Drug WarRant

Thanks to Richard Lake for the news that the government has put out a new book of Marijuana Lies and Distortions called Marijuana: Myths and Facts. It’s available online as individual chapter pdf files or the entire book as a pdf.
Some of the items are absurd, and others seem to destroy the government’s own position. For example:

Myth #8: My kids won’t be exposed to marijuana.

I’m not sure how that’s considered a myth, but the government assures us that in fact “If kids want marijuana, they can find it. More than half (55 percent) of youths age 12 to 17 responding to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2002 reported that marijuana would be easy to obtain.” Of course, instead of admitting that prohibition has had a big part in that fact, they try for bizarre explanations:

Marijuana use is in some ways like a contagious disease, spreading from “infected” individuals to others around them. … And then there’s the Internet, a crowded landscape of promarijuana and drug legalization Web sites.

Ah yes, I wondered how long it would take them to blame me for young people smoking pot!
Then there’s:

Myth #10: The government sends otherwise innocent people to prison for casual marijuana use

Of course, their refutation of this “myth” is that, in fact, there are only 3,600 prisoners for first time offense of simple marijuana possession in state prisons.
Can they do this without laughing? OK, first, they eliminated everything except state prisons. Then they go ahead and state that there are thousands of state prisoners who are first-time marijuana possession offenders. Their only justification is that statistically this is a small number.
Are there 3,600 corporate CEOs in prison who broke the law and fudged the books to run off with their employees’ pension? Are there 3,600 politicians who violated their oath to support the constitution in prison?
So, in summary… due to prohibition, marijuana is easy for your kids to get, and the government does spend your money locking up first-time offenders whose only crime was possession of a plant. And your government also spends your money putting together useless propaganda.

Fortunately, Baylen made it to the Raich symposium at Georgetown yesterday, and has a full report. Great work! Sounds like an interesting and informative panel discussion.
It’s interesting to hear the mix of optimism and pessimism regarding the chances Raich has in the current court. I’m confident that we have the best possible people on our side arguing the case. The briefs are stunning.
Some people express doubts on the court’s willingness to legalize medical marijuana. While that is certainly a reasonable doubt by itself, the case isn’t just about legalizing medical marijuana. The way this case is structured, a negative ruling by the court would, in essence, eliminate once and for all any semblance of states’ rights. The question is whether the Supremes are willing to do that, and I don’t think they are. Now, they may look to find some kind of compromise or weasel way out, but it’ll be tough for them to kill the commerce clause restrictions for good.
Additionally, there may be renewed interest in states’ rights from, of all places, the left. There’s a very interesting article at Salon by Michelle Goldberg (may require reading an ad) about liberals now considering looking to states’ rights as protection.
It’s going to be an interesting ride.

I really believe that the upcoming Supreme Court case Raich v. Ashcroft (documents) could be the biggest event in drug policy reform in the next four years, and I’ll be following it closely here. I’ll probably be adding a full page guide to the case shortly.
There’s a fabulous article (thanks, Scott) about Angel Raich in tomorrow’s LA Times. It’s a great overview of the person and the case, and worth checking out.

---

Also: On Monday, Georgetown Law SSDP and the American Constitutional Society will be hosting a symposium on the case, featuring Eric Sterling, Executive Director, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation; Peter J. Cohen, M.D., Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Mark Moller, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Sally Satel, M.D. and Author, American Enterprise Institute; Keith Stroup, Executive Director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
6 pm to 8 pm – Georgetown Law – 12th Floor of Gewirz, 120 F Street NW – Washington, DC
Check it out if you can, and let me know about it.

From New York Newsday (Thanks, Herb):

[Security guard] Tomika Thomas told police she smelled marijuana when she spotted the 16-year-old boy standing alone under a tree outside Booker T. Washington High School when other students were in class or the cafeteria.

Thomas said she approached the student and tried to detain him, but he became aggressive, pushed her, then reached under his shirt.

“She thought he was reaching for a weapon. She drew and fired one time, striking him in the foot,” Sgt. Paul Accardo said.

Police found no drugs or weapons on the boy, who ran away after being shot and was caught by a second security guard.

Yep. She smelled marijuana.
I’m not excusing the boy’s alleged aggression, but this all started because she thought she smelled marijuana?
Is this to be the norm in our society now? If so, I want no part of it, and I call for some bright chemist out there to develop a THC-free Pot Purfume and Cologne. I’ll wear it proudly. And if I get hassled by a security guard or attacked by one of Lisa Madigan’s dogs, I’ll be happy that I am contributing to the demise of the prohibitionist’s sniff, and that some day in the future, we will no longer have security guards shooting 16-year-olds because of a supposed odor.

Illinois’ Lisa Madigan got her chance at the big time, arguing in the Supreme Court for Illinois v. Caballes. The case involves whether you can use drug sniffing dogs in routine traffic stops when there is no cause to suspect drug activity.

Standing before the justices, Madigan forcefully argued that police don’t violate the Constitution’s 4th Amendment in such circumstances because they aren’t actually conducting a search when they use a drug dog.

“A sniff is not a search and, therefore, requires no 4th Amendment justification,” said Madigan, in her first argument before the high court.

…

Madigan stood firm, forcefully arguing that police could use the dogs, without any evidence of criminal activity, on public streets or in parks or, even, around the outside of a person’s home.

Thanks, Lisa. So you wouldn’t mind, then, if I brought my dog up to you and had it sniff your crotch in public? After all, it’s not a search, so why should anyone mind?
Unfortunately, early appearances are that the Supremes are going to roll over and play dead on yet another 4th Amendment case.

It’s official. John Ashcroft is gone. The man who rose from losing to a dead man and did more to help the terrorists take away our freedom than anyone I know, is leaving, having declared a victory in making us safe from terrorists and crime (despite a perfect losing record in terrorist cases).
Listen to him one last time.
Replacing him will be Alberto Gonzales, the man who thought the Geneva conventions were outdated and quaint.
I don’t know what Gonzales will do regarding medical marijuana or the drug war (and a lot of people want to know — my google hits for Alberto Gonzales and medical marijuana have been off the charts). If anyone has background on any of his views on the drug war, please let me know.
It may not matter. I’m guessing that Gonzales will be a little less specifically driven than Ashcroft, but I think it’s most likely that it will be business as usual, with the ONDCP and the DEA driving the drug war and Gonzales nodding his approval as the rubber stamp of administration policy.
The only real question may be whether Gonzales’ view of the quaintness of the Geneva convention will translate to his views of the 4th Amendment. Also quaint?

Sometimes an article shows up that is so bad, so ignorant, or so blatant in its lies that you just can’t help marveling while you read it.
This was published in The Columbian:

Long before today’s extremely potent strains of cannabis were developed, there were individuals who suffered severe psychotic episodes when smoking marijuana (feral cannabis hemp). In fact, this phenomenon was the basis of “Reefer Madness,” the 70-year-old zombie movie about individuals who became crazed from smoking marijuana.

æææ Today, pro-legalization partisans complain that “Reefer Madness” and the thousands of scientific studies that document marijuana’s many insidious and dangerous side effects, are “just scare tactics” and insist that marijuana be given the same status as alcohol and tobacco.

æææ Today marijuana is so potent (compare taking 20 aspirin at a time instead of two) that it has become a leading cause of drug related medical and psychiatric emergency room episodes, impacting thinly-stretched medical resources.

Read the rest of it. It’s truly amazing. There are so many outright lies in the piece that I can’t count them all. Pointing them out is like identifying the sand on a beach.
The author, Sandra S. Bennett, is director of the Northwest Center for Health & Safety (her own organization) and is married to William Bennett (not that one). After her son died of a cocaine related death, she apparently decided to go into denial, start lying, and encourage the prohibition conditions that lead to the deaths of young people.

---

If you support prohibition, you are part of the drug problem.

Check out Loretta Nall’s new U.S. Marijuana Party Blog.

I’ve talked a couple of times about the offensive DEA museum exhibit that’s currently on display in Times Square in New York (and opened, of course, on September 11): Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You (See my earlier posts here and here).
This exhibit uses actual materials from the wreckage of the world trade center to promote the drug users are terrorists mantra.
Well, my friend Adam spent some time in New York last month and he stopped by the exhibit. He says it’s as bad as I imagined it. He actually got physically ill from seeing the way that the DEA exploited the 9/11 tragedy.
He couldn’t handle actually going through the entire exhibit (apparently there were some additional special rooms).
But as he left, he noticed that there was a gift shop.
And he bought me this.
When he gave it to me, I broke into uncontrollable laughter at the absurdity of it all…

The DEA. They destroy your country. They lay the blame for the violence they cause on the citizens they are supposed to protect. They sully the memory of those who died in 9/11 in order to glorify their own unconstitutional activities.
But it’s all good. At least you can buy a cute beanie-baby moose wearing a DEA T-shirt in the museum gift shop.

Ignorant Congressman Mark Souder threatens Canada.
From CTV

An influential U.S. Congressman is predicting a trade slowdown if Canada decriminalizes marijuana possession.

“I believe there’ll be more searches at the border both coming and going from Canada, which hurts our trade,” said Republican Mark Souder, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on CTV’s Question Period. “Trade is the anchor of our relationship and our friendship and anything that slows that down, complicates that.”

Souder is chair of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.

Souder is such a tool. I mean, to continue to threaten Canada this way is not only bad foreign policy, but it really makes you look stupid. After all, private possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana is legal in Alaska, and Chicago is seriously looking at decriminalization. Are we going to threaten to block trade with Chicago?