Drug WarRant

“bullet” If you live in Illinois, Drug Policy Alliance has issued an action alert regarding a bill on Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s desk that would make it easier for Illinoisans with nonviolent drug convictions to find jobs — by sealing their criminal records four years after they finish their sentences.
“bullet” Libby at Last One Speaks has a couple of articles you should check out: Bush to Visit Columbia, and Intoxication: It’s Only Natural
“bullet” Michael at Vice Squad discusses the UN report on Afghanistan’s success in producing opium and heroin. Michael notes that it probably has not only driven down prices worldwide, but also helped out law enforcement numbers in quantity of seizures. The UN report expresses the “fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality.” Well, duh.
“bullet” Donald Lay has an interesting and well-written article in Thursday’s New York Times called Rehab Justice calling for the federal government to learn from successful state drug court systems to deal with non-violent drug offenders. Gritsforbreakfast thinks he doesn’t go far enough and that the feds should transfer the cases to the state courts. I support drug courts to the degree that they provide alternatives to prison, but ultimately, I do not support criminal penalties for non-violent drug “offenders” in general. [thanks also to David on that one]
“bullet” Loretta at the US Marijuana Party Blog has Colbert King’s article today in the Washington Post about Judge Retchin’s failures in sentencing that led to the death of Jonathan Magbie. Each little detail that comes out is more damning than the last.
“bullet” While I’ve blogged about the 55 year sentence for selling pot, Martin sent me this LA Times Editorial which put it in perspective in another way:

A 25-year-old Utah man sold eight-ounce bags of marijuana on three occasions to an undercover officer. This week he was sentenced to 55 years in prison because he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the deals.

That’s more time than he would have received if he had hijacked a plane, beaten someone to death in a fight, detonated a bomb in an aircraft and provided weapons to support a foreign terrorist organization.

“bullet” Scott is always sending me some of the best stuff. Here’s a few that you should read, and I may blog some more about them later.

• First-Ever U.S. Senate Bill to Protect Medical Marijuana Patients Introduced — and introduced by Senator Durbin, of course.
• An outstanding article in the Boston University Bridge on Randy Barnett, who is arguing the Raich case. LAW prof to Supreme Court: federal government, butt out of medical marijuana
• Tommy Chong Signs on With THE MARIJUANA-LOGUES Stage Show. He’ll be in the show in New York December 7 through 19, and then join the show on the west coast in February. Wouldn’t you know it, my next trip to New York isn’t until March.

Scheduled for Thursday, November 18: Interview with Woody Harrelson, and Ed Helms does a mock interview segment with the head of the Marijuana Reform Party.
Should be fun.

Here’s a couple of good articles to read (thanks to Scott)
“bullet” A Failed Policy? Boston Debates the War on Drugs by Julia Steinberger.
“bullet” Colombia – a strong OpEd by Loretta Nall on the war on drugs in Colombia

NPR’s All Things Considered has a disturbing and powerful two-part investigative report that is airing today and tomorrow: Immigrant Detainees Tell of Attack Dogs and Abuse

Zwerdling’s first report looks at the case of Hemnauth Mohabir, a native of Guyana. In the spring of 2002, Mohabir returned to Guyana to visit his mother, who was ill. On his way back to New York that April, an immigration agent at Kennedy International Airport noticed Mohabir had a criminal record: Six years earlier, he’d been convicted of possessing about $5 worth of drugs. The judge fined him $250 for a misdemeanor and let him go.

Because of that past conviction, Mohabir was deported to Guyana and banned from ever coming back to the United States. But before returning to his native country, Mohabir was detained for almost two years at New Jersey’s Passaic County Jail, where he alleges that guards taunted and beat detainees and terrorized them with dogs.

The documented evidence seems pretty clear in the report that there are significant abuses going on there.
This is sick. A past conviction for a small drug possession misdemeanor does not give our government the right to imprison someone for years and subject them to intimidation and abuse. This is not about homeland security – the $5 worth of drugs didn’t make him a security threat. It’s not about punishing criminals – a judge had already given him the legal penalty – a fine. It’s not about evicting illegal immigrants – Mohabir was in the country legally and had a green card. And we, the taxpayers, had to pay lots of money to detain him for two years.
Can anyone give me a valid or logical reason in a free country for this kind of activity?

I had talked some time ago about the case of a first-time drug dealer facing a huge sentence because of mandatory minimums.
TalkLeft has the news that the sentence was finally, reluctantly given by Judge Paul Cassell — 55 years.

The judge then urged Mr. Angelos’s lawyer, Jerome H. Mooney, not only to appeal his decision but to ask President Bush for clemency once all appeals were exhausted. He also urged Congress to set aside the law that made the sentence mandatory.

What happened to the constitution’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

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.