Drug WarRant

Day 2 of the Los Angeles Times’ “Dust-up” between Jacob Sullum and Cully Stimson on drug policy is now up. It’s turning into a real gem of a series.
The Part 2 question: Do federal raids of legal local marijuana dispensaries violate state sovereignty?
Here, Stimson at least gets it technically right in terms of what the government can legally do given how the Supreme Court has allowed the Constitution to be perverted from its original intent over the years. But Sullum gets it right.
One part of Stimson’s argument really got a little surreal:

But when you disagree with a law, it’s too easy to forget that we have a government of laws and not men — in other words, not a dictatorship but a self-governing democracy. That means that the law applies to each of us equally, so you cannot ignore a law simply because you disagree with it.

First, he’s using the wrong argument for his case and he doesn’t even see it. The issue regarding people using medical marijuana isn’t related to a friction between between imposed dictatorship and democracy; it’s a friction between representative democracy (albeit skewed by political pressure) and individual rights. Nobody is suggesting that someone should dictate to everyone what they must do, but rather suggesting that states and individuals should be free to pursue their will.
Second, it’s harder every day to talk straight-faced about the rule of law as it relates to preventing sick people from taking medicine, when our government ignores the rule of law in so many areas (think FISA).

I experienced a fascinating synergy this weekend that has made me even more optimistic than my normal glass-half-full self.

1. An energized group of young people from colleges all over the midwest converged for a day of speakers and workshops here Saturday. These SSDP activists are bright, compassionate, and determined, and they’re ready to make a difference. They see all the damage of the drug war, and understand the urgency to correct it. As part of that conference, I once again watched a video of clergy speaking out against the drug war and I listened to a former prosecutor with the same message. Powerful.
2. On Sunday, a large group of other students, most with no interest in activism, converged for a free screening of the comedy film “Super High Me.” They were probably stoned — there merely to have a good laugh. And yet, as I watched them and listened to them — I was straight — I realized by the way they reacted that they all know the score. They know when they are being lied to, they know that they are being propagandized, they know the politicians and the DEA are wrong, and they know the truth of the simple message of the movie: “marijuana makes everything more fun.” And that is also valid. In fact, it is by itself sufficient reason to emphatically deny and subvert prohibition.
3. On Saturday night, I experienced a performance event with an eclectic and delightful range of talents. And while I don’t know how many were stoned, it got me thinking of all the creative work I have witnessed that was augmented by cannabis, and how creativity is the building block of true success in the world.

So I came away from this weekend with as mellow a feeling that one can have without actually being stoned. You know the feeling — a languid smile and the little shiver that comes from a deliciously subtle jazz progression.
How can prohibition win against such diverse unstoppable power? It can’t.
Oh, sure, the naysayers will be quick to counter: “We’ve been fighting this for decades and yet we’re still being arrested.” And yes, prohibition won’t be vanquished easily or swiftly.
But now and then, it’s useful and therapeutic to remind ourselves that the end of prohibition is not only possible, but inevitable. Then it’s just a matter of figuring out the best way to put it out of its misery.
Happy 420.

Thousands of Pot Smokers Celebrate 4/20

“bullet” Check out this counterpoint between Jacob Sullum and Charles “Cully” Stimson in the L.A. Times. Sullum, as usual, really has it together and his arguments are really impossible to refute, which is why Stimson apparently has to act like he didn’t even hear them, and instead invent arguments out of thin air.

“bullet” Another mistrial. I talked about this case before. The government is so pathetically desperate to justify their drug war in Colombia by getting drug convictions, they’re spending millions of dollars trying to convict Ricardo Palmera despite the fact that a conviction would add zero time to his sentence. This is the second mistrial.
“bullet” Tom Angell wrote a letter to the Washington Post. Here’s an excerpt:

The April 20 article “From Mexico, Drug Violence Spills Into U.S.”
should have been titled “From Mexico, Drug-Prohibition Violence Spills
Into U.S.”

Exactly.
“bullet” Va. Court Rejects 2 Drug Searches (via The Agitator)
Also, an Alaska Appeals court is cracking down on coercive searches.

Postings have been a bit light the past few days. Let’s see… 63 hours of four-square (to raise money for scholarships), the midwest conference of SSDP, Theatre of Ted (performance event), RockSquare (outdoor rock concert of local bands in conjunction with four-square marathon), Hempfest, “Super High Me” screening, and several events I needed to photograph, plus spending some time with friends…
Anyway, they’ve been good days, and I fully intended to have a special post on 420 on 4/20, but it’s probably going to have to wait until 4/21.
I still need a lot more sleep.
Welcome, Midwest SSDP folks!
What’s been happening?
“bullet” Be sure to check out the brilliant Mutinyblogging Celebrates 4/20
“bullet” 4/20 events not just grass-roots anymore
“bullet” 86.6% of those who try heroin do not become dependent on it within two years of trying it.
“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly
“bullet” “drcnet”

Via Hit and Run — Barney Frank has introduced his Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Ron Paul.
Congressman Frank’s statement:

‹I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute. In my view, having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes. In fact, this type of prosecution often meets with public disapproval. The most frequent recent examples have been federal prosecutions of individuals using marijuana for medical purposes in states that have voted š usually by public referenda š to allow such use. Because current federal law has been interpreted as superseding state law in this area, most states that have made medical use of marijuana legal have been unable to actually implement their laws.
“When doctors recommend the use of marijuana for their patients and states are willing to permit it, I think it‰s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. More broadly speaking, the norm in America is for the states to decide whether particular behaviors should be made criminal. To make the smoking of marijuana, whether for medical purposes or not, one of those extremely rare instances of federal crime š literally, to make a ëfederal case‰ out of it š is wholly disproportionate to the activity involved. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults. There is no rational argument for treating marijuana so differently from these other substances.Š
‹To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity between those two poles in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these substances. And, enforcement of age restrictions should be firm. But, criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.Š
‹If the laws I am proposing pass, states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public.Š

“bullet” Via Radley, a letter to the editor that makes my head explode: Quit drug raid grandstanding
“bullet” Stoners in the Mist

I’ve been meaning to post this for awhile — the above is a trailer for ONDCP’s bizarre new flash video/web mockumentary that’s part of the “Above the Influence” campaign: Stoners in the Mist. It’s way too silly to really need outside debunking, but here’s some anyway.
“bullet” Drug war violence out of control in Mexico. But in the up-is-down world of drug war spin, that’s a good thing.

Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora, however, said that the violence is a sign of the cartels’ weakness “and how these structures as we knew them are collapsing.”

Note the billboard in the picture in the above article advertising for more police officers? Apparently both sides are advertising that way. Lots of job openings…
“bullet” Robert Parry looks at the current administrative and judicial climate and asks Will the Constitution Be Altered to Eliminate Key Liberties? Our reply: Where have you been? The question is not “will it be altered” but “how much more will it be altered.”
“bullet” An interesting counterpoint OpEd series in Montana, which I think helps point out the deficiencies in some opposition arguments regarding drug testing. Check out Drug Policy Is Fear-Based, Punitive by Andy Hudak, followed by Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear in Drug Testing by Jeff Bailey. Bailey’s non-arguments actually demonstrate Hudak’s points, even though Bailey can’t see it

If you’re in range of Central Illinois, why don’t you join us this weekend for the midwest regional Students for Sensible Drug Policy conference, hosted by Illinois State University SSDP (of which I am the faculty adviser).
Friday, April 18: Hempfest on the Quad, from 1 pm to 9 pm All day fun with live music, drum circles, tie-dye, hemp jewelry making, cigarette oregano rolling contest, games, prizes and much more! At the same time, another student group I advise (Theatre of Ted) will be continuing their four-square marathon (that starts on Wednesday) at the south end of the quad and having a RockSquare concert in the late afternoon/evening.
Saturday, April 19: Midwest SSDP Conference:

• 10:00 – 10:30 am — Opening Address by SSDP Chapter President Ashley Barys
• 10:30 -11:20 — Mary Price with Familys Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)
• 11:30 – 12:20
  1. Kathleen Kane-Willis with The Institute for Metropolitan Affairs and George Pappas with IDEAL Reform talk about drug policy and cannabis in Illinois
  2. Pete Guither talks about national and international drug policy reform issues with a roundtable discussion
• 12:30-1:30 — Lunch
• 1:30 -2:20
  1. Amber Langston, outreach director of national SSDP presents a workshop on campus activism.
  2. Pete Guither presents a hands-on workshop: “Elevator Arguments: creating a concise targeted, case for reform.”
• 2:30-3:20 — Medical cannabis patient Julie Falco, Dan Linn with Illinois NORML and John Walker with ICAN will be on a panel together about progress in Illinois regarding medical cannabis.
• 3:30-4:20 — Jim Gierach with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)
• 4:30-5:20 — Ben Masel on industrial hemp, plus drug policy and elections.

All above events will be in Schroeder Hall.

• Midnight: Theatre of Ted outdoors on the south end of the quad. Open-mic-style performance event (anyone can sign up to perform). This week, with a 4/20 theme.

Sunday, April 20: 4:20 pm — If you’re still around, we’re having a free screening of the new film Super High Me in Schroeder Hall 130. I haven’t seen it yet, but it’s apparently very funny (though not necessarily much of an advocacy film).
That’s right, everything is free. (Lunch is on your own.) Stop by and have some fun and learnin’!

“bullet” Matthew Fogg: The War on Drugs is a War on our Youth
“bullet” Kurt L. Schmoke: Drug Sanity

Based on a back and forth discussion about drug policy and the 2008 election between thehim and Pat Rogers, thehim posed this challenge to Pat:

Write up a speech that Obama could make on drug policy that wouldá

1. Win your vote
2. Not wreck his chances in November to beat John McCain

Rogers responded with a very impressive speech here that intellectually, it seems to me, meets that challenge.
Now, on the other hand, there is the vapid, brainless press pack that would rather obsess over Obama’s bowling, Clinton’s tears and Bush’s package than issues of substance, and you can bet that a host of pundits would re-make the speech in exactly the way the speech carefully aims to prevent (surrendering to the drug dealers, abandoning children, etc.)
But if there’s a speech that could work, this might be it (and it would have to work much the way the race speech worked for Obama recently — still opening him up to vapid criticism, but impressing enough people to make a difference).
I’m still pessimistic about even bothering looking to the Presidential candidates (the mainstream party winners, that is) for any kind of sane advocacy for drug policy change. At best, I hope for one that will focus his/her attention elsewhere (sort of benign neglect combined with not standing too firmly in the way of reform efforts).
What do you think?