Drug WarRant

Interesting.
Read the details of this case. An 18-year-old faces a controversial “school-zone” mandatory prison term for selling pot. (The Massachussetts “school-zones” cover just about everything.)
The defense attorney apparently raised enough questions about entrapment and that the severity of the sentence was extreme, that the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared.
Pay attention to this, folks. We may see a whole lot more of this in the future.
If the Supreme Court continues to rule against the individual (I don’t know enough about nominee Roberts yet to have a strong opinion, but I was concerned to hear that he had a record that showed deference to the powers of the administration), and if the legislature continues to ignore the will of their consitutents as it relates to drug policy, and if the administration continues to enjoy waging war against its own citizens, then eventually, the citizens will have to take charge of justice themselves. And they have that ability, that right — in fact, that responsibility — in the jury box.

The debate in committee has spilled over to today, so you can still call if you’re in one of the districts listed below.
The New York Times came out with a dynamite editorial on the subject:

One of the most irrational initiatives in the war on crime was a decision by Congress in the 1990’s to cut off some ex-offenders from federal education aid. It’s highly unlikely that anyone has been deterred from lawbreaking as a result. But if people who have paid their debts to society and are seeking new starts are denied education aid, they could well be locked out of the new economy and sent right back through the revolving door into prison.

Congress is revisiting a particularly onerous law under which tens of thousands of students have been turned down for federal grants and loans because of drug offenses, some of them minor and as much as a decade old. A proposed change in the law would improve the picture slightly. It is aimed at penalizing students who commit drug-related crimes while receiving federal aid. It would be better to repeal the provision entirely, as many observers have suggested.

Law enforcement officials have learned over and over again that ex-offenders who get an education and find jobs are far less likely to end up back behind bars. Barring former offenders from school aid makes it virtually impossible for them to get the necessary schooling for joining the mainstream. The law has a disproportionate impact on poor and minority communities, where the drug trade is rampant and young men often have run-ins with the law before they get their lives on track.

By narrowing access to affordable education, the federal government further diminishes the prospects of young people who are already at risk of becoming lifetime burdens to society. Members of Congress are understandably hesitant to cast votes that might brand them as being “soft on crime.” But it doesn’t take a genius to see that barring young offenders from college leads to more crime – not less. Student aid was never intended for use as a law enforcement weapon. Any attempt to employ it that way will inevitably yield perverse and unfair results.

They’re exactly right on this one. Great editorial.
One of the things that’s bugged me about this whole issue is the irrelevant mean-spiritedness of people like Souder.
Take this comment by his spokesperson:

“Students who receive taxpayer dollars to go to college are not making the most of it by taking drugs,” Green said. “It’s one thing if they’re paying for their education or if their parents are paying for it, but it’s unfair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a student with a drug habit.”

First, this is not about students with a drug habit — it’s about students who were caught smoking a joint.
Second, this provision does absolutely nothing to insure that students are “making the most of it.” I know students who smoke pot regularly who get straight A’s and are leaders on campus. On the other hand, I know students who waste their time getting drunk, playing computer games, or watching “All My Children” who are struggling with their classwork.
Federal financial aid already has an effective provision to make sure students are getting the most out of college. It’s called grades. If your GPA falls below a certain point, you lose your financial aid, regardless of whether it’s because you’re smoking pot, or watching the Cartoon Network all day.
The HEA provision is wrong, and counter-productive, and I hope it’s completely repealed.

Radley Balko at The Agitator has been all over the DEA’s war on pain doctors. Here he has correspondence from doctors who have been targeted.
There are two other must-read articles on this subject:

• Why is The DEA Hounding This Doctor? by Margot Roosevelt in Time Magazine
• Punishing Pain by John Tierney in the New York Times

Via DRCNet:

On Tuesday, July 19, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce will be voting on H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005. Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) will introduce a crucial amendment to H.R. 609 that would repeal the federal ban on financial aid for students with drug convictions. If passed, the Andrews amendment would fully repeal the HEA Drug Provision, which has denied aid to more than 160,500 students since taking effect in 2000.

This is the second time in seven years and the first since May 2000 that a House committee will be forced to reconsider the law. Other proposals have suggested that the law only be scaled back, meaning thousands of students would still lose their financial aid. If your member of Congress is on the Committee for Education and the Workforce, please call him or her today! Members, the areas they represent, and their phone numbers are all listed below.

Education and the Workforce:
Republican Members (27)

• John, A. Boehner, 8th-OH (Westchester/Troy Area) 202-225-6205
• Thomas E. Petri, 6th-WI (Fond du Lac/Oshkosh Area) 202-225-2476
• Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, 25th-CA (Santa Clarita/Palmdale Area) 202-225-1956
• Michael N. Castle, At Large-DE 202-225-4165
• Sam Johnson, 3rd-TX (Richardson Area) 202-225-4201
• Mark E. Souder, 3rd-IN (Fort Wayne Area) 202-225-4436
• Charlie Norwood, 9th-GA (Augusta/Toccoa Area) 202-225-4101
• Vernon J. Ehlers, 3rd-MI (Grand Rapids Area) 202-225-3831
• Judy Biggert, 13th-IL (Willowbrook Area) 202-225-3515
• Todd Russell Platts, 19th-PA (York/Carlisle/Gettysburg Area) 202-225-5836
• Patrick J. Tiberi, 12th-OH (Columbus Area) 202-225-5355
• Ric Keller, 8th-FL (Orlando/Eustis/Ocala Area) 202-225-2176
• Tom Osborne, 3rd-NE (Grand Island/Scottsbluff/Kearney/McCook Area) 202-225-6435
• Joe Wilson, 2nd-SC (Beaufort/West Columbia) 202-225-2452
• Jon C. Porter, 3rd-NV (Henderson Area) 202-225-3252
• John Kline, 2nd-MN (Burnsville Area) 202-225-2271
• Marilyn N. Musgrave, 4th-CO (Loveland/Sterlin/Greeley/Longmont Area) 202-225-4676
• Bob Inglis, 4th-SC (Greenville/Spartanburg/Union Area) 202-225-6030
• Cathy McMorris, 5th-WA (Spokane.Colville.Walla Walla Area) 202-225-2006
• Kenny Marchant, 24th-TX (Irving Area) 202-225-6605
• Tom Price, 6th-GA (Marietta Area) 202-225-4501
• Luis G. Fortuöo, At Large-PR 202-225-2615
• Bobby Jindal, 1st-LA (Metairie Area) 202-225-3015
• Charles W. Boustany, Jr., 7th-LA (Lafayette Area) 202-225-2031
• Virginia Foxx, 5th-NC (Clemmons Area) 202-225-2071
• Thelma D. Drake, 2nd-VA (Virginia Beach/Accomac Area) 202-225-4215
• John R. “Randy” Kuhl, Jr., 29th-NY (Corning Area) 202-225-3161

Democrat Members (22)

• George Miller, 7th-CA (Concord/Richmond/Vallejo Area) 202-228-2095
• Dale E. Kildee, 5th-MI (Flint/Saginaw/Bay City Area) 202-225-3611
• Major R. Owens, 11th-NY (Brooklyn Area) 202-225-6231
• Donald M. Payne, 10th-NJ (Newark/Elizabeth/Jersey City Area) 202-225-3436
• Robert E. Andrews, 1st-NJ (Haddon Heights/Woodbury Area) 202-225-6501
• Robert C. Scott, 3rd-VA (Newport News/Richmond Area) 202-225-8351
• Lynn C. Woolsey, 6th-CA (Santa Rosa/San Rafael Area) 202-225-5161
• RubÚn Hinojosa, 15th-TX (McAllen/Beeville Area) 202-225-2531
• Carolyn McCarthy, 4th-NY (Garden City Area) 202-225-5516
• John F. Tierney, 6th-MA (Peabody/Lynn Area) 202-225-8020
• Ron Kind, 3rd-WI (LaCrosse/Eau Claire Area) 202-225-5506
• Dennis J. Kucinich, 10th-OH (Lakewood/Parma Area) 202-225-5871
• David Wu, 1st-OR (Portland Area) 202-225-0855
• Rush D. Holt, 12th-NJ (West Windsor Area) 202-225-5801
• Susan A. Davis, 53rd-CA (Sand Diego Area) 202-225-2040
• Betty McCollum, 4th-MN (St. Paul Area) 202-225-6631
• Danny K. Davis, 7th-IL (Chicago/Broadview Area) 202-225-5006
• Raþl M. Grijalva, 7th-AZ (Tucson/Yuma Area) 202-225-2435
• Chris Van Hollen, 8th-MD (Rockville/Mt. Rainier Area) 202-225-5341
• Tim Ryan, 17th-OH (Youngstown/Warren/Akron Area) 202-225-5261
• Timothy H. Bishop, 1st-NY (Coram/Southampton Area) 202-225-3826
• John Barrow, 12th-GA (Athens Area) 202-225-2823

The wonderful folks at SSDP have been working extremely hard to get this bad law repealed completely. Help them out. If you are in the district of one of the representatives above, call them right now.
You can also use this Action Alert.

… a prohibitionist like Joyce Nalepka opens her mouth.
This is one of the most bizarre OpEds I’ve read recently: Joyce Nalepka: Don’t swallow drug legalizers’ lies in the Providence Journal.
The article is clearly aimed at the medical marijuana bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the legislature in Rhode Island (and vetoed by the Governor — we’re still waiting on the House veto override vote). But since she can’t really come up with strong enough arguments to counter medical marijuana, she apparently decides to throw in these completely unrelated stories:

In Pennsylvania, a group of parents, neighbors, and friends gathered around a girl’s gravesite one recent Sunday to sing “Happy Birthday.” A sweet, caring high-school junior, she had died two years before of a heroin overdose.

In Florida, little Jessica Lunsford also died because of drugs — not her own drug use, but the crack use of an addict, who stole her from her bed in her grandmother’s humble home and killed her.

And this has what to do with medical marijuana in Rhode Island? (Additionally, I think you’d find that these instances were likely caused, or made worse, by prohibition.)
In other atrocities, she compares medical marijuana to thalidomide(!) and claims legislators have been paid-off to support medical marijuana.
Here’s my favorite section:

The campaign to get marijuana reclassified as “medicine” began in 1979. At the time, it was led by a group of admitted pot-smoking zealots with little money. They were mostly supported by the sale of drug paraphernalia, until parents united and closed the shops nationwide.

Today, these zealots are older admitted drug users, with access to millions of dollars, provided by currency trader George Soros and Peter Lewis, founder of Progressive Insurance. At least 15 Rhode Island legislators received money from Peter Lewis, and one received $1,000 from a group called the Marijuana Policy Project. Nationwide, the two billionaires have contributed an estimated $40 million to challenging drug laws.

Foes of this scam, for the most part, are using their grocery money to try to stop them before it’s too late.

It’s all laughable, but I guess in part she’s right. Prohibitionists ARE using their grocery money to fight drug reformers like me. And they’re using my grocery money and your grocery money and the grocery money of just about everyone in this country. It’s called taxes. And the ONDCP controls a whole lot of our grocery money to spread lies and propaganda like Joyce’s. Much more money than any of the reform organizations.
Look, Joyce is a nutcase. Fortunately her OpEd is strange enough that most discerning readers will see that her grasp on reality is shaky at best. Rhode Islanders won’t be taken in by Nalepka.

Sorry for the lack of postings, but I spent all last week working on the show. It’s looking good and will be ready to open on Friday.
I still have a lot to do this week on it, so I won’t be fully up to speed here, but I’ll be stopping in now and again.
If you need to catch up, be sure to read Last One Speaks. Also, good recaps of last week and some great articles are available in these two weekly updates:

• The Drug War Chronicle
• Drug Sense Weekly

They’re always worth reading.

I’m taking some time off work and I’m in Chicago this week working on the final touches for “The Living Canvas 2005” — a show that I’m producing and directing.
It opens on July 22 at Victory Gardens Theater and runs through August 28. It has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war (even though one reviewer last year said “Stoners, Dali fans, sensualists of every stripe, this show’s for you.”), but I think it’s a great show, and I encourage you to see it if you’re in the area.
Posting will be light this week as I focus on the myriad details of getting a production up and running, so please visit the sites on the left to keep up with the news if I fall behind.

Thanks to Dan for sending me this story on NPR Friday: A Shadow in the City, part 3.
Very powerful words from two former undercover drug cops. One talks about how he discovered that many of the people he was working undercover to bust were honorable, good, family people and how they wouldn’t even give his name up to the cops. The other former drug cop talks about coming to the conclusion that drugs should be legalized.
Definitely worth a listen.

So a survey of sheriff’s departments in 45 states found that most of them think meth is the biggest problem they’re facing.
The White House, however, is not particularly interested in adjusting their high-profile, expensive national campaign to demonize marijuana.

…the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy restated its stance that marijuana remains the nation’s most substantial drug problem. Federal estimates show there are 15 million marijuana users compared to the 1 million that might use meth.

Yep, better focus on those marijuana users. Wonkette puts it into perspective:

And that numbers thing? You know, there sure are a lot of jaywalkers compared to people who molest children…

So why is the Czar acting this way? Simple. Dealing with meth is messy and complex and it doesn’t help his numbers [and actually, the ONDCP would take the wrong approach with meth if they were more involved, but that’s a different post].
You see, back in the 90’s the DEA and ONDCP got failing grades by the GAO for their inability to show that they were actually accomplishing anything (because, of course, they weren’t). So the White House set a new goal for the ONDCP: reducing (by specific percentages) the number of illegal drug users in the United States.
Of course, to a lot of people, that sounds like a wonderful goal. But how do you actually accomplish a goal with such wording? Let’s say you wanted to help heroin addicts. Well, probably not a good idea — there aren’t that many of them, and it takes a lot of work to get them completely off drugs. Even if you’re successful with a lot of them, it would hardly register as far as a percent of drug users.
So where can you get huge numbers and get them to quit easily? Marijuana. It’s the one most people use, and it’s not even addictive, so quitting is no problem. All you have to do is demonize it and spread the propaganda, and promote drug testing, and you can get a whole lot of people who were just using it now and then for fun to stop. You won’t do a thing for people who really have a drug problem, but you’ll reach your percentage goals of reducing drug users in the U.S.
This has been driving the entire ONDCP’s agenda. Even including blocking medical marijuana (medical marijuana use counts as federal illicit drug use for the purpose of statistics).
An entire national policy based on demonizing people who are causing no harm, and ignoring people who need help. Is that what they call “compassionate conservatism”?

Last week, China admitted that it is losing the war on drugs.
This week, Taiwan said that it needs China’s help in winning the war on drugs (Taiwan apparently doesn’t read the news).
So what happened? China officials blame “globalization and freer trade.” On the other hand, Jeordie White, a clueless English teacher in Beijing who’s allowed to write for newspapers claims that China has been silent on the cause, and goes ahead himself to blame… globalization and freer trade, particularly because of the Chinese government’s cooperation with Nigerians (blaming Africans for use of drugs – what a novel concept).
Remember that China is a country that still regularly executes drug traffickers and sent 273,000 people to compulsory drug treatment last year.
Sure, to some extent globalization helps the knowledge of the latest trends in illicit drugs to propagate, but the fact of the matter is — people use drugs. Not all of them, but a lot of them. And they will use drugs no matter how oppressive the efforts are to suppress them. And no government (even one that is as oppressive as China’s) can stop it. Period.
What they can do is make the overall use of drugs less dangerous to society by eliminating prohibition and instituting harm reduction policies and regulation.