Drug WarRant

Nationally, asset forfeiture laws, in conjunction with the drug war, have been extremely profitable to law enforcement, to the extent that many units depend on a certain level of seizures to achieve their annual budgetary goals.
This means that law enforcement is sometimes put in the position of making decisions based on profit motive, rather than protecting and serving.
In Utah, citizens decided through initiative B (AKA the UFPA, and supported by 70% of the voters) that this was a conflict of interest. According to Deseret Morning News:

Before UFPA, forfeiture proceeds went back to police departments to fund equipment, training and other costs.æ Since the measure, that money was redirected through the state treasurer’s office for deposit in the Uniform School Fund.æ
Very little money has actually come to the state, however, because law enforcement either halted it or partnered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for federal investigation and prosecution.

So law enforcement basically responded to the citizens with “If we can’t have it, we’re not going to let education have it either.”
Well now Senator Chris Buttars has introduced SB175, a bill to reverse many of the initiative provisions and put profits back in the hands of law enforcement.
Shameful.

A U.S. report that has been hitting Canadian media sites in the past two hours says that Canada is too terrorist friendly. A serious charge, but let’s take a closer look at it.
First, the report (titled Nations Hospitable to Organized Crime and Terrorism (pdf) and completed in October) is prepared by the Library of Congress in an arrangement with the CIA Crime and Narcotics Center, which naturally continues to try to link drug policy with terrorism (and is influenced by the administration’s drug war).
Second, some of the language in the report is downright offensive. Canada is blamed in part for:

The Canadian Constitution guarantees rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment that make it easier for terrorists and international criminals to operate. In addition, a technologically advanced economy and infrastructure facilitate operations and activities as well as providing a myriad of opportunities for abuse.

This tone continues later in the report:

Perhaps until recently, there has also not been widespread concern that Canada could be the victim of a terrorist attack. Sensitivity to civil liberties combined with this low threat perception has made both the adoption and the enforcement of tougher immigration laws and strong counter terrorism measures more difficult. The fact that the 2002 bill designed to make Canada’s immigration laws less favorable to terrorists and international criminals is entitled the “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act” serves as an indication of the prevailing concern for or priority placed upon civil liberties in Canada.

Is it just me, or is it extremely disturbing that the United States would, in an official report, talk about civil liberties and individual rights in a country as a negative factor?
Aren’t these qualities that the United States used to value? (And in fact, if a government of the people stops supporting these rights and liberties, doesn’t it lose its legitimacy?)

TalkLeft reports that the cost of prosecuting Tommy Chong for making bongs was $12 million. This comes by way of Chong’s attorney who got the information from the government prosecutors.
It’s outrageous, but not particularly surprising. The amount of tax money that’s thrown away in this drug war would probably be enough to end world hunger.
But let’s just look at the cost of prosecuting Tommy for making some pipes:

• $12 million would pay for treatment for 3,500 drug addicts for an entire year.
• $12 million would pay for enough needle exchange programs to prevent 1,258 HIV infections.
• $12 million as a direct grant to me would stimulate spending in my household and help the economy.

Got any other ideas of what we could do with $12 million? Leave them in the comments.
Update: Some additions:

• It would also provide 1,000 AIDS victims antiretroviral drug therapy for a year [David]
• 12 million would also buy approximately one million large pepperoni pizzas with side orders of cheesy dots from Domino’s.[David]
• After listening to All Things Considered tonight, I’ll also add that $12 million would pay to add new technology that prevents fuel tanks from exploding to 48 passenger jets.

The Canadian federal government reintroduced a marijuana decriminalization bill on Thursday. The text of the bill is here.
The bill provides for fines if the amount of marijuana is 15 grams or less (and smaller fine for 1 gram or less). Possession of up to 3 plants would also be handled through fines. Anything more than 3 plants or 15 grams would be subject to criminal/prison penalties.
There are also a number of additional factors that can increase fines (being near a school, driving a motor vehicle, etc.)
The bill also protects the information about these fines. It makes it a prosecutable offense to give information about fines to a foreign government. (In other words, if you get fined for possession of under 15 grams, it would actually be against the law for officials to tell the United States government that you had a marijuana offense.)
The bill has a ways to go, and there is expectation that the House of Commons may wish to reduce the amount from 15 grams to 10 grams.
Update: Got some info on the actual fines involved. $500 for up to three plants, and from $100-$400 for possession of up to 15 grams of pot.

Now that I’ve got your attention… A post by Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy led me to his fascinating paper in the Cato Supreme Court Review: Justice Kennedy’s Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas (pdf)
In it, Barnett posits that Lawrence v. Texas, as Justice Kennedy wrote the ruling, is not so much about privacy as it is about liberty.

Although he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy is employing
here what I have called a ”presumption of liberty” that requires
the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring
the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow
”fundamental.” In this way, once an action is deemed to be a proper
exercise of liberty (as opposed to license), the burden shifts to the
government….

Powerful editorial yesterdayl: NOTHING CRIMINAL IN HEALING HERBS

Should patients suffering from severe ailments — AIDS, cancer, glaucoma — have access to medical marijuana which, often alone among available medicines, can alleviate their suffering? Or should they be liable to arrest and prosecution like any other drug user?

Few issues cut so wide a gulf between the federal government and the states.æ The feds are anti-pot, period.æ Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have passed laws exempting the very ill, often terminally ill, from facing jail.æ Now Illinois may join them.æ A medical marijuana bill introduced into the General Assembly would exempt patients who have a doctor’s prescription from prosecution.æ It deserves full debate and then swift passage.

Use of medical marijuana is only controversial to the feds — responsible medical organizations such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Nurses Association support it, as do countless doctors.æ “It is pointless and cruel,” said one Chicago physician, “to threaten the sick with arrest and jail simply for trying to feel better.” The sufferings of thousands of sick Illinois citizens demand that we cast off punitive and wrong-headed notions about marijuana and pass this bill without delay.æ

Kind of makes you wonder if this might actually be possible in Illinois. After all, Illinois legislature passed industrial hemp legislation 3 or 4 years ago, which only failed because then Governor Ryan vetoed it under pressure from then Drug Czar McCaffrey. And Illinois already has a medical marijuana law on the books since 1978 – it just never had the legal authority to be implemented.
Will Illinois be the next medical marijuana state?

As I mentioned yesterday, Illinois is looking at Medical Marijuana. Companion bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate.
If you live in Illinois, go now and contact your representative.

From the good folks at Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)

As you know, since its inception, SSDP has campaigned against a 1998
amendment to the Higher Education Act that denies federal financial aid to
anyone convicted of a drug-related offense, no matter how minor. This
provision is counter-productive and causes enormous harm, particularly to
minority students and middle-class and lower-income students who can’t
afford the high cost of college. Department of Education data indicates
that more than 128,000 students have been adversely affected by the
provision.

H.R. 685, a bill in Congress that would repeal the provision has the
support of sixty-five Representatives, and now nine Presidential
candidates have spoken out against the provision. A national coalition
has formed to fight for repeal of the provision. Allies include the
United States Student Association and the American Council on Education.

Pressure from our broad-based coalition has already started to trouble
Rep. Mark Souder, the provision’s author. Recently, Rep. Souder
introduced a proposal that he sees as a “fix” to the problems associated
with the provision. While we applaud any efforts to reduce the suffering
caused by this bad law, we know that the only true solution is its full
repeal.

We need you to send this message loud and clear to Congress!

Right now – with reauthorization of the Higher Education Act on the
horizon – is the best opportunity to repeal the drug provision.

ACTIONS TO TAKE:

1. FAX YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS RIGHT NOW and urge them to
   support all opportunities to repeal the 1998 Higher Education Act
   amendment that delays or denies federal financial aid to anyone convicted
   of a drug related offense. Do it free here.Follow-up your fax with phone calls to their offices this THURSDAY,
   FEBRUARY 12, 2004.

We’ve been fighting this one for years and it needs to go away! I’m proud to say that the Illinois State University was one of the early ones to pass a resolution condemning this provision.

Reported in the Quad-City Times:

Cancer and AIDS sufferers as well as Illinoisans suffering from glaucoma, would be able to grow, possess and use marijuana without fear of arrest or jail under legislation just introduced in the General Assembly.

But House Bill 4868’s sponsor, Rep.æ Angelo “Skip” Saviano, R-River Grove, said his motivation in offering the measure is only to educate his fellow lawmakers.

“I’m approaching this with the idea of seeing where everybody lines up on it – law enforcement, the medical community – to see if this would be something feasible or palatable,” he said.

As a practical matter, he said the measure probably will not make it to the electronic tote board in the House chamber that records the “ayes” and “nays.”

Yes, it’s timid (providing political cover), but it’s also a good sign and a good start for Illinois. The synopsis of the bill is:

Creates the Medical Cannabis Act. Provides that a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition and the person’s primary caregiver may be issued a registry identification card by the Department of Human Services that permits the person or the person’s primary caregiver to legally possess no more than 6 Cannabis Sativa plants and one ounce of usable cannabis. Provides that a person who possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, for the medical use of cannabis; provided that the qualifying patient or primary caregiver possesses an amount of cannabis that does not exceed 6 Cannabis Sativa plants and one ounce of usable cannabis. Amends the Cannabis Control Act to make conforming changes consistent with the Medical Cannabis Act. Effective immediately.

More information available at IDEAL – Illinois Drug Education and Legislative Reform.