Drug WarRant

Ethan Nadelmann has been selected to be part of Change.org’s Changemakers network. He talks about how The War on Drugs is a War on People

Change.org: If you could ask 1 million people to all do 1 thing to advance your cause or causes, what would it be?

Come out of the closet about your drug use. Drug war propaganda demonizes and dehumanizes people who use drugs. Let your fellow citizens – your colleagues, your friends, and your family – know the real face of the American drug user.

We need credible people, especially public figures, to stand up and say, “I contribute to society, I work hard, I love my family, and I am an otherwise law-abiding citizen – but I do not believe that people should be treated as criminals simply because of what they put into their bodies. This law is wrong.”

Outstanding video promoting Students for Sensible Drug Policy (about 10 minutes) with a lot of great people in it.

SSDP’s national conference will be in San Francisco in March, and they’re accepting reservations now (Titled “This is your Brain on Drug Policy.” I’m not sure if I’ll be able to make it this year given my work demands.

In the Wall Street Journal, A Doctor’s Case For Legal Pot by David L. Nathan

So why do I support decriminalization? First, marijuana prohibition doesn’t prevent widespread use of the drug, although it does clog our legal system with a small percentage of users and dealers unlucky enough to be prosecuted. More to the point, legal cannabis would never become the societal problem that alcohol already is.

In most of my substance-abuse patients, I am far more concerned about their consumption of booze than pot. […]

The time has come to accept that our nation’s attitude toward marijuana has been misguided for generations and that the only rational approach to cannabis is to legalize, regulate and tax it.

California is free to make its own drug laws by Tamar Todd. A timely reminder about the power of the states, even today.

The Times is simply wrong to suggest that California does not have the authority to tax and regulate marijuana. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires states to criminalize anything. We could scrap our entire penal code tomorrow if we wanted to. States get to decide state law, not Washington. This is why California and 13 other states have been able to legalize and regulate medical marijuana despite continuing federal prohibition.

Certainly, even if AB 390 becomes law, the federal government could still enforce its marijuana laws against California residents. The reality is, however, the federal government does not have the resources to undertake sole — or even primary — enforcement responsibility for state drug crimes. More than 95% of all marijuana arrests in this country are made by state and local law enforcement agencies.

Maui Time Weekly has a nice feature on LEAP with their interview with David Bratzer. He really nails all the points beautifully.

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.

That sure is a lot of bizarre. Let’s check it out.

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
WASHINGTON (AP) – Cheech and Chong, and Cohen, too. Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen shared the stage last night with the stoner comedy duo Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong. Cohen’s a Democrat from Memphis who supports legalized medical marijuana and easing of drug laws. He was a featured speaker at the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project’s 15th annual gala. Cohen got nearly as big a hand from the crowd as Cheech and Chong, who were given a lifetime “trailblazer” award by the pro-pot group.

My God! Someone who supports medical marijuana and the easing of drug laws. Wow, now that’s really bizarre!

Denver Post: The hypocrisy of John Suthers by Sean Paige

The AG’s major complaint about medical marijuana, as I understand it, is that it’s all a giant scam — a backdoor path to legalization. He, like a lot of law enforcers, look back fondly on a time when the “drug war” battle lines were boldly drawn in the sand. Use of pot for any purpose was prohibited. Drug busters were the good guys, marijuana users the bad. Partial legalization complicates their jobs. It’s disorienting. It goes against deeply ingrained (but largely personal) prejudices.

Suthers is nostalgic for that simpler time, because it made his job easier. But policy isn’t and shouldn’t be made for the convenience of attorney generals. His personal prejudices about pot and potheads are largely beside the point. And if he can’t adapt to the new situation, and defend the Colorado Constitution, he should go back to private practice.

I’m not an advocate for medical marijuana or non-medical marijuana. I don’t doubt there’s some abuse of the new system (such as it is) going on. And, yes, I’m sure some out there view the medical marijuana movement as a circuitous route to full legalization. But I am an advocate for freedom, reason, limited government, states’ rights and constitutionalism (both state and federal), which in this case puts me at odds with an attorney general who (at least on paper) espouses some of these same values.

Nice job. That particular point: “if he can’t adapt to the new situation… he should go back to private practice” needs to be made more often regarding law enforcement officers and prosecutors/attorneys general who defy the wishes of the people.

Thanks to Bailey for sharing this first-hand account…

Wednesday’s hearing by the Washington State House Public Safety &
Emergency Preparedness Committee on a decriminalization bill (HB 1177)
and legalized sales via the state operated liquor stores bill (HB
2401) was a surprising show. Tuesday night Rick Steves, travel author
and NORML adviser, gave a presentation with the Washington ACLU titled
“Marijuana: It’s time for a conversation.” (marijuanaconversation.org)
It’s the first pot reform infomercial! (Note: Only 50% more
interesting than standard infomercials.) However the discussion with
Steves, three members of the Washington Legislature, and Wash. ACLU
drug policy expert/hottie/new mother Allison Holcomb was entertaining
and informative.
Continue reading →

So, with the small victory of the California Assembly Public Safety Committee voting in favor of marijuana legalization, some real characters have emerged to express their… concern.

Scott Morgan brings us this video story about the vote.

In this video, we have Bishop Ron Allen, of the International Faith-Based Coalition saying:

I don’t think they understand how many lives are going to be lost. Are you kidding me? Seriously. In our community, legalizing drugs — I don’t think they clearly understand the carnage.

Yep. He’s talking about pot. Lost lives and carnage. You know, that worked back in Anslinger’s day, because not that many people knew anything about marihuana. But today, when just about everybody’s been exposed to it in some way, it’s hard to convince people that legalization is going to mean death.

And take a look at the Bishop’s quote again. “In our community, legalizing drugs — I don’t think they clearly understand the carnage.” Shouldn’t African-Americans be outraged by this? It sounds pretty offensive to me. It sounds like he’s saying that black people can’t handle pot and if it’s legal, it’ll make them all go wild and kill people and tear stuff up.

Once again I ask: where the hell is the African-American leadership when it comes to the damage of the drug war to African-Americans? Why is it that the lily-white faces of Jack Cole and Ethan Nadelmann are the ones we see fighting for the end of racist policies?

…

Now we turn to the truly bizarre [Thanks, Tom]…

Check out the domain name: www.nipitinthebud2010.org, with the banner “Taxing California by intoxicating Californians with Marijuana is un-American!”

The site’s leader, Alexandra D. Datig, is a little confused about her position. At one point she’s giving “A message from initiative proponent” and elsewhere she’s giving “A message from the Proponent of the Opposition to the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative of 2010,” which is pretty awkward and apparently means that she is the person who is in favor of being opposed to the initiative.

Let’s see what she has to say:

… I want to reach out to voters, and I want voters to really think about the consequences of legalizing marijuana. What quality of life issues are we going to have with legalized marijuana? What national security issues will we have? How will our children look at their parents, watching them smoke marijuana, and cultivating it. Let’s really think about the consequences of legalizing marijuana. I think there are more responsible ways to tax California …

I’m fascinated by the idea that kids will somehow be horrified or harmed by watching their parents… garden.

And, of course, the national security issues. Elsewhere on the site, under a “Never Forget 911” banner:

Will legalizing Marijuana place our National Security at risk? We think so.

It has been proven that Marijuana use causes memory loss. How will California defend itself in a newly intoxicated condition? – Not very well.

Marijuana use causes poor judgment and forgetfulness. Marijuana blocks pain receptors, causing emotional and metabolic instability. Can we afford to be this irresposnible and have a casual attitude about Marijuana in a world haunted by the lessons we have to learn each day from terror?

You know, if we aren’t afraid, terror doesn’t work. Just sayin’

Seems to me the poor judgment isn’t coming from marijuana use.

Prohibitionists use a lot of deceit and misdirection to further their cause (in fact, the drug czar is required by law to lie). What else have they got? Any kind of clear analysis of all the facts will show that ending prohibition in some way is the only thing that makes sense.

The biggest lie, however, is the one where they say they’re doing it because they care about the safety of people.

Just from the broad outlines of prohibition, you can immediately see that isn’t true — from the violence in Mexico and our streets to the overdose deaths of people afraid to seek help.

But it goes beyond that. The sado-moralists who dominate prohibition legislation want extra assurance that people will die (or at least be harmed in some way).

So they oppose needle exchange (yes, even voluntary non-taxpayer supported ones), despite the fact that all studies show that needle exchange saves lives without increasing or encouraging drug use.

They oppose providing Narcan kits (which can stop overdoses from being fatal) to heroin users.

They oppose reality-based education on drugs (or sex, for that matter) because they’d rather have kids die than know the truth.

That’s right — it’s not just in drug policy that these sado-moralists thrive. I was astonished to learn that in some cities possession of condoms can be used against you as evidence of prostitution. How absurd, and how wrong, is that? To set up a system where they are essentially encouraging sex workers to not carry condoms.

That’s sado-moralism, all right. And we’ve got way too much of it in this country.

Just a little while ago, the California Assembly Public Safety Committee approved a marijuana legalization bill, AB 390, by a vote of 4 – 3.

Apparently, this is the first time that a state legislative committee has voted to legalize marijuana for non-medical purposes.

Update: She just won’t go away…

Andrea Barthwell, a deputy director in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush, countered that drug prohibition “is working to keep our young people drug-free It is a fact that legalization of marijuana will increase its use.”

Drug-free?

One of the curious creatures that we’ve never really talked about here, is one that sometimes shows up in comment threads (or, more often, message boards) that I like to call “pothead prohibitionist.” You know the ones… “hey man, I can get all the pot I want, so don’t legalize it, you’ll just mess things up and have to pay taxes and stuff.”

Of course, they’re ignoring all the destructive aspects of prohibition, but as long as their pot is flowing freely, they don’t care.

Attached to the recent Paul Armentano article I mentioned were two rather extreme cases of this species.

nico1950 wrote on 01/10/2010 07:25:50 PM:
I’ll wager money marbles or cowshit that in the days of bath tub gin and speakeasys when alcohol was illegal people were much happier then todays mostly miserable drinkers. Legalize weed and it will take all the fun out of it. The government has a way of ruining things.

Well, yes, the government does have a way of ruining things (take a look at the drug war). Bath tub gin? Really? Those were the good old days, huh? Must have grown up on the Dukes of Hazard, Beverly Hillbillies and The Real McCoys.

thomasgee wrote on 01/10/2010 08:04:36 PM:
Legalizing marijuana is the worst idea of all. What are you legalizing when it becomes an arrestable crime when you can be arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance? Alcohol and marijuana checkpoints couldn’t be too far behind. Imagine having to pay the same exorbitant fines and hassle as a drunk driver only the arrest was for marijuana used while operating a vehicle. The government and police agencies are drooling over the legalization of pot.

OK, that’s mostly incoherent (and apparently he thinks that marijuana smoking is only to be done while driving a car), but I can assure you that police agencies are not drooling over the legalization of pot. Legalization of pot to them means a likely dramatic loss of grant funding (not to mention loss of seizure funding).

These are fringe elements, I realize, but I’ve always been curious about them. Are they actually pot dealers without enough ambition to go into legitimate businesses once it’s legalized? Interestingly, despite the fact that they favor prohibition, they tend to fit the stereotype that prohibitionists like to use to paint drug policy reformers.

One of the tough jobs we have is that so many people have been led to believe that legalization means chaos, when in fact it’s just the opposite. This is where the LEAP message has been so effective, and it needs to be hammered home time and time again to reach so many of those who are afraid of legalization.

James P. Gray has an excellent OpEd: Ballot Measure Is Way to Properly Police Pot

Our marijuana policy must change in order to achieve the following goals:

• Reduce marijuana consumption by children.
• Stop or reduce the violence that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.
• Stop or reduce the corruption that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.
• Stop or reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase marijuana and by those under its influence.
• Reduce the harm to people who consume marijuana.
• Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons.

He goes on to list a number of advantages of a legalized system (putting street drug dealers out of business, improving purity, etc.), and ends with:

Under this initiative, all crimes committed by people under the influence of marijuana would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses. Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their own bodies, is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.

Interestingly, also at the Sac Bee and following the same general line of thought is Paul Armentano’s Prohibition of pot feeds lawlessness

This absence of state and local government controls jeopardizes, rather than promotes, public safety.

For example: Prohibition abdicates the control of marijuana production and distribution to criminal entrepreneurs (e.g., drug cartels, street gangs, drug dealers who push additional illegal substances).

This is good stuff, and an excellent way to de-fang the crass attempts by some prohibitionist law enforcement lobby groups to claim the high ground on law and order. (see also LEAP’s appropriate press release: Cops & Judges Support Calif. Assembly Marijuana Legalization Votes on Tuesday — Law Enforcers Say Ending Prohibition Will Improve Public Safety)

….

Of course, one can hardly miss the opportunity to check out the comments on articles like this, and there is a pretty spirited comment section on the Armentano article, including one rather vocal prohibitionist named fsteph, who follows a truly bizarre line of thought that I’ve seen pop up more often lately — that libertarianism supports prohibition!

fsteph wrote on 01/10/2010 11:47:56 AM:
NewAmerican – Wrong again. As a lifetime libertarian I know what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness truly means. This new libertarianism is nothing less than a way of keeping our private lives from any moral scrutiny. A true libertarian resists the pull to privatize all morality — and instead argues that society can’t survive unless we all support the public good. We do not live alone in this society. Your actions, especially driving and working loaded (drugs and/or alcohol), can kill your coworker or an innocent bystander (medical research shows that it impairs memory and motivation). Public order is essential for liberty to exist. New libertarians conveniently ignore this truth.

I’ll ask again, is law simply a flexible arrangement whereby we condone any behavior we find inconvenient to restrain?

I just don’t get it. Have these folks actually read anything about libertarian thought? Sure, I understand that some libertarians focus more on civil libertarianism and others focus more on financial libertarianism, but a self-proclaimed lifetime libertarian being… pro-prohibition? Unreal.

The town of Lima, Ohio uses the instruments of war against its own citizens in a destructive effort to achieve something that exists only in their fantasies — a drug-free world. And so, a young mother named Tarika Wilson is shot to death in her own home while holding her 1-year-old son, who is also wounded.

Sergeant Joseph Chavalia, who shot Tarika, is cleared of wrong-doing — after all, he was only doing his job. Because he is white and the victim is black, people in the town think it’s a racial issue, so nobody examines what led to the decision to conduct the raid in the first place.

And now the insurance company for the town is settling the lawsuit for $2.5 million, which is a good thing for the Wilson family, but since it’s done without the city’s agreement or admission of fault, the city has no reason to examine what really led to the tragedy, and since the increased insurance premiums will happen over time and not just in Lima, the taxpayers won’t feel the pinch of the $2.5 million and demand investigation.

So a young woman dies a tragic, needless death at the hands of the government as part of a horrible public policy… and no lessons are learned.