Drug WarRant

Barnidge: If government doesn’t control marijuana, criminals will

This is an outstanding column by Tom Barnidge that will be running in a number of California papers tomorrow. It features a number of LEAP members, and details a host of reasons why marijuana should be legal, along with bringing up parallels to the other prohibition. He even mentions hemp, and the deglamorization effect. He also dismisses law enforcement opposition to being part of the “internal wiring of police agencies.”

Let’s hope it gets a lot of play.

Marijuana in the classroom? Sometimes it’s legal — Interesting article at Christian Science Monitor is surprisingly well-balanced, even noting that this is nothing new — kids have been doing worse drugs (Ritalin) at school.

Marijuana and the Massachusetts Senate Race

By now, you’ve probably heard something about the campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court. Before you come to conclusions about how it affects us, or whether it was a bad decision, I suggest you read these two excellent posts by Glenn Greenwald:

• What the Supreme Court Got Right
• Follow-up on the Citizens United Case

DrugSense Weekly – a weekly review of the most interesting or relevant articles in the press and on the web related to drug policy reform.

Drug War Chronicle – weekly update of drug war news and analysis from Stop the Drug War.org.

SaferChoice (“Marijuana is safer than alcohol, it’s time we treat it that way”) is upset about the companies who are sponsoring the drug war enforcement organizations in Colorado who have been actively lobbying against marijuana law reform, and so Safer is calling for a boycott of Starbucks Coffee (among others).

I’ve never been a big fan of boycotts (I don’t think they’re usually all that effective — the biggest value comes from the publicity of announcing it), but feel free to join in if you wish. It might be better to find a way to educate these businesses as to why supporting drug task forces isn’t being a good corporate citizen (they may not know).

I can’t boycott Starbucks anyway, because I’m a hard core addict. If I can’t get my fix of that sweet burnt Italian Roast, I just can’t function. And to stop? Talk about withdrawal… nothing easy like quitting pot.

Update: Via Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Starbucks says the effort is misguided. The company does not provide financial support to the Colorado law enforcement group, Starbucks said in a statement.

“This organization is apparently targeting us because a local law enforcement organization in Colorado posted our logo on their website. Starbucks has not taken a position on their issue,” the statement said. “We have a tremendous amount of respect for the men and women of local law enforcement. However, we have not sponsored this particular organization through our foundation. It is up to the discretion of our local teams to support those groups that are relevant in their neighborhoods. Our stores often support organizations in their community by donating coffee for their events.”

The Colorado Drug Investigators Association Web site, which apparently listed other national and Colorado companies besides Starbucks as backers, is no longer working.

This is pretty wild. Check out the video over at Raw Story: Gretchen Carlson defends Republicans’ right to smoke pot

Clearly the comedy duo are on a publicity tour for their new comedy show and they’re doing every TV show they can get, but you can tell that they’re just having fun with the fact that Fox invited them.

Chong told Carlson that he wants to see marijuana legalized — but not for Republicans. “We want to legalize pot for everyone that wants to smoke it. You know, we don’t want to legalize it for Republicans.”

Carlson quickly came to the defense of stoners in the GOP. “That wouldn’t be fair. Would it?” asked Carlson. “I mean being fair and balanced, if you want to legalize it shouldn’t you want to legalize it for everyone?”

“I want to legalize it for everyone,” answered Cheech Marin.

Daniel Rubin: It was no joke at security gate

22-year-old Rebecca Solomon, a University of Michigan student, was going through security at Philadelphia International Airport when she was confronted:

A TSA worker was staring at her. He motioned her toward him.

Then he pulled a small, clear plastic bag from her carry-on – the sort of baggie that a pair of earrings might come in. Inside the bag was fine, white powder.

She remembers his words: “Where did you get it?”

This is a nightmare scenario — particularly given today’s drug laws and the severity of sentences (not to mention being at an airport).

Until finally…

Just kidding, he said. He waved the baggie. It was his.

And so she collected her things, stunned, and the tears began to fall.

Another passenger, a woman traveling to Colorado, consoled her as others who had witnessed the confrontation went about their business. Solomon and the woman walked to their gates, where each called for security and reported what had happened. […]

When she complained to airport security, Solomon said, she was told the TSA worker had been training the staff to detect contraband.

Now that this story hit the paper, the TSA worker is no longer employed.

Good.

I understand that the TSA needs to conduct training exercises, but there are proper ways to do that, and sneaking contraband into innocent people’s bags is not one of them.

I remember a story a couple years ago about the equivalent of the TSA in another country conducting training exercises. They snuck some drugs into suitcases and lost track of the suitcases. Oops. Hope none of those innocent travelers was going to a country where they execute people for smuggling drugs…

The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed S. 714, National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009. This was Senator Jim Webb’s bill, and it could be extremely important. It still needs to pass the full Senate and the House, etc., but this is a critical step. It’s got strong bi-partisan support in the committee.

More on this at the NORML blog and ACLU blog.

Of course, getting the commission is only part of the battle. We need to get some good people on it, make them do their job, and then actually get someone to pay attention to the report when it comes out.

We have quite a history of not paying attention to Commissions when they deliver information that the government doesn’t want to hear.

…

And we’re not the only ones…

Take a look at Transform’s epic battle to get the Home Office to even release a 2007 report on the cost-effectiveness of drug enforcement efforts. In this updated post today, they really rip into the Home Office:

They had 6 years to address these obvious failings (in data collection and evaluation – let alone outcomes) and utterly failed. There can be no excuses.

The report also demonstrates that the various justifications (see below) given for its suppression during the strategy consultation, and for the following 2 years, were entirely spurious. The Home Office have behaved pathetically, like children in a playground with a secret, and treated the public with contempt in the process. They still are; note the ridiculous redaction of ‘SOCA’ throughout, except in a footnote referring to one of the redactions (they can’t even do censorship properly).

This saga was an attempt to conceal a piece of research that showed the policy in an unflattering light, and its censorship was purely political; a disgrace for the Government and particularly for the Home Office and ministers directly involved.

We will provide a more detailed analysis later, but worthy of note is the item in table 3 on page showing expenditure by police in 05/06 – £2 billion out of £3 billion total expenditure, £1.7 billion of which is ‘indirect costs of dealing with drug-related crime’. It looks suspiciously as if it fits with Transform’s analysis that enforcement creates the very costs that prohibition is supposed to reduce.

Danny Kushlick said:

“The withholding of this report demonstrates yet again how the Government is committed to the rhetoric and fantasy of success of the current strategy, whilst doing its damnedest to keep the truth out of sight of the public. The edifice of prohibition comes crashing down as soon as evidence is pitched up against it. Ultimately we are being duped into supporting a policy that is demonstrably failing to deliver anything even approximating to value for money”

Ouch.

Bailey returns with a follow-up to his first piece on the efforts to consider marijuana decrim in Washington State.

…..

Wednesday’s executive session of the state house’s Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness committee concluded its deliberation of HB 1177 (marijuana decrim) and HB 2401 (socialized legalization) with a smaller audience, no cameras, and it seems no better understanding of the pitfalls of prohibition than the week before. What follows is a painful to recount of how both bills failed to move forward, and how Washington will continue to go backwards.
Continue reading →

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday, 81% of Americans support legalization of medical marijuana.

I’ve got a question for the Democrats who keep saying that the party doesn’t dare waste its political capital on an issue like medical marijuana…. just how popular does something have to be before you’re willing to be seen on the dance floor with it?

I agree with Mark Kleiman:

And the demand that cannabis be shown to be better than something else, rather than merely safe and effective, before it’s approved strikes me as wrong-headed. People vary in their reactions to drugs, so giving doctors and patients more options is generally better.

This issue tests the commitment of the Obama Administration to science-based policy.

In case you missed it. NJ medical marijuana bill is signed into law

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine has signed legislation granting chronically ill patients legal access to marijuana.

Corzine’s office said the governor signed the bill late Monday, his last full day in office. Gov.-elect Chris Christie will be sworn in Tuesday.

New Jersey is the 14th state to allow patients with diseases such as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis to use marijuana to alleviate their pain and other symptoms.

The legislation allows for dispensaries to be set up around the state where patients with prescriptions can access the drug.

New York Times: Researchers Find Study of Medical Marijuana Discouraged

Despite the Obama administration’s tacit support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana. […] “The more it becomes clear to people that the federal government is blocking these studies, the more people are willing to defect by using politics instead of science to legalize medicinal uses at the state level,” said Rick Doblin, executive director of a nonprofit group dedicated to researching psychedelics for medical uses.

Wall Street Journal: Is Marijuana a Medicine?

Researchers say it’s difficult to get funding and federal approval for marijuana research. In November, the AMA urged the federal government to review marijuana’s position in the most-restricted category of drugs, so it could be studied more easily.

It’s a fairly detailed article about different aspects of medical marijuana use. One nice thing to see at the end of the piece…

… but a large 2006 study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, found no tie to lung cancer.

Scott Morgan: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Don’t Attract Crime, They Prevent it

Banks are robbed constantly by angry gun-wielding assholes, but you’ve never heard anyone lobbying to keep them 1,000 feet away from schools and parks. Meanwhile, the biggest security threat at the dispensaries has typically been the DEA (and yes, they were routinely grabbing money from dispensaries at gunpoint until the DOJ told them to find something better to do)

The very notion of dispensaries attracting crime is largely illogical on its face, given that the whole purpose of their existence is to remove sick people from the black-market marijuana economy. Legal medical marijuana providers reduce crime on a massive scale simply by opening their doors each day.

I’m trying to set up a new backup system for my laptop and so far all I manage to do is crash, losing half-written posts in the process.

So let’s turn it over to you for a bit.

Drug sentences excessive, expert says.

University of Kentucky professor Robert Lawson has issued a report on Kentucky’s criminal justice system.

Kentucky’s 35-year drug war has led to unfair, “brutally harsh sentences,” overcrowding the state’s prison system with non-violent offenders, a study says.

That has helped push the state budget to the “outer edge of fiscal distress,” said Robert Lawson, author of the 60-page study.

The (Louisville) Courier-Journal reported Lawson’s study is seen as a step toward revising drug punishments, which he claims have “failed miserably” by not distinguishing between minor offenders and major drug dealers.

This is potentially very good stuff. I’m anxious to read the report, and have contacted Lawson and asked if I could see it. If anyone else knows where I can get it online, please let me know.

And, of course, this is smart stuff, not only fiscally for the state, but in terms of proper focus of criminal justice system for it to be effective.

Naturally, the UPI report managed to find the knuckle-dragger who would give the most ridiculous response:

Fayette County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ray Larson disputed Lawson’s findings.

“You have to understand where Lawson is coming from,” Larson said. “He thinks government shouldn’t have as its primary function the safety of the public, and I do.”

This is both stupid and offensive. Offensive in that it’s like saying “My opponent doesn’t mind if terrorists blow up children in a day-care center, while I do.” Stupid because it isn’t about disputing findings, but rather about a knee-jerk response to any suggestion that any amount of sentencing might be excessive.

So I guess if someone suggests that we just lock everybody up for life if they commit any crime at all, then we have no choice but to do so, since apparently reducing sentences for any reason means that you don’t care about the safety of the public.

The truth, of course, is that bad sentencing policy doesn’t help public safety in any way, and is extremely likely to endanger it, as criminal justice resources are used inefficiently or without proper focus.

More at the Louisville Courier-Journal.