Vancouver calls for end to prohibition

Posted on November 4, 2005 by Pete Guither

From Cannabis Culture yesterday:

Today the Vancouver City Council unanimously adopted “Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substance Use,” a plan that, among other things, calls for an end to prohibition and the regulated distribution of cannabis. […]

The prevention plan covers a wide range of substances. It includes recommendations on legal and currently-illegal substances. Importantly, the plan represents a major push forward on one of Vancouver’s “Four Pillars” of drug policy: prevention. Worthy of note is that the plan’s definition of prevention deems it to be preventing harm, not simply preventing use. In fact, the plan recognizes the human reality that: “Substance use occurs along a spectrum from beneficial, to non-problematic or casual use, through to problematic or harmful use.”

The concept of a spectrum of use is one key part of the underlying philosophy of the plan. Another is the recognition that regulated markets are an essential part of preventing harm to our society. According to the Vancouver Plan: “The intent of creating regulated markets for currently illegal substances is to better control their public availability. Regulated markets support the idea that ‘No drug is made safer left in the hands of organized criminals and unregulated dealers.'”

The full plan is available here (pdf). Now I don’t agree with everything in the plan, but Vancouver is clearly on a strong track, separating use from abuse, recognizing the importance of harm reduction and realizing that prohibition is ineffective.

[Thanks, Tom]
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Vancouver calls for end to prohibition

San Diego supervisors defy voters and state

Posted on November 3, 2005 by Pete Guither

I haven’t commented much on the medical marijuana situation in California recently. It’s a complex situation made much less coherent by the flawed Raich decision (or more accurately, by the federal government’s unwillingness to allow the State of California to administer its own laws regarding the medical needs of its citizens).
Medical marijuana is still the law of the state, and the state is trying to set up procedures to adhere to the law (although that becomes complicated as well — if you set up ID cards to properly handle medical marijuana distribution, does that set the patient up for potential federal harrassment?) The problem is, though, that the conflict between the state and the feds is emboldening some local units of government into disregarding state law — another unsettling and de-stabilizing by-product of a disfunctional federal policy about a relatively harmless plant.
California Senate Bill 420 takes effect in December and sets up a regulated system for medical marijuana and requires all counties to follow the procedures for patient applications, etc. On Tuesday, the San Diego County Supervisors refused:

Flouting state law, county supervisors yesterday refused to implement a program providing identification cards that would help medical marijuana users avoid arrest.

County attorneys warned supervisors that their vote will almost certainly plunge the county into costly and unwinnable litigation.

Their response: Bring it on.

They are breaking state law and therefore potentially subjecting the county residents to cost of large lawsuits simply because they don’t agree with medical marijuana.
And check out this bizarre reasoning:

“After spending thousands and thousands of community enhancement dollars to go after gangs and drug dealers, I think it would be tremendous hypocrisy to vote for this,” Supervisor Bill Horn said. “I look forward to the lawsuit when it happens.”

What’s up, San Diego? How did these idiots become Supervisors? Can you do something about that, please?

[Thanks, nhop and Scott]
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on San Diego supervisors defy voters and state

Pot case up in smoke

Posted on November 2, 2005 by Pete Guither

Link

A low-level drug charge against a Decatur man has been dismissed after evidence was destroyed by the Indiana State Police lab before the trial. State police blamed the error on a miscommunication and said it was an isolated occurrence. […]

Lab employees destroyed the evidence in Huffine’s case after reading a supplemental report written by the trooper, where he had checked off a box indicating that the evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, said Sgt. Rodger Popplewell, state police spokesman. […]

In Huffine’s case, the box ordering the destruction of the evidence was checked accidentally and the lab believed it was OK to destroy it, Popplewell said.

No mention was given as to the method of destruction…

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Pot case up in smoke

Marijuana now legal in Denver… sort of

Posted on November 2, 2005 by Pete Guither

The citizens of Denver, Colorado voted yesterday to make possession of less than an ounce of marijuana non-punishable under city ordinances.
At MPP:

The initiative’s language puts the city on record in support of treating private, adult use and possession of marijuana “in the same manner as the private use and possession of alcohol.

From a practical standpoint, very little changed, as marijuana is still illegal under state law and that’s how arrests would be prosecuted (so Denver residents should not rush out and start smoking pot in public).
However, from a symbolic standpoint, this is pretty big, and something worth celebrating.

“A few years from now, this vote may well be seen as the proverbial ‘tipping point,’ the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the U.S.,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. “Replacing the failed policy of prohibition with common-sense taxation and regulation of marijuana has become a thoroughly mainstream issue, with the voters of two major U.S. cities endorsing such an approach within one year. Even the Denver Post, which opposed I-100, said in its editorial, ‘We think it probably would be preferable for the state and federal governments to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana use.’

“Last year, there were more than three-quarters of a million marijuana arrests, an all-time record,” Kampia added. “That’s equivalent to arresting every man, woman, and child in the state of Wyoming plus every man, woman, and child in St. Paul, Minnesota. The public understands that this simply makes no sense. Regulating marijuana will take money out of the pockets of criminals and free police to go after violent crime, and the voters of Denver took their first step in that direction today.”

Even if we have to do it one state at a time, one city at a time, or just convince one person at a time, I believe that momentum will eventually build enough to end marijuana prohibition.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Marijuana now legal in Denver… sort of

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

Posted on November 1, 2005 by Pete Guither

At TalkLeft…

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of a New Mexican religious sect that wants to be allowed to drink a hallucinogenic tea at ceremonies twice a month.

The justices were critical of the Bush administration’s position that drug laws forbidding such use trumps the right of the sect to practice its religion. John Roberts and Sandra Day O’Connor seemed particularly harsh on the Government. Nancy Hollander of Albuquerque argued for the sect.

At SCOTUSblog:

A small religious band of about 140 adherents, locked in a high-stakes legal battle with federal drug enforcers, appeared on Tuesday to be nearing at least a partial victory in the Supreme Court. The government‰s no-exception, zero-tolerance approach to the religious use of a hallucinogen ran into considerable skepticism among the Justices. Only one, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, seemed ready to go most of the way to support the government side.

As far as I’m aware, this is one of the two most important drug war-related cases of this term (the other being Gonzales v. Oregon).
Now this one also has freedom of religion issues, so it isn’t strictly drug war, but it does relate to how absolute the power of the federal government is in the area of drug control. Any chinks in their armor would be a good sign.
Will it be a 4-4 tie? Make your predictions here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

Early reports on Alito not promising

Posted on October 31, 2005 by Pete Guither

I’m trying to get a little bit of an early handle on our new Supreme Court nominee. What I’ve seen hasn’t been exactly reassuring.
First thing I saw was this rather sensational item:

Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

Turns out after actually reading the entire decision that it was much more complex than indicated in the blurb and involved some technicalities. I wouldn’t say that I agree with Alito’s reasoning in the case, but it’s not as over the top as it seems.
However, then there’s this report at USA Today.

Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as “an activist conservatist judge” who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners’ and criminals’ rights. “He’s very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait,” Lustberg says.

That’s very scary.
Lustberg, however, loses a point with me in his use of the phrase “prisoners’ and criminals’ rights.” I hope he’s not referring to the 4th Amendment there, because the 4th Amendment is not criminals’ rights, but rather citizens’ rights and the rights of the accused (both guilty and innocent). (In fact, the only part of the bill of rights that is specifically for “criminals’ rights” is part of the 8th Amendment.) It really disturbs me to hear basic core American rights and principles referred to as “criminals’ rights.”
TalkLeft has a lot more on Alito’s ‘prosecutorial’ approach.
I’m going to keep looking (and please send me anything you find about his drug war views), but I’m not hopeful.
All the more reason to concentrate on changing the lawmakers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Early reports on Alito not promising

Liberalism’s Brain on Drugs

Posted on October 31, 2005 by Pete Guither
At some point, everyone ought to throw his or her political theory — whatever it is — up against the wall of reality to see if it sticks. I ran smack into that wall when the state shackled Mark, one of my best friends, and hauled him off to a dank, violent, maximum-security prison for a 17-year stay. His crime: possession of a spoonful of cocaine, some of which they said he intended to distribute.

That’s the beginning of a good article by Ryan Grim in today’s In These Times.

I’ve always believed that we live in a fundamentally liberal society that can trace its way back to enlightenment thinkers like Jefferson, Madison, Locke, Mill and Rousseau. Sure, the past 24 years of the Reagan, Bush and even Clinton regimes haven’t been kind, but one bedrock principle still seemed intact: If not equality and fraternity, we’ll always have liberty. And so, as guards frogmarched my friend out of the courtroom shackled hands to feet, I wondered how confining that man for 17 years jives with my understanding of our nation’s values. Is imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people an acceptable policy result of a liberal, pluralistic democratic society? Or, is the drug war proving libertarians correct about the potential for abuse of government power?

Grim goes on to point out some of the abuses of freedom caused by the war on drugs (the drug war exception to the bill of rights, the huge prison populations, etc.), and liberalism’s failure to face or respond to them.

Silence from liberals in this debate is, in effect, an endorsement for the status quo. It is time to stand up in defense of liberty — not just equality and fraternity.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Liberalism’s Brain on Drugs

Let’s see, who would be best qualified to resolve medical issues?

Posted on October 29, 2005 by Pete Guither

The federal government seems to think it’s the DEA, and they’re wrong.
It’s time for all medical associations like this one to speak up, and assert their authority.

CANTON – Allegations that a Madrid doctor over prescribed narcotics and other painkillers should have been dealt with by his fellow physicians and not the criminal justice system, according to the president of the Medical Society of the County of St. Lawrence.

Dr. James L. Latimer closed his office and surrendered his state and federal license a week ago to avoid prosecution. The actions grew out of a long-running investigation by state police and federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents into illegal trafficking of prescription drugs within the county.

“We are very disappointed how the case of Dr. Latimer was handled by the district attorney’s office,” J. Lucas Koberda, president of the medical society, said in a prepared statement released Thursday.

“To our knowledge Dr. Latimer’s prescribing anti-pain medication pattern did not justify criminal charges to be applied,” Dr. Koberda said. Instead, he said, the issue should have been addressed by peer review medical organizations of local doctors or by the state Organization of Professional Medical Conduct.

“We would prefer to have worked with local authorities from the beginning when the case was starting to be investigated in order to have prevented any possible future medical misconduct which effects our community,” Dr. Koberda said.

The DEA and district attorneys act as if they know more about medicine than those who have trained their entire lives. There are already medical associations that can look into allegations of misconduct. The fact that associations are not consulted, and that even the doctors are often not questioned about their prescriptions before a full-scale arrest, just shows that the prohibitionists are not interested in the welfare of the people. They either want trophies, or they actually want to take away our ability to treat pain.

[Thanks to jackl]
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Let’s see, who would be best qualified to resolve medical issues?

Medical Marijuana – the road to true impairment analysis

Posted on October 29, 2005 by Pete Guither

As this legal article points out, medical marijuana is causing some consternation within businesses who use suspicionless drug testing. An important court case is pending on this and there’s likely to be more legal action in the future.

In the meantime, as the Oregon Court of Appeals articulated in Washburn, here’s what is at issue:

  • An employer’s substance abuse policy may not categorically prohibit marijuana;
  • It isn’t clear if work and marijuana use can be accommodated; and
  • Employers might have to demonstrate an employee’s on-the-job impairment, even though impairment cannot be measured.

What does this mean? Employers might have to start doing their job right. Evaluate employee performance through things like actual job performance, rather than whether there are metabolites in the blood that have nothing to do with impairment.
I have supervised employees most of my life, and I’ve never depended on drug testing. If someone showed up to work impaired from drugs or alcohol, I sent them home (and I had no problem figuring it out). If they did it again, I fired them. Simple. No drug tests. However, if someone did some wild partying on Saturday night, but were clear and ready to work on Monday, I had no problem — if they were a good worker, they did well with me.
This isn’t a hard concept, folks. If you need to have drug tests to find out if your employees are impaired, then you need new supervisors. Drug tests are counter-productive and ruin a good workplace environment.
Medical marijuana can help, by making tests for marijuana metabolites worthless.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Medical Marijuana – the road to true impairment analysis

Marat Sade

Posted on October 29, 2005 by Pete Guither

This is off-topic for drug policy reform, but I thought I’d let you know more about my current extra-curricular project.
I am musical director and performing in a production of “The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade” (also known by the shorter title: “Marat/Sade”). Performances are at the Illinois State University Center for the Performing Arts Theatre in Normal, Illinois, November 4-12. It’s a bizarre, wonderful and disturbing play about inmates in an insane asylum in the early 1800s putting on a political musical written and directed by the Marquis de Sade (also an inmate), with political relevance today.
So I am playing the harmonium (organ) as a mental patient (I’m chained to it during the show). The show is full of sex, violence, philosophy, and politics. It’s great fun.
If you’re in the area, check it out. The first one to email me with a request for tickets will get two free tickets.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Marat Sade