Drug WarRant

The Drug Policy Reform Conference is coming up November 12-14 in Albuquerque, NM.

I really wish I could attend. Unfortunately, work requires me to be in Baltimore at that time. I really loved the last one in New Orleans — what a great time to connect with other drug policy reform leaders from around the world. I did quite a bit of blogging from that conference, and right now, I’m looking for one or two people to guest-blog the conference, so those who can’t be there can follow along.

Wow. The Stiletto Stoners piece was powerful, and it’s got legs. Next stop, The Today Show, where they actually say that pot is better for thinking than alcohol, and that the biggest problem (although not that big) is that it’s illegal.

Sept. 30: Psychiatrist Dr. Julie Holland and Joanna Coles from Marie Claire magazine discuss why some young professional women are turning to marijuana to help them unwind.

[Sorry about the Hulu, but that’s how NBC shares their clips. Hulu tends not to be available outside the country, although this site may have a workaround.]

See more on this at The Raw Story [Thanks, Servetus]

If only it were so…

Venezuelan state TV today broadcast an excerpt from “Family Guy” as an example of how the U.S. promotes drug use. The clip features Stewie, the matricide-obsessed infant son of Peter and Lewis Lois Griffin, singing a song extolling the virtues of smoking weed.

“We can observe how [the U.S. government] promotes and incites the population to consume that drug there,” said Tarek El Aissaimi, Venezuela’s Interior Minister. “There’s no subliminal message. It’s an animated cartoon where you can observe perfectly how they promote consumption and moreover they foster the legalization of marijuana.”

Of course, this is just Venezuela’s back-handed way of getting back at the U.S. for faulting Venezuela’s efforts in our war on drugs.

It’s also possible that this post is merely an excuse for me to show this delightful clip again…

A Bag Of Weed – The most amazing home videos are here

By the way, in case you were trying to place it, the song is set to the tune of “Me Ole Bam-boo” from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Prince of Pot’s Sentence Reeks of Injustice and Mocks Our Sovereignty, Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun

Emery’s Jail Term Longer Than for Some Violent Crimes […]

It is a legal tragedy that in my opinion marks the capitulation of our sovereignty and underscores the hypocrisy around cannabis. […]

He is being handed over to a foreign government for an activity we are loath to prosecute because we don’t think selling seeds is a major problem. […]

“There isn’t a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, ‘I was hurt by Marc Emery.’ No one.”

He’s right again.

Emery is facing more jail time than corporate criminals who defraud widows and orphans and longer incarceration than violent offenders who leave their victims dead or in wheelchairs.

Whatever else you may think of him — and I know he rankles many — what is happening to him today mocks our independence and our ideal of justice.

‘King of Pot’s’ Punishment Was No Surprise, Editorial, Nanaimo Daily News

Nobody should shed any tears for Canada’s self-proclaimed “Prince of Pot.” […]

His misguided supporters consider him a martyr for the cause of marijuana decriminalization. He is nothing of the sort. Emery is a calculating businessman who flouted the law.

His punishment should be a surprise to no one.

U.S. DEA Finally Gets Its Man by Paul Armentano

Just over four years ago, former U.S. DEA administrator Karen Tandy announced to the world that her agency had struck “a significant blow … to the marijuana legalization movement” by indicting Canada’s so-called ‘Prince of Pot,’ Marc Emery. […]

But lets not kid ourselves. Marc Emery was hardly a high level target because he sold marijuana seeds to the U.S. — a simple google search will yield dozens of listings of competitors that presently engage in similar activities. No, it wasn’t so much what Marc did […] as it was what he did with his money that aroused the ire of U.S. anti-drug officials.

And we have Karen Tandy’s own words to prove it.

A couple days ago, I gave you a bunch of links about the drug policy conference held in El Paso last week. With the last minute dropouts of the Drug Czar and the Border Czar, the conference had turned into a predominately reform-minded group, including LEAP, SSDP, local officials, and others, with admittedly varied views on the degree of reform, with the exception of one DEA rep.

This article gave some sense of that…

More than two dozen drug experts, academics, border journalists and law enforcement officials gathered to compare notes for three days about drug policy, coming from Mexico, the United States and even Colombia.

Two seemingly unlikely advocates of radical change at the conference were Terry Nelson, a retired federal agent, and James Gray, a California state judge, both of whom once sent drug offenders to prison. […]

The conversation was more choir practice than robust debate, as a consensus emerged that the enforcement-driven policy isn’t working. […]

Over three days of discussion, one voice was heard loudly defending the present policy.

“Ultimately what we are talking about is the obligation of the state to protect its citizens,” said Anthony Placido, who leads the Drug Enforcement Administration’s intelligence program.

Now compare that to this UPI story on the conference.

DEA official says don’t end drug war

EL PASO, Texas, Sept. 28 (UPI) — A top U.S. narcotics official told a conference on the border drug war that aggressive law enforcement must remain part of strategy to curb drug trafficking.

Anthony Placido, head of intelligence for the DEA, said drugs by nature were “mind-altering substances that destroy human life and create violence” and needed to be fought vigorously.

Hmmm… kind of sounds like he was the only one there. Do they reference the more than two dozen others speaking at the conference?

There were also calls for decriminalization of some drugs by proponents who said drugs were too well entrenched in the United States and that the law of supply and demand was too strong to resist.

Ah, yes. Good job, UPI. You managed to completely reverse the story.

Derrick Humbert was wanted on a warrant for possession of marijuana. After being pulled over during a traffic stop, Humbert got out of his vehicle and ran. An officer used his Taser to end the chase. Humbert was taken to the hospital where he died.

And these irresponsible legalizer druggies claim that marijuana is harmless. Tell that to Derrick Humbert.

The Coalition for a Drug Free California had a daylong conference to discuss how to stop marijuana dispensaries.

More than 20 community leaders, elected officials and law enforcement officials met at the Ayres Hotel to discuss the reality of shutting down or stopping dispensaries, co-ops, collectives from opening.

It seems this poor, beleaguered group is beset with obstacles. First, their opposition apparently has the people on their side

Attorney Martin Mayer said it will be a difficult battle because those in favor of medical marijuana always have people in attendance when the issue is being discussed in meetings or in the court.

“I don’t think you can organize the way your opposition is organizing, I haven’t seen it,” said Mayer, who serves as legal counsel to sheriffs and chiefs of police in 70 law enforcement agencies throughout the state.

Second, the opposition apparently has the law on their side

Another battle facing the organization, he said, is the law.

“Many times we wind up in court and we lose,” he said.

But if they’re sneaky, they still can succeed sometimes:

The city of Claremont, however, was successful in temporarily stopping a dispensary by implementing a moratorium on those businesses, he said.

The court recently upheld the city’s decision because Claremont was using zoning laws to implement the moratorium, Mayer said.

And what’s the point of all this?

“Our main goal is to help kids get off drugs,” Brenda said.

Which is, of course, why they want to deny medicine to sick people.

So Governor Quinn has decided to release 1,000 nonviolent prisoners in the State of Illinois.

The Chicago Sun-Times, in an editorial, slammed him… but not for releasing the prisoners.

Quinn was right to take the first long-overdue step in Illinois to reduce the state’s massive prison population. Thousands of inmates are no more than drug addicts who could be better rehabilitated in their communities, saving the state millions of dollars.

But he was wrong to slip his announcement into the bottom of a press release late on a Friday afternoon, as the sun was setting and reporters were calling it a day — that twilight time in the weekly news cycle when politicians try to bury their worst potential headlines.

On the contrary, Quinn’s decision to begin releasing some nonviolent offenders is nothing he needs to soft-peddle…

Refreshing.

I’m not even sure what I think of this.

MADD announces an exclusive license agreement with Hill Street Marketing Inc. to produce a line of alcohol-free beverages, MADD Virgin Drinks, which will provide American consumers with a delicious and socially responsible alternative to alcoholic beverages.

Part of me celebrates the option (I’m all for choice), assuming that MADD isn’t about eliminating choice. And they say…

MADD is not against responsible drinking by those 21 and older.

… although that doesn’t really match up with much of MADD’s normal rhetoric.

Hey, at least with the word MADD printed huge on each bottle, there’s little chance of picking the wrong one by accident.

LEAP member and active drug policy reformer James P. Gray (a Superior Court Judge and author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment Of War On Drugs), has an interesting OpEd.

He’s trying to put together a list of common goals that prohibitionists and reformers should have to show that prohibition is not the solution to achieving these goals. I think they’re pretty good, although I might quibble about the wording here and there (my comments are italicized in brackets).

So, with the understanding that we are all on the same side of this issue, namely we all want to reduce drug abuse and all of the harm and misery that accompanies it, I have made a list of the top 10 goals that I think we are trying to accomplish in this area, in order of importance. See if you agree. They are:

1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children; [Ah, but it does depend on how you define “children” and “exposure of drugs.” Also, I would think that part of it would be reducing exposure of children to illicit business.]
2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;
3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;
4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;
5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country; [ I would add the word “illicit” because we always need to legally import drugs]
6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;
7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;
8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons; [perhaps expand that to include all those caught within the prison industry, including those on probation/parole.]
9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border; [I think this is a separate, and distracting issue.]
10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.

You might want to replace one of these goals with another, or readjust the order, but I anticipate that most people would basically agree with those top 10 goals. Please give it some thought.

Definitely worth thinking about.