out publicly in favor of ending prohibition in one way or another.

And, at the same time, the prohibitionists are more and more scurrying for cover like cockroaches when the lights come on.

You may remember this bizarre and over-the-top billboard that was put up in Oregon recently:

I’m not sure what this woman’s problem is, but it certainly isn’t marijuana.

Well, after only about two weeks, Clear Channel took down all the billboards due to complaints. Here’s what they found:

“The ads protesting marijuana are being removed because our policy is transparency of advertising campaigns and the advertisers who are sponsoring them. These ads include a misleading website that we believe needed to honestly represent the advertiser so the ads are being removed,” he said in a prepared statement. […]

The boards name protectoursociety.org as a contact, but the website contains no phone number, address or names of members.

The contact phone number listed with Clear Channel for the billboards belongs to St. Petersburg, Fla., group called Save Our Society from Drugs. A spokeswoman there on Friday said they are not affiliated with the advertising and have no information about Protect Our Society.

Interesting. If you look up the registration information for protectoursociety.org (which has the billboard plastered all over its pages), the owner is Calvina Fay and Save Our Society from Drugs.

Another interesting bit…

Umatilla County Sheriff John Trumbo is the spokesman for people opposed to Measure 80 in Oregon, but he told The Oregonian that he doesn’t know anyone with Protect Our Society.

And yet, according to Sam Chapman with the National Cannabis Coalition:

Umatilla County Sheriff John Trumbo lied to The Oregonian last week when he said that he didn’t know anyone affiliated with a group called “Protect Our Society”. Protect Our Society was a Political Action Committee (PAC) that was created for Measure 32, a 2010 initiative which sought to repeal the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA).

According to Election records provided by the Oregon Secretary of State, Trumbo was a Chief Petitioner for Protect Our Society which was discontinued on April 10th, 2012.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Now, it could be that the Protectoursociety website is not affiliated with the failed Protect Our Society PAC, but that seems unlikely (especially since Shirley Morgan, the treasurer of the failed PAC, was head of Oregonians Against Legalization of Marijuana, which apparently is connected to Calvina’s group).

Of course, if you follow the trail, somewhere you’ll probably find that it’s our own tax money that’s being used to try to convince us to keep feeding the prohibition beast.

There’s a new site (put together by some very good people I know) called The Marijuana Majority

But too many people who support replacing marijuana prohibition with legalization or decriminalization are afraid to say so. Because they don’t realize that a majority of Americans — including some of the most influential voices from across the political spectrum — feel exactly the same way, these silenced supporters see speaking out as risky.

Marijuana Majority exists to help people understand that ending our ineffective and harmful marijuana prohibition laws not only makes perfect policy sense, but is a completely mainstream position that enjoys broad support.

On this site, we’ve collected in one place quotes and videos from politicians, religious leaders, celebrities, medical professionals, members of law enforcement and others who think it’s time to end the war on marijuana. And we’ve made it easy to search by issue and by type of person or organization so you can, for example, see members of Congress, actors, medical organizations and business leaders who support decriminalizing marijuana, allowing medical marijuana or legalizing and regulating marijuana sales.

They hope to use the site to encourage other influential leaders to speak out and to make it easy for people to share these quotes with their friends through social media.

It’s a good project and worth checking out.

Update: Turns out they included me, as well.

I’m in Chicago hosting a theatre weekend trip, so I have nothing to add right now.

However, if you’re looking for interesting stories in drug policy, be sure to read the comments, because this group is always on top of it!

I was asked about the appearance of Eugene Jarecki on The Daily Show on Tuesday, promoting his new movie: “The House I Live In.” I hadn’t had a chance to check it out yet, so I appreciate the heads up.

It turned into quite an interview with a lengthy extended section for the web only (both sections embedded below, hopefully. If you have trouble getting them to work, go right to the Daily Show site).

Stewart started off a little shaky, trying to inject some humor in ways that felt a bit forced (and you could tell he realized it), but then the interview started working, with Jon playing devil’s advocate and giving Jarecki good openings to not just talk about the movie, but about the entire drug war and criminal justice system. And I thought Jarecki did very well, keeping the discussion on track and not getting thrown by anything.

Check out the calls that are being placed in Colorado right now:

Hello fellow Democrat. Like you I was thrilled to vote for Barack Obama in 2008. In 2008, candidate Obama promised not to use the Justice Department to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it was legal. But the real Obama did just that, more than doubling prosecutions, putting people in prisons and shutting down medical marijuana facilities in Colorado. That’s not the change you wanted on health freedom. But you can still be a force for hope and change by voting for Gary Johnson.

The Johnson campaign is smart. While in most places, they’re more likely to take votes from Romney, in Colorado, they could actually end up taking the state away from Obama. On drug policy alone.

See the full article by David Sirota: The libertarian/marijuana conspiracy to swing the election.

… it is a continuum.

I was reading an article by Tom Chivers in the Telegraph: Drug laws and evidence-based policy: it’s time to start doing experiments on the British people. Interesting article with some good points, but this hit me:

I’m asking these questions to show that it’s a complicated business, the “War” on “Drugs”. Complicated and multilayered, so much so that it’s almost silly to think of it as a single “war” (if we must insist on the martial metaphor) on a single entity called “drugs”. Anyone with a simple, straightforward answer – “Legalise everything” or “String ’em all up”, usually – is almost certainly completely wrong.

He’s right, of course, on the fact that there are a lot of people out there giving attributes to the word “drugs” (harmful, addictive, etc.) as if all drugs were the same. And they’re not.

However, the “‘Legalise everything’ or ‘String ’em all up'” bit is a false equivalency.

Let’s take a look at it (I’m sure Tom would allow us to substitute “all drugs” for “everything” for the sake of this discussion).

“Legalize all drugs” is actually another way of saying “find another way of dealing with drugs other than prohibition.” It isn’t a single solution, nor is it a simple, straightforward answer. It isn’t a statement proclaiming “legalize all drugs and don’t regulate them in any way, unlike every other product on earth.”

No legalizer expects that we will legalize all drugs and have no controls whatsoever. We’ve made it very clear that the definition of legalization includes a whole host of possible regulations (and yes, different ones for different drugs). Read Transform’s Blueprint for Regulation for a prime example of some of the myriad of different options that exist within legalization.

Legalization isn’t an extreme point. It’s a call to no longer use one particular kind of regulation: criminal prohibition.

Criminal prohibition is only one of many ways to regulate drugs. And it’s the worst one.

Don’t miss:

It’s drugs politics, not drug policy, that needs an inquiry – a righteous rant by Simon Jenkins

Britain on drugs is where China is on hanging, Saudi Arabia on beating, Russia on censorship and the Taliban on girls’ education. Drugs policy is the last legislative wilderness where “here be dragons”, a hangover from days when abortion and homosexuality were illegal and divorce expensive. […]

The mere word drugs gives every politician the heebie-jeebies and turns libertarians into control freaks. […]

What should be researched is not drugs policy but drugs politics, the hold that taboo has on those in power, and the thrall that rightwing newspapers have over them. This has nothing to do with public opinion, which is now strongly in favour of reform. Most sensible people find the present regime disastrous and want drugs regulated, rather than the wild west that is the urban drug scene today. It is politicians who think “soft on drugs” implies some loss of potency.