Drug WarRant

Why I Support Legal Marijuana by George Soros, in the Wall Street Journal.

…In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.

These are the reasons I have decided to support Proposition 19 and invite others to do so.

What the Feds Can Do About Prop 19: The attorney general will have a tough decision to make if California legalizes marijuana. in Newsweek. A pretty good article.

For one, the administration’s cheapest course of action, a challenge to Prop 19 in the courts, looks doomed. Constitutional-law experts say California has no obligation to have the same criminal laws as the federal government, so Holder’s Justice Department can forget any lawsuit compelling the state to make marijuana use a crime. “Arguably a state could decriminalize murder” and the federal government could not force it to do otherwise, says Ruthann Robinson, a constitutional-law professor at the City University of New York. On the legalization question, then, Holder’s hands are tied.

One bit of stupidity in the article:

Prop 19 is, by many accounts, a flawed initiative. “I would rather be talking about the merits of legalization than the demerits of this cockamamie kluge of a bill,” says Kleiman, the UCLA drug-policy expert, expressing his frustration with the slew of media calls he’s received on the subject. “If a law is properly drafted, you know when it’s valid and you know what will happen if it passes. It seems to me neither is the case.”

That’s just nonsense. How many laws have you dealt with, Mark, that involved eliminating a decades-old prohibition against the active wishes of the federal government and replacing it with a brand new system of regulation built from scratch? Gee, could that have something to do with the uncertainties? Mark apparently wants… neatness.

ACLU Letter To Attorney General Argues There Is No Basis For Challenging California’s Proposition 19

Here’s the actual letter

Threats of federal interference, however, go beyond just poor policy; suggestions of a facial challenge to Proposition 19 misconstrue the preemptive reach of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) and ignore constitutionally-imposed limitations on the federal government’s authority to dictate state criminal laws. Politics should not confuse the legal analysis here. The express anti-preemption provision of the CSA and the anti-commandeering principles embodied in the 10th Amendment plainly foreclose any claim that Proposition 19, if enacted, would be void under the Supremacy Clause because preempted by federal law. […]

Californians have every right to enact Proposition 19 to stop this incredible waste of criminal justice resources and to dismantle one of the most shameful legacies of the war on drugs, the selective enforcement of these laws.

The Closing of the Marijuana Frontier
California is not just deciding whether pot should be legal. It’s determining the shape of a major new American industry. by John Gravois

Mendocino County’s second-largest product—wine—may provide the best alternative vision for dope. Thanks in part to a legal loophole that always allowed for home producers, wine has been much slower to consolidate than other industries, and no single winery has the political clout of an Anheuser-Busch. This has been better not only for small producers, but also—more importantly—for the public. So maybe we should all hope that Matthew Cohen is right: that Mendocino will become the Napa Valley of marijuana, and that the premium growers can charge for a sustainably grown, artisanal product backed by a helluva marketing narrative—America’s last frontier! Land of the organic outlaw!—won’t turn out to be too much lower, in the end, than the premium they charge now for growing a crop under conditions of abject fear. It’s not such a bad dream, anyway.

For those of you interested in the Stewart/Colbert Rally this weekend, Just Say Now is organizing a Prop 19 Day of Action to take place all over the country on Saturday, October 30.

This is an open thread.

Nora Volkow, Director of NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) guest posts at the Drug Czar’s “blog”: Marijuana Research: The Facts

When we come to the topic of marijuana, it’s easy to be stirred by the heat of the debate between Gate-busters and Gate-keepers. This fight is fought almost entirely on the basis of personal and cultural beliefs, many times without knowledge of the scientific evidence about the acute and chronic effects of marijuana use on the human brain.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse’s (NIDA) mission is to gather this evidence objectively.

And then she goes on to tell us what’s wrong with marijuana.

So NIDA’s mission is to “gather evidence objectively.” Really?

Let’s go back to 2006.

A study had just discovered that “Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance” and part of its funding had come from NIDA.

Nora wasn’t all that keen on objective evidence gathering then, when she apologized for NIDA funding being used to find something good about illicit drugs.

Nora Volkow: “As the nation’s preeminent drug abuse research organization, NIDA’s mission is to support research and provide information on the addictive and adverse health consequences of drugs of abuse.

So which is it, Nora?

Is the mission of NIDA to “gather evidence objectively,” or to promote “adverse health consequences” of certain drugs? Quite a difference there.

Let’s look further.

On NIDA’s website, we have this statement by NIDA on marijuana and cancer:

It’s hard to know for sure whether marijuana use alone causes cancer, because many people who smoke marijuana also smoke cigarettes and use other drugs. But it is known that marijuana smoke contains some of the same, and sometimes even more, of the cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per day may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day (15) .

Now that’s interesting. You know what’s really interesting about it? Not one word about the definitive 2006 study that was done on marijuana and cancer that was funded by NIDA — you know, the one that demonstrated conclusively that there was no additional risk of head, neck or lung cancers in even heavy marijuana smokers, and that, in fact, there was a slight reduction of risk.

So, NIDA’s so-called objective gathering of evidence actually involves footnoting an old 1988 NIDA-funded study, ignoring their own definitive 2006 study, and ominously implying a reality that is contrary to their own funded research.

Nora Volkow isn’t your friend. She’s also not a friend to science… or the truth.

Now running in California…

Make a contribution to keep the ad running all the way up to election day.

Russ Belville does a really nice job over at Alternet clearly explaining 19 good reasons to vote from Prop 19.

It also clearly counters some of the truly idiotic stuff I’ve heard from the stoners against Prop 19 crowd.

It includes categories of reasons such as “For the concerned parents,” “For the law and order crowd,” “For the medical marijuana patients,” “For the business community” “For the Latinos and African-Americans,” “For the people of all political ideologies,” and “For the Future…”

19. To change the world. Prop 19 is not just another California initiative. Prop 19 is being watched in all fifty states and throughout the hemisphere as the “shot heard round the world” in ending the prohibition of marijuana.

It’s up to you, California, to take that one small step for your state that will be one giant leap for the nation. Vote Yes on Prop 19!

Scott has been a very good friend of mine for some decades now, and he has started his own blog: Practical Biking: Riding for everyday transportation. (You may see some similarities in site structure to mine.)

If you really enjoy biking, but aren’t one of those biking racing snobs, then Scott’s the go-to guy. He has practical advice, is very knowledgeable about Bromptons (collapsible bikes) and leads bike rides in Seattle regularly. As he says:

I know about how to use a bike to get from point A to point B and back again, possibly with a bag or two of groceries, and that’s what this blog is about.

His most recent post is an impressive, if totally impractical bike ride from Telluride, Colorado to Moab, Utah.

I recommend following the internal links to the various days of the trip, because there is some really nice photography in there.

So if you like bikes at all, go visit his site and give him some much-needed comments. Maybe encourage him to blog more often.

For some more incredible photography, we have our own regular allan420, AKA Allan Erickson. His latest project is a gorgeous calendar now available online. These are pictures from a medical cannabis farm in Oregon.

When packing a bowl, it’s generally considered a good idea to start with a small amount, maybe a few grams, rather than lighting up 134,000 tons all at once.

More photos here.

Listen to ad here.

Philip Smith notes what it is the Chamber of Commerce really is upset about:

The Chamber wants employers to continue to be able to fire workers for failing a drug test for marijuana, even though such test do not measure actual impairment, but only the presence of metabolites in the body. Those metabolites can remain for days or even weeks after the psychoactive effects of marijuana have worn off.

As I’ve mentioned here before, I’m not much of a poll watcher. I figure that every minute you spend looking at polls is a minute you’re not working on getting someone to actually vote. I think polls are good for determining if you’re in the game or not, but once you know that, the only thing that will tell you if you’re going to win or lose is the voters on election day.

It’s been clear for quite some time that with Prop 19 we’re in the game. In the final days, you have poll numbers jumping all over the place. So you have absurd situations like an LA Times blog proclaiming California’s Marijuana Legalization Effort Going Down In Flames In Latest Poll based on their own poll with a sample size not much larger than the margin of error. And then that post has a disclaimer:

Also see our newer post about how pot-legalization backers say their own data shows Prop. 19 winning.

When a single post contradicts itself regarding polling data, you have an idea of its volatility.

For the best analysis of poll numbers that I’ve seen, read Al Giordano (who has an excellent track record): I Have Seen the Future of US Politics & Its Name is Prop 19

A friend emailed me and asked me to give my predictions regarding Prop 19. Well, I hate doing that, but I also hate to say no, so I’ll give you… something. I’m going to hedge my bets, though, and give three entirely different predictions.

Scenario #1 Prop 19 supporters do an incredible job with their Get Out the Vote efforts, particularly motivating new voters, minority voters, and cell phone voters (those young people who no longer have a land line). Democrats, while unhappy with their own representatives, fear some of the extreme rhetoric they’ve seen from the far right, and come out in respectable numbers. Republicans, Social Conservatives, and Tea Partiers are motivated, but have some identity fractures. There are lines at the polling stations. Prop 19 wins 57-43.

Scenario #2 Young people and first-time voters stay home. The whole thing was too damned confusing what with having to register and figure out where to vote and it’s not like one vote’s going to make a difference anyway. Democrats stay home. What’s the use? They’re all worthless anyway. Social Conservatives come out in force seeing an opportunity to seize. Polling places are quiet. Prop 19 loses 37-63.

Scenario #3 Relatively good GOTV efforts by the Prop 19 supporters combine with a decent Democratic turnout. Motivated Republicans also have a decent showing. Average crowds at the polling places. Prop 19 ends up in a dead heat 50-50. After 3 recounts they are still unable to find a sufficient margin of victory and it goes to the courts. Without an Al Gore willing to step down, both sides declare victory. People start growing marijuana plots and carrying small amounts of pot. Cops continue arresting people. The courts get jammed as judges put all cases on hold pending State Supreme Court decisions on the election. The state has to rent storage facilities to store all the evidence for delayed trials…

No, I don’t have any answers.

Here’s what I know. The Get Out the Vote efforts are going to be the most crucial. And you can actually help with that by calling voters from your home wherever you live. Go to Just Say Now for more info.

or this one

Charles M. Blow has a scathing OpEd in today’s New York Times blasting Democratic politicians: Smoke and Horrors

He refers to a war “being waged primarily against minorities and promoted, fueled and financed primarily by Democratic politicians.”

He notes the latest figures in California showing a marijuana war that grossly and disproportionately targets minorities, yet has a Democratic administration “chest-thumping” against an initiative designed, in part, to address that problem.

He points out that it was a Democratic president who signed the provision forcing young people out of college for drug offenses (aimed primarily at poor young people).

And he reminds us that it’s Democrats that keep pushing to restore funding to the Byrne grants — grants that push a numbers-oriented drug war frenzy that naturally is staged predominantly in minority communities.

Why would Democrats support a program that has such a deleterious effect on their most loyal constituencies? It is, in part, callous political calculus. It’s an easy and relatively cheap way for them to buy a tough-on-crime badge while simultaneously pleasing police unions. The fact that they are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of black and Hispanic men and, by extension, the communities they belong to barely seems to register.

This is outrageous and immoral and the Democrat’s complicity is unconscionable, particularly for a party that likes to promote its social justice bona fides.

No one knows all the repercussions of legalizing marijuana, but it is clear that criminalizing it has made it a life-ruining racial weapon. As Ms. Alexander told me, “Our failed war on drugs has done incalculable damage.”

When will politicians have the courage to stand up, acknowledge this fact and stop allowing young minority men to be collateral damage?

Powerful.

I think this would be a good article to send to your Democratic representatives. For too long (all the way back to Tip O’Neill and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), the Democratic politicians have gotten a free ride on expanding and supporting the drug war as a way to act tough. They need to learn that there are consequences (that Prohibition Isn’t Free), and that these consequences can affect them politically.

Note: There is an odd disconnect between Democratic voters and Democratic politicians on this issue. It’s true that Democratic voters tend to be more likely to support drug policy reform. Yet while there often are political repercussions for a Democratic politician who doesn’t support gay marriage or abortion rights, they are rarely held to account for their position on drug policy. That needs to change.

This article gives them something they must answer.

Update:

Some commenters seem to be missing the point entirely, here.

Of course it’s not just the Democratic politicians. Republican politicians have included Nixon, Reagan, Walters, Souder, and tons of other hard-core drug warriors.

The point is that, for too long, Democratic politicians have viewed themselves in the drug war as Republican-lite, and therefore have acted like they should get credit for being as tough as Republicans, but not have the responsibility for the drug war they’ve been fully complicit in creating and sustaining.

If we continue to call them “almost as bad as the Republicans” then they have no political reason to change. They can continue to prattle on about how drug policy reform is a difficult political thing and now is not the time to waste political capital when there are important other things like health care and abortion rights that need to be front and center.

It’s healthy for Democratic politicians to be held to the fire and made to be aware that they can’t hide behind Republican-lite, but that they are personally responsible for racist policy that harms their constituents. And their constituents have to realize that as well.

The fact that this powerful OpEd from a minority author is in the New York Times one week before election is good timing to get their attention and help them start realizing that this could be a real election issue for them personally one day very soon.