Drug WarRant

On PBS tomorrow (Tuesday, July 3) is the premiere of Standing Silent Nation by Suree Towfighnia and Courtney Hermann

In April 2000, Alex White Plume and his Lakota family planted industrial hemp on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota after other crops had failed. But when federal agents raided the White Plumes’ fields, the Lakota Nation was swept into a Byzantine struggle over tribal sovereignty, economic rights and common sense.

This looks like it could be a very good piece. There are some extra clips at the website, including “Hemp for Victory” which is a history of hemp production in America, and an amazing interview with former CIA director James Woolsey, who not only says that industrial hemp should be legalized, but blatantly points out how stupid the government’s policy is (particularly regarding the nonsense about hiding pot in industrial hemp fields).

Transform continues its excellent series (extracts from an upcoming publication) with a brief analysis of various types audiences reformers will end up against: Evangelical prohibitionists, Knee-jerk prohibitionists, Unconvinced reformers, and Prohibitionist politicians.
There are some useful, and fun, descriptions there. There was one statement, however, that threw me. Under the description of unconvinced reformers was this sentence.

Their views on legal regulation may be clouded by misunderstandings about ‘legalisation‘, put forward by cannabis evangelists or extreme libertarians. When they are presented with a coherent set of policy alternatives this group will usually be happy to support them.

I think I understand what they’re driving at, but it’s unclear, and at first glance, makes it seem a bit like “legalisation” is the extreme view put forward. I think what they really mean is that reluctant reformers are often uncomfortable associating themselves with those who openly support recreational drug use. And this is because the Evangelical prohibitionists have for so long painted that basic position as being “beyond the pale.”
It is the Evangelical prohibitionists and Prohibitionists politicians who have repeatedly attributed bizarre and false notions as being the views of cannabis evangelists and extreme libertarians — such as that legalizers want to make heroin available pre-packaged and shrink-wrapped in a display at the checkout counter of the 7-11 for 8-year-olds to buy. And, of course, I’ve never met anyone who really believed that — it’s just what prohibitionists want people to believe about legalizers.
The real sin of Unconvinced reformers (other than believing what prohibitionists say) is their fear. Fear of being called extreme, whether they are or not. Fear of being looked at as “druggies” by their friends. And on a higher level, fear of losing grants, access, “respectability.”
[Note: I do agree with Transform’s point that “When they are presented with a coherent set of policy alternatives this group will usually be happy to support them.”]

Link
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of this ruling:

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glassÖbut also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the “chicken-hawk-in-chief” who was engaged in a “world domination tour.” […]
Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.
An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt.

This is good news in the context of the Bong Hits decision, as it verifies that schools are restricted from censoring political speech, and that images of marijuana leaves, for example, when used in political context, are political speech, not a promotion of illegal activity.
This was an issue for me a few years ago, when the residence halls at Illinois State University denied permission to distribute flyers for hempfest because of the presence of a hemp leaf on the flyer.

Scott Morgan and Allan Erickson have already addressed this, but I wanted to comment as well.
In this post by Clara Jeffery at MotherJones.com (which has some good points), there is a really uncalled for remark:

As in so many things these days, one wishes for something approximating independent analysis. I don’t trust the government’s research on drugs; its hyperbole and scare tactics on pot in particular seemed design to defend status quos (border and prison policies) that worsen, not solve, larger societal problems at hand. Nor do I trust NORML et al, even, and perhaps especially, when, having gotten nowhere on legalization per se, they reframe the issue as a balm for the sick and dying. Allowing medical marijuana is a no-brainer in my book, but I just think it’s a little unseemly when perfectly healthy pot-positive types hide behind AIDS and cancer patients.

I would guess that I fit in the “et al” and regardless of whether I do or not, it’s an extremely offensive statement (not to mention exceptionally illogical).
Scott Morgan gets it right in his response:

Clara Jeffery, why is it ok for you to call medical marijuana a “no-brainer,” and not us? We spoke of compassion, and we then built compassionate policies out of thin air and against massive opposition. No, we don’t hide behind AIDS and cancer patients. We march with them.

It’s like accusing an environmentalist of “hiding behind rainforests” if they advocate saving them. To an environmentalist, saving the rainforests is a piece of the total effort. To a legalizer, making marijuana available to the sick is a no-brainer integral part of legalization.
Are we supposed to say “Legalize marijuana, but not for sick people”? That would be absurd. As a legalizer, I want marijuana legally available to any adult who wishes to use it responsibly. As a human being, I put a higher priority on at least making it available to the terminally ill and those who need it to get through the day medically. How can I be a functioning human being and not think that way?
The ignorance reflected in Clara Jeffrey’s post is similar to the unsupported ad hominem attacks by academics like Mark Kleiman:

If you guessed from the above that neither side of the drug-policy debate actually gives a rat’s ass about sick people, you’re a remarkably good guesser.

To be fair, Kleiman seems to have moderated his views recently — at least he hasn’t made one of these nonsense attacks in some time, when he used to do them regularly.
I have to believe that some of it is that people like Klara and Mark have been influenced by the outlandish lies from drug warriors from Barry McCaffrey on to the current characters — that medical marijuana is a cruel hoax — and are somehow tying it in to legalizers’ wish to have marijuana legal.
And, you see, that ONLY works if you believe BOTH these propositions:

1. That medical marijuana is a cruel hoax — that it somehow gives false hope or prevents patients from following courses of treatment that would actually help them (things that are patently impossible for a drug that is primarily used as a symptom reliever).
2. That legalizers know marijuana is a false hope that hurts patients and promote it as medicine anyway, in order take steps toward getting it legalized for recreational purposes.

Obviously, both propositions are completely false.
On the other hand, for prohibitionists to be cruel, the following propositions must be true:

1. Marijuana actually helps sick people.
2. Prohibitionists fight against medical marijuana, knowing that it can help people, because they’re afraid that it will lead to legalization of recreational marijuana.

Those statements are not only likely true, they’re provably true.
What’s the problem with Mother Jones?

“bullet” First: Bong Hits 4 Jesus – the game. The trick here is to guess not which ones you should suspend a student for, but which ones you are allowed to suspend a student for/censor, based on the recent Supreme Court decision. Can you get a perfect 23/23 score? (How many times does it take you to do it?)

“bullet” Just wondering… If you were a High School student with some extra cash, and there was a billboard on private property facing your school (and visible from school windows), and you rented it and put up “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on the billboard…
“bullet” The Sac Bee has a cartoon…
“bullet” And just as a reminder… you can make your own Bong Hits 4 Jesus statement.

“bullet”

I didn’t watch this round of debates – Democratic candidates dealing with minority issues: U.S. Senator Joe Biden, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, former U.S. Senator John Edwards, former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Senator Barack Obama and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
But from the brief recaps I’ve seen around the web, the drug war got some play, with Gravel and Kucinich, of course, but also with Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Clinton at least, giving some mention to things such as eliminating mandatory minimums and crack/powder disparities, and making needle exchange available to reduce HIV.
This is a refreshing change from the notion of appealing to African-Americans by offering increased enforcement in their communities.

The United States has 5% of the world’s population…

… but 25% of the world’s prison population.

We lead the entire world in incarceration rates.

We even lead the world in actual numbers of those imprisoned

So…, and I’m just asking here…, with all these people in jail, how did we manage to miss this one?

“bullet” Transform Drug Policy Foundation has a wonderful chart showing the differences between (in general) the drug policy Status Quo position and the Reform position. Here are a few samples:

There are a lot more at Transform

“bullet” This is something we mentioned in passing earlier this year, but Maia Szalavitz has a strong article in Reason about Mitt Romney and his connection to child torturer Mel Sembler (founder of Straight, Inc.): Romney, Torture, and Teens

“bullet” Via Drug Policy Alliance:

The United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) made history last weekend by passing a resolution calling for a public health approach to the problems of substance use and abuse (PDF). The resolution was sponsored by Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City.
The resolution proclaims the war on drugs a failure, and calls for ‹a New Bottom Line in U.S. drug policy, a public health approach that concentrates more fully on reducing the negative consequences associated with drug abuse, while ensuring that our policies do not exacerbate these problems or create new social problems of their own.Š