Drug WarRant

Warning: Non-drug-policy-related post. I usually stick exclusively to drug policy in this blog, but today I wanted to take a moment to make a couple of plugs — one for a show I’m producing and directing in Chicago which opens in a week (and therefore posting will be quite light). The other is for a new book written by my Dad. Obviously feel free to skip this post if you’re not interested or are in some way offended by one or the other.

“bullet” If you’re going to be in or near Chicago, check out the upcoming production of Ascent of the Living Canvas.

This is a live production based on The Living Canvas photography that I’ve been doing for the past 20 years, which involves using the human form as a canvas for textures and unique approaches to light and shadow. The photography has come alive for a series of performance pieces (“The Living Canvas” in 2001 and “The Living Canvas: An Oddysey” in 2002) incorporating movement, text, music, projections and the extraordinary expressiveness of the unclothed human form.
The new show, “Ascent of the Living Canvas,” adds digital projection and combines humor, beauty, and abstract social commentary on the issues of self-esteem and body acceptance.
Photography and direction is by me, choreography by my good friend Mark Hackman (of the amazing Chicago Dance Crash) and original composition is by Dennis Tobenski.
Performances are July 23 through August 28 (Friday and Saturday nights at 8 pm) at Boxer Rebellion Theatre, 1257 W. Loyola Ave. in Chicago (one block from the Loyola Red Line stop). Tickets are $15 and may be purchased online.
I’ll be at all the performances, so please feel free to stay afterward to chat.
For more information about my photography, visit The Living Canvas.

“bullet” I highly recommend this book: The God Connection: A Layperson’s Guide to the Bible by Francis Geo. Guither.

Yes, I’m promoting a book written by my dad. He’s a retired United Methodist minister, a great guy, and I can have delightfully frank and open religious discussions/arguments with him. Well, I started to read his latest book out of politeness (so I could tell him I read it) with that sort of have attention that I developed sitting through all those church services as a kid. But I really became interested. He explains the bible in ways that truly make sense, not as a rigid dictated set of arbitrary doctrines, but a genuine search for meaning and understanding. Here’s an excerpt

In the beginning, God!Ӿ Not what, how, or why, but Who? The Bible is a book about God.

Unfortunately, we try to make it a book of science, magic, and unquestioned history.æ We force it to do all kinds of things it was never intended to do.æ This book of religion, is the devout and inspired word of faith, coming from sincere, godly men and women confident that God really existed, and that God had moved in marvelous ways to give people, the ultimate creation, an abundant, happy life.

Not all truths came to them at one time!æ That never happens.æ Like all of us today, we start with a simple understanding, and move step by step to a higher comprehension.æ But God was real to them…very real!æ Like children in a nursery, they had to learn…piling up the blocks, experimenting, asking, “What is the will of this God we worship?”æ “How is life meant to be lived?”æ They learned the simple ABC’s first: “There is but one God!”æ They learned the higher mathematics later, “Love your enemies!”

It took time, lots of time!æ The prophets came along, and slowly like nurse-maids coaxing little children, they said, “Try this on for size: God is just!” and then, “Now try this: God is merciful!”æ And would you believe, “God is love”?

Through it all, God never changed: “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8)æ But man’s understanding of God changed.æ Some growing did take place!æ Very little, it seemed.æ Now and then, they took a half-step forward, then fell back a step and a half.

You can buy it through the link above, either as an electronic book, or paperback, and for considerably less than it’s selling at Amazon (and I don’t get a cut from Authorbooks, but that’s fine).

As has been fairly widely reported now, Andrea Barthwell was once found to have committed lewd and abusive behavior through inappropriate remarks during an office birthday party.
The Illinois GOP is in complete disarray. Ditka is out, Ryan might still be in, Oberweis is looking fairly likely at the moment, and Ted Nugent has been floated (!) so who knows who will be the Senate candidate.
Quite frankly, Barthwell is now unlikely to be chosen as the GOP candidate (too much baggage, too little name recognition and money). But if she was chosen as the GOP candidate, her chances of winning are about equal to winning the lottery. Obama was leading Ryan by a huge margin. He is the bright and shining candidate and is on a huge roll. He has the full backing of the national party, and is running in a state that will go easily for Kerry this year with a state GOP organization that’s just about belly up. Obama has been selected to give the keynote address at the Democratic convention. Failing a major surprise, there’s no way that Barthwell can win.
Therefore, using the harassment issue to undermine her does drug reformers no good, so I’m not going to comment on it here.
What we need to discover is whether there is something we can do to influence the public drug policy views of the Democrats’ rising star. Obama has been allowed to be fairly enigmatic about drug policy reform and that must change.
I’d like to see a public appearance with Obama where somebody could ask a question like: “Your opponent (Barthwell) is in favor of having all students pee in a cup, even if there’s no suspicion of drug use. What’s your view?” This is where having Barthwell as a candidate could actually be an advantage to us.
We have to work toward more public debate on drug policy. Talking about past sexual harassment disciplinary actions in this case won’t help us.
I encourage everyone (and not just here in Illinois) to go to candidate appearances and ask the tough questions about drug policy, such as: “Do you support locking up sick and dying people for using medical marijuana in states that have made it legal?”

The Pantagraph today published my letter regarding the medical marijuana vote in Congress:

To the Editor:
On Wednesday evening (July 7), the U.S. House of Representatives voted on an amendment (the Farr/Rohrabacher/Hinchey/Paul amendment to HR 4754) that would have stopped the federal government from using tax money to harass sick people using medical marijuana (in those specific states where it is legal under state law). DEA agents have been spending extraordinary amounts of resources going into states like California and “busting” medical marijuana patients who are following state law (usually without even charging them with a crime).
Unfortunately, the amendment failed, despite the fact that 70% of the population supports regulated medical use of marijuana; that it is supported by numerous medical organizations and the National Institute of Health; and that a recent statement by the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream religious groups supported doctors’ rights to prescribe medical marijuana.
Kudos to Representative Tim Johnson (R-15th), who was one of the 148 who voted for the amendment.
But what was my representative Jerry Weller (R-11th) thinking by voting against it? He’d have the federal government spend our tax dollars going after law-abiding sick people in California rather than focusing on violent drug criminals and those who target children? Or does he think we can just keep sending more money to him so it can be wasted this way? It appears that Representative Weller may be part of this new group of pro-big government, pro-big spending, anti-states’ rights, un-compassionate conservatives.
It’s time to get smart on drug policy.
Pete Guither
Bloomington, Illinois

I’m hoping this letter will get a few local people thinking about medical marijuana in a different light, and I’m hoping Representative Weller sees it.
Interestingly, I also learned that Weller is drawing some fire for being on the House International Relations Committee while being engaged to marry the daughter of a former brutal Guatemalan dictator.

“bullet” You may want to avoid the war zone of Conroe, Texas during the extra-special additional one-year drug war that will be conducted there from August 1, 2004 to September, 2005, particularly if you’re black. (At D’Alliance).
“bullet” Last One Speaks has info on Ann Arbor, Michigan’s attempt to legalize medial marijuana. At some point in the future, I’ll try to do a run-down of the various ballot issues that will be coming up this fall (gotta wait for some of the signatures to be validated, particularly in Nevada, where they misplaced 6,000 of them).
“bullet” Also check out Last One Speaks for the news on marijuana’s positive effect on night vision.
“bullet” Be sure to read Jim’s article Drugs Sting Put Innocent Lives at Risk at Vice Squad. This is a pretty serious investigation going on in England regarding a sting where the agents solicited drugs and had them brought in to the country in order to buy them and make mid-level arrests, despite the fact that they knew a hostage might be killed. This isn’t stopping trafficking. It’s creating new drug trade in order to increase your arrests, despite serious potential danger.
The positive part of this story is that there was a customs agent who recognized that 1. it was wrong, and 2, the press would get the story eventually, and he put his concerns in writing.
“bullet” No official news on Andrea Barthwell’s potential run for Senate. Today, the big media interest was in Coach Ditka, who made noises like he might be considering it. I’m finding myself hoping for Andrea, simply because it might develop into a political discussion on the drug war. You’ve got Barack Obama, who used pot and cocaine as a youth, along with drug warrior Barthwell who is a former addict, and Kohn who is in favor of legalization. Hmmm….

I was pretty upset with my representative’s (Jerry Weller) vote on the HInchey-Rohrabacher amendment. I not only called his office to express my displeasure, but wrote a letter to the Pantagraph, which should be published soon (I haven’t seen it yet).
Clearly I’m not the only one upset with Congress. Check out this scathing editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal yesterday:

What was appalling, on the other hand, was to see Nevada’s third representative — supposed conservative and constitutionalist Jim Gibbons — rise to vote against his own constituents, against common sense, against medical compassion and against the Constitution.

Although he “supports states’ rights,” Rep.æ Gibbons declared, “the regulation of narcotics and other drugs falls under the authority of the federal government.æ It is a matter of public safety and public health.”

Go back and read Article I, Section 8.æ There’s no authorization for the federal government to concern itself with “public health and safety” — which is why your police department, your fire department, and your local Health Department are all county or municipal entities.

Rep.æ Gibbons has surprised and shocked many Nevadans.æ Can it really be he’s no constitutionalist at all — that he’s really just in favor of the federal bullies going anywhere they want, doing anything they want, regardless of how they trample the rights of the states and the expressed will of the people?

What other extraconstitutional powers would he bestow on our brand new federal police forces under this ginned-up rubric of “public health and safety”? We hesitate even to ask.

Nice editorial!

And I repeat to you — my own view is, is that if a state — if people decide to — what they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It’s a free society.

– President Bush 7/9/04

Right.

Yesterday’s Grand Junction Colorado Sentinel had an interesting article:
Conflict over legalization a growing part of nation’s drug war by Ann Winterholter

The article includes some quotes from Sheriff Bill Masters, editor of The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War, who had some strong words about the drug war.

“It tarnishes every lawman’s badge in this nation. … It makes me sick.”

Masters said judges have told him today’s mandatory sentencing laws for drug cases have taken away their discretion and don’t allow them to sentence an individual to rehabilitation instead of prison time.

The increased numbers of arrests and prison sentences because of drugs are “gumming up the system,” he said.

In the year before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, there were 750,000 arrests for marijuana possession and one terrorist arrest, he said.

Does the drug war take precedence to the nation’s detriment? “Absolutely,” Masters said.

When a robber or rapist is arrested the community is made safer, “but when I arrested a drug pusher, I simply created a job opening in a long line of people willing to take his place,” wrote Jack Cole, an essayist in “The New Prohibition,” a former detective and undercover narcotics officer with the New Jersey State Police and the current executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

It’s a waste of money, Masters said, to have a clogged criminal system and 9-11 terrorists doing what they want.

Drug laws “just don’t work and it actually increases profitability for drug dealers,” Masters said.

The people and states should be allowed to decide on medicinal marijuana or drug legalization instead of the federal government forcing its will on all, he said.

“Do we need the federal government to be our nanny?” he asked

Good stuff. The article then goes on to interview a number of other local drug war professionals, who disagree.
The thing is, these are classic cases of drug war denial — you quickly see that they don’t agree with anything other than the drug war because they are completely blinded. They are unable to think beyond their limited world that has been shaped by the drug war.
The main sympton of this is noticing some bad thing that is a result of the drug war and using that as a reason to keep the drug war going.
It’s the equivalent of hitting yourself over the head with a club to stop your headaches, and claiming that if you ever stopped doing it, even for a moment, the headaches would be worse.
Here are some examples:
Tonya Wheeler, vice president of Advocates for Recovery:

“I don’t see that legalizing any of the drugs is going to make anything get better.”

The idea there would be less crime is unbelievable to her because the drug addicts would still be here. It doesn’t matter if addicts are buying crack on a street corner or at the drugstore, if they don’t have the money they are still going to steal to get what they want, she said.

And yet, real statistics show that she is wrong, partly because she can only view legalization in one way (selling it over the counter).
This report some time ago in the Guardian showed the lie to her statement (from my FAQ):

Switzerland is now leading the way out of prohibition.æ In 1994, it started prescribing free heroin to long-term addicts who had failed to respond to law enforcement or any other treatment.æ In 1998, a Lausanne criminologist, Martin Kilias, found that the users’ involvement in burglary, mugging and robbery had fallen by 98%; in shoplifting, theft and handling by 88%; in selling soft drugs by 70%; in selling hard drugs by 91%.æ As a group, their contacts with police had plunged to less than a quarter of the previous level.æ The Dutch and the Germans have had similar results with the same strategy.æ All of them report that, apart from these striking benefits in crime prevention, the users are also demonstrably healthier ( because clean heroin properly used is a benign drug ) and that they are more stable with clear improvements in housing, employment and relationships.

Here’s another blind drug warrior from the initial article: Sgt. Tim Grimsby, Grand Valley Joint Drug Task Force operations supervisor, who said:

If drugs are legalized and, for example, there’s a 30 percent increase in the use of meth, imagine the increase in premiums for health, home and auto insurance, he said.

Ahhh, but methamphetamine is essentially a product of the drug war. It’s an ugly drug that came about largely because of the additional drug war restrictions placed on the more stable and safe amphetemines. And I wonder where he gets the numbers for the 30% increase? Out of his ass, perhaps? Especially since the availability of alternate safer and legal drugs is likely to drive meth use to almost nothing.
Then we have former Mesa County Sheriff Riecke Claussen – a real winner. First:

We also aren’t winning the war against auto theft or child abuse, “but no one wants to legalize that,” Claussen said.

You could drive a truck through the holes in logic there. Is he really putting smoking a joint in the same category as car theft and child abuse? We aren’t winning the war against stupidity either, so I guess we’d better lock up Sheriff Claussen.
You see, where he gets sidetracked is opposing legalization in a vacuum. You can’t simply oppose legalizing something. You have to actually have reasons for it to be illegal.
Think of it this way. If you are in favor of legalizing marijuana, then you believe that there is not sufficient reason for it to be illegal. If you oppose legalizing, then you must think there IS sufficient reason for it to be illegal. You have to have specific justifications you can defend that something should be illegal in order to logically oppose legalization.
Claussen continues:

How do you measure how many people haven’t used the drugs because of the laws? It’s one of those “intangible factors,” Claussen said. “It’s hard to count things that don’t happen.”

OK, this guy’s completely over the edge. This statement is the ultimate nonsense defense — essentially saying “We need to keep locking people up and destroying families, because even though we don’t know that it’s having a deterrent effect, who knows? It might.”
Right.

…to Network Against Prohibition from Northern Territory, Australia. It’s an interesting organization, with one of the more unusual website front pages I’ve seen. In addition to a demonic pot-smoking Santa Claus, they have this delightfully absurd smiling marijuana leaf, who appears to be strolling down the highway at night, lit by the headlights of a car on the wrong side of the road (Oh, that’s right, it’s Australia) and a helicopter spotlight. It’s strangely seductive (I’m guessing you could watch it for hours if you’re stoned).
I checked out their news, and noticed that they had a smoke-in to protest a new U.S. base in the Northern Territory. They seem quite aware of the irony of the situation that they are protesting the opening of the base because they oppose the outrageous war on drugs that has been imposed on the world by the U.S., but also note that the base’s presence is likely to improve the quality and quantity of drugs in the area.
I’d also like to welcome visitors from the Catallarchy.net group blog, as well as the delightfully named MediaCrapola blog. Both are worth visiting.

Thanks to Loretta Nall of the U.S. Marijuana Party and Pot-TV who sent some interesting news from Alabama.
The Mobile Register reports that the folks there are pretty conflicted about marijuana, yet overwhelmingly support medical use.

More than three-quarters of Alabamians think doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, though an even larger percentage oppose outright legalization of the drug, the results of a new Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll suggest.

In last week’s statewide survey of 417 people, the majority also expressed indifference about political candidates’ stances on medical marijuana, and more than 70 percent said it would not influence their vote if a candidate admitted using marijuana when he or she was young.

It’s a pretty good article, with a nice run-down of the issues.
This was followed up on Friday, with a Huntsville Times editorial by David Person (who also quoted Loretta), who summed up with:

But I am intrigued with the idea that in a state that has churches on every corner, many of us apparently realize that marijuana, like various narcotics and even alcohol (which is used liberally in some cold medicines, for example) may occasionally serve a good purpose. Nine other states, including Arizona and Colorado, have already figured this out.

Now don’t you old reefer-heads among us go pulling out your bongs and copies of Dr. Dre’s top-selling old-school rap CD “The Chronic.” I’m not saying it’s time to party.

But maybe – to paraphrase the Apostle Paul – a little weed for the body’s sake under the right circumstances and for the right purpose is OK.

Also getting some good press in all of this is Senate candidate Wayne Sowell, who not only supports medical marijuana and industrial hemp. He’s also pushing for the repeal of the Marijuana Tax Act and approaches marijuana legalization with a religious zeal.
He may seem a little extreme for Alabama, but why not? It certainly makes for a good debate, especially considering that his opponent, Senator Richard Shelby, is a hypocrite who pushes for strict drug penalties… except when it’s his own son. (
Scroll down to “Apply Laws Equally”)

Hilarious! Tommy’s back from prison and hasn’t lost his sense of humor. Talked about his arrest and prison time. Cheech showed up as well (the two of them are doing another movie). It was nice to see that Tommy Chong was (rightfully) completely unrepentant (he didn’t do anything wrong) and you could tell that Leno was clearly on Chong’s side.
Update: As SayUncle noted in comments, the best line was when Tommy talked about the agents asking him if was in possession of marijuana, and he responded: Of course I have weed, I’m Tommy Chong!