Criminal Justice

RSS Feed for this category

ACLU to Examine SWAT, Police Militarization

The American Civil Liberties Union announced this week that it was seeking data from police departments across the country in an effort to determine the extent to which law enforcement agencies are using federally-subsidized military-style weapons and tactics. The group said it had filed 255 public records requests with law enforcement agencies in 23 states, as well as with the National Guard.

Paramilitarized SWAT teams are one example of what the ACLU will be looking at. Originally conceptualized as specialized units to be used in limited circumstances, such as hostage-rescues or armed standoffs, SWAT teams have been subject to mission creep and are now used routinely by some departments for, among other things, executing drug search warrants.

"Equipping state and local law enforcement with military weapons and vehicles, military tactical training, and actual military assistance to conduct traditional law enforcement erodes civil liberties and encourages increasingly aggressive policing, particularly in poor neighborhoods and communities of color," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel for the ACLU's Center for Justice. "We've seen examples of this in several localities, but we don't know the dimensions of the problem."

The ACLU will be seeking information on the number and purpose of SWAT deployments, the types of weapons used, injuries sustained by civilians, training materials, and funding sources for them.

The group will also be looking more generally at the use of advanced weapons and cutting edge technologies, including unmanned drones, GPS tracking devices, detainee restraint devices ("shock-cuffs"), and military weaponry, equipment, and vehicles obtained directly through the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security or funded by them.

They will also seek information from state National Guards regarding incidents of direct contact with civilians, as well as examining cooperative agreements between local law enforcement agencies and the Guard's counter-drug program.

"The American people deserve to know how much our local police are using military weapons and tactics for everyday policing," said Allie Bohm, ACLU advocacy and policy strategist. "The militarization of local police is a threat to Americans' right to live without fear of military-style intervention in their daily lives, and we need to make sure these resources and tactics are deployed only with rigorous oversight and strong legal protections."

The affiliates which filed public records requests are: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Once the information has been collected and analyzed, if needed, ACLU plans to use the results to recommend changes in law and policy governing the use of military tactics and technology in local law enforcement.

This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories

The Tulsa police corruption scandal is the gift that keeps on giving, Jackson, MS, cops head to prison, and more cops want pills too badly for their own good. Let's get to it:

In Boston, a former Watertown police officer was arrested Tuesday on charges he stole a drivers' license and used it to fraudulently obtain oxycodone and other controlled substances. Joseph Deignan, 57, is charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance by fraud and fraud in connection with identification documents. Deignan was working as the Watertown Police traffic supervisor when he allegedly stole the drivers' license. He's looking at up to 15 years in federal prison on the identity theft count.

In Stillwater, Minnesota, a now former Washington County deputy was arrested last Wednesday for allegedly stealing drugs deposited in a drug "take-back bin." Ricky Gruber, 43, is charged with drug possession, theft, and misconduct of a public officer. He went down after a sheriff's sergeant noticed the bin had been tampered with, and subsequent video surveillance caught him opening the bin and removing drugs. Gruber admitted he took the drugs for "personal use" and said he had been researching a medical condition present during "sexual intimacy." He said he took the drugs to help with his medical condition.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, a former Tulsa police officer was held in contempt last Wednesday for giving false testimony related to a Tulsa police corruption case. Jeff Henderson got an additional three months added to his 42-month sentence after being convicted in 2011 on six counts of perjury and two counts of civil rights violations. He had been brought back to Tulsa in June to testify in the case of one of the people railroaded into prison by corrupt Tulsa police, but was found to have lied about who his informant was in that case. Two other Tulsa police officers and a federal agent have been convicted in the Tulsa corruption case, 46 wrongfully convicted people have been released from prison or had their cases modified, and at least 14 lawsuits have been filed against the city and individual police officers.

In Jackson, Mississippi, three former Jackson police officers were sentenced last Friday for accepting bribes from FBI undercover agents posing as drug traffickers. Monyette Quintel Jefferson, 27, and Terence Dale Jenkins, 25, got 10 years each, and Anthony Ricardo Payne, 25, got nine years. All three pleaded guilty last fall. They had accepted bribes ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 to protect what they thought were cocaine shipments.

Public Benefits Drug Test Bill Advances in Kansas

The Kansas Senate Thursday approved a bill requiring welfare and unemployment benefits recipients to undergo drug tests if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are using drugs. But the definition of "reasonable suspicion" includes having worked in a field where drug testing is prevalent.

Democratic legislators successfully amended the bill so that its provisions also include lawmakers.

The Republican-backed bill, Senate Bill 149, passed on a 31-8 vote, largely along party lines.

According to the bill, reasonable suspicion may be arrived at, but is not limited to, "an applicant's or recipient's demeanor, missed appointments and arrest or other police records, previous employment or application for employment in an occupation or industry that regularly conducts drug screening, termination from previous employment due to unlawful use of a controlled substance or controlled substance analog or prior drug screening records of the applicant or recipient indicating unlawful use."

People who fail the drug test would lose benefits until they complete drug treatment and job training programs.

Republicans argued that the bill would help people with addictions kick their habit and prevent state tax dollars from being spent on drugs. But according to a legislative fiscal analysis, the bill would create "a net fiscal effect of increased expenditures of $1,095,468 in FY 2014" and create no net benefit to state coffers in years after that.

The bill now goes before the state House.

Wichita, KS
United States

Appeals Court Ruling Throws Wrench in Maritime Drug Prosecutions [FEATURE]

special to Drug War Chronicle by Clarence Walker, freelancewriter82@gmail.com

America's war on drugs overseas was dealt a heavy blow in the federal courts late last year. In November, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta handed prosecutors a crushing defeat by reversing the multiple drug convictions of four foreign nationals arrested after their fishing vessel with 760 kilos of cocaine was seized off the Panamanian coast three years ago. That cocaine was valued at between $180 million and $200 million.

Coast Guard drug bust, 2004
The defendants were convicted and sent to prison under a never before challenged provision of the federal Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The ruling reversing their convictions has called into question current US war drug tactics on foreign territory and territorial waters.

If upheld, the decision in US v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, could prevent the US from prosecuting suspected smugglers caught within the 12-mile territorial waters of South and Central America countries, and it may hinder US authorities from entering the 12-mile limit themselves while carrying out anti-narcotics operations. That would wreak havoc with US drug enforcement offensives such as Operation Martillo (Hammer), which has been aimed squarely at Central America and has so far seized over $2 billion worth of drugs from sea-going vessels.

Federal prosecutors haven't said whether they will appeal, but it would be a surprise if they didn't.

As the justices at the 11th Circuit noted, the Bellaizac-Hurtado case is the first taken up during modern times to determine whether the "Offenses clause" of the US Constitution can legally allow US prosecution of drug trafficking crimes in another country. The Offenses clause gives Congress the right to "define and punish… Offenses against Law of Nations."

The court found that the use of the clause to justify the prosecution of Bellaizac-Hurado under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act is illegal because drug trafficking was not a crime under the Law of Nations when the Constitution was written more than two centuries ago, nor is it a crime under "customary international law" now. The pursuit of felony crimes overseas is limited by customary international law, and the international community has not treated drug trafficking under these premises as a crime, the court held.

"Drug trafficking was not a violation of customary international law during the 'Founding of the US law' and drug trafficking is not a violation of customary international law today," the opinion stated. "Because drug trafficking is not a violation of customary international law, we hold that Congress exceeded its power, under the Offences Clause, when it proscribed the defendants' conduct in the territorial waters of Panama. And the United States has not offered us any alternative ground upon which the Act could be sustained as constitutional. As applied to these defendants, the Act is unconstitutional, and we must vacate their convictions."

While the ruling found the act could not be used to prosecute suspected drug smugglers arrested within a country's 12-mile territorial waters, it does not impact cases against smugglers using "stateless" submarines, nor impede the ability of US authorities to prosecute felonies committed on "the high seas."

The potentially precedent-setting case began in 2010 when US Coast Guard patrols in Panamanian waters spotted a wooden fishing vessel operating without lights or a flag. Suspicious, the Coast Guard alerted the Panamanian Navy and the chase was on. The Navy officers chased the vessel until the suspects abandoned the ship and fled on land deep into Panama's jungle. Following a thorough search of the vessel the Coast Guard discovered "760 kilos of cocaine." The feds had scored a mother lode. Meanwhile the four occupants of the vessel were arrested the next day in the jungle by Panamanian National Frontier Service.

Through a diplomatic agreement, Panama handed the captured men over to the US for prosecution.They were indicted in Florida's Southern District in Miami for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine aboard a vessel subject to US jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.

They were convicted and sentenced to federal prison. Their attorneys, led by Miami defense attorney Tracey Dreispul, appealed. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress' constitutional powers under the Offenses Clause, they argued.

The Justice Department responded that "drug trafficking is an offense against 'Law of Nations' as applied to the defendants' conduct -- -subject to Universal Jurisdiction because when Congress enacted the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, it stated that drug trafficking is 'universally condemned' and a threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States." Prosecutors also argued that "the US federal district court had lawful jurisdiction over the cocaine because the defendants had been operating a vessel without a flag or national identification, and that the Panamanian government consented to have the men prosecuted in the United States."

But the appeals court in Atlanta wasn't buying it. "Offenses against Laws of Nations can only be interpreted in accordance with principles of customary international law because international law proscribes which conduct may be punished as an Offense against the Laws of Nations," the court held.

In other words, Congress doesn't get to define what constitutes customary international law.

"Where does the government get off on by prosecuting people they don't have the power to prosecute?" asked attorney Stephen Leckar, counsel for the defense in the landmark US v. Antoine Jones GPS drug trafficking case, in an interview with the Chronicle. "Where is the evidence that the drugs were headed for the US market to be distributed?"

"This basically was a Panamanian internal matter and their government is saying 'United States, you clean this up for us,'" Miami lawyer Phillip Horowitz, who represented one of the defendants, told the Miami Herald.

The ruling could have a cascading effect, impacting some of the thousands of drug smuggling cases stemming from offshore arrest. Legal experts predict that if the ruling withstands appeal, other convicted drug smugglers may go free if they, too, were arrested in foreign territorial waters by international police, then turned over to US for prosecution under "Offences against Laws of Nations."

Those defendants need to act, though, said Florida defense attorney David Silverstein. "Any defendants convicted under the same set of facts in Bellaizac-Hurtado must file a writ of habeas corpus within two years after the opinion was issued," he told the Chronicle.

With their convictions now voided, it remains to be seen if Bellaizac-Hurtado and his codefendants will now be prosecuted by Panamanian authorities. If so, let's hope they get credit for time served. Luis Carlos Hurtado did 25 months, Pedro Angulo-Rodallega and Albeiro Gonzales did 36 months, and Yimmie Bellaizac-Hurtado is still doing his 90-month sentence pending resolution of the appeals. The others have been deported.

Atlanta, GA
United States

Police Kill Oklahoma City Man in Convenience Store Drug Deal

An undercover police officer shot and killed an Oklahoma City man while attempting to arrest him after observing a suspected drug deal Friday. Marcus Dewayne Patterson, 35, becomes the sixth person to die in US domestic drug law enforcement operations so far this year.

According to the Oklahoman, relying on police accounts, Oklahoma City police were called to a convenience store about noon Friday because of reported "narcotics activity." Officers witnessed a drug deal, and three officers and a supervisor, all in plain clothes, drove unmarked police cars toward Patterson, who was in his car, according to Capt. Dexter Nelson.

Another plain clothes officer, Sgt. Charles Schamel, approached the vehicle on foot from the side and was struck by the car as Patterson attempted to flee the scene. As he rolled over the hood of the car, Schamel fired his weapon.

"That officer then fired on the man in the car, killing him," Nelson said. "A car can be used as a weapon anytime you are standing in front of a car and someone comes toward you."

Schamel was treated at the scene for bumps and bruises.

When investigators examined Patterson's body, they found a 9 mm hand gun tucked into his waistband, but police said he apparently never drew the weapon.

Two men in the car with Patterson were arrested at the scene and charged with felony murder. They got hit with that because police charged they were in the act of committing a felony when Patterson's killing took place.

Oklahoma City, OK
United States

This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories

Suspected dirty cops are under investigation in Texas and Alabama, a light-fingered (and well-connected) Philly cop gets suspended, a Texas cop gets in trouble for trying to set up the -ex, and an Indiana cop sells weed and guns to the wrong guy. Let's get to it:

In Dallas, two Dallas police officers are under criminal investigation after a judge determined that they repeatedly perjured themselves in testimony they gave about a 2011 drug arrest. The two officers, Randolph Dillon and John Llewellyn, claimed they were sitting in their squad car when they saw Melvin Williams get into a vehicle and hand the driver something. They then arrested Williams and searched his apartment, then claimed in court that Williams told them there were more drugs and guns in the apartment. An apartment manager who witnessed the search testified that the drugs were actually found in the bushes outside. After listening to other witnesses, the judge ruled, "there is doubt as to whether any illicit drugs that were alleged to have been found belonged to Williams, as opposed to having been planted."

In Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the West Alabama Narcotics Task Force is under investigation by the FBI over its accounting practices. The probe began late last year, after discrepancies were found during a November audit. The previous task force commander, Captain Jeff Snyder of the Tuscaloosa Police, has been reassigned and a new commander named. The FBI has refused to comment on what it says is an ongoing investigation.

In Philadelphia, a Philadelphia police narcotics officer was suspended without pay last Friday for 30 days with the intent to fire him after that. Officer Gerold Gibson, the son-in-law of Gov. Tom Corbett (R), was suspended after an internal investigation that ended in a sting where he allegedly took $140 from a car wired with surveillance cameras. The investigation began last fall, when some of Gibson's colleagues voiced suspicions that he was stealing clothes, jewelry, and shoes from the homes of suspected drug dealers during raids.

In Madisonville, Texas, a Madisonville police officer was indicted Monday on charges that he planted drugs in his ex-wife's vehicle during a 2011 child custody dispute. Sgt. Jeffrey Covington is accused of planting methamphetamine in the vehicle, then informing a state trooper that the vehicle was carrying drugs. Covington's ex-wife was arrested by the trooper, who had no knowledge of the domestic dispute, but the charges were later dropped. Covington is charged with delivery of a controlled substance, obstruction or retaliation, and official oppression. He resigned last week and is free on a $5,500 bond.

In Hammond, Indiana, a former Gary police officer pleaded guilty Wednesday to selling drugs and a gun to a felon. David Finley Jr. went down when the felon, who was a snitch for the FBI, made a deal with Finley to buy him a gun. He pleaded guilty to lying during the purchase of a gun, selling a gun to a known felon, and delivery of marijuana. He had additionally faced four more drug charges, but those were dropped when authorities discovered the drugs were actually lawful synthetic stimulants.

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Florida Welfare Drug Test Law

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta Tuesday upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Florida's 2011 law requiring welfare applicants to take and pass a drug test. The court held that mandatory, suspicionless drug testing violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against warrantless searches and seizures.

The decision came in Lebron v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, in which Navy veteran, single father, and university student Luis LeBron applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds, but refused to be drug tested. His challenge to the law led to a federal district court's preliminary injunction halting the implementation of the law. The 11th Circuit's ruling Tuesday upheld the preliminary injunction.

Federal courts have generally found random, suspicionless drug testing to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but have carved out two "special needs" exceptions: for public safety (allowing testing of pilots, truck  drivers, and police doing drug enforcement) and children (allowing testing of students involved in athletic or extracurricular activities). The 11th Circuit held that the Florida law did not fall within those exceptions.

The state of Florida "presented no empirical evidence to bolster its special needs argument that suspicionless drug testing of TANF applicants is in any way warranted," the court held. "There is nothing so special or immediate about the government’s interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment."

"Today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming a preliminary injunction halting Florida's law mandating suspicionless drug testing of TANF applicants, set important precedent, which will hopefully curtail other states from following in Florida's stampede over individuals' Fourth Amendment rights, said Shawn Heller, a co-counsel on the case. "As Judge Jordan succinctly stated in his concurrence, 'constitutionally speaking, the state's position is simply a bridge too far.'" (Heller first joined the case while on staff at the Florida Justice Institute, which argued the case as co-counsel to the ACLU of Florida.)

"The 11th Circuit's decision deals a devastating blow to any state's attempt to impose suspicionless drug testing as a condition of receiving governmental benefits," said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, which had filed an amicus brief in the case. "We hope that lawmakers will choose to honor the constitution rather than scapegoat poor people in efforts to address perceived drug problems."

In that amicus brief, the Drug Policy Alliance was joined by the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, the Legal Action Center, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, National Employment Law Project, Child Welfare Organizing Project, and National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

The brief argued that Florida’s drug testing scheme does not achieve any of its purported goals of protecting the well-being of children, promoting the employability of person on public assistance and assuring fiscal integrity, and does not pass the "special needs" test that is required to justify otherwise unconstitutional searches by government officials.

The ruling comes as public benefits drug testing measures continue to be introduced -- and sometimes advanced -- in states across the country. Some of those bills attempt to overcome the Fourth Amendment obstacles cited by the appeals court here by attempting to set up a "reasonable suspicion" assessment before mandating drug testing.

Atlanta , GA
United States

Indiana House Approves Welfare Drug Test Bill

The Republican-controlled Indiana House voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a "reasonable suspicion" drug testing bill for welfare recipients. House Bill 1483 advanced to the state Senate on a 78-17 vote.

The bill would require all adult recipients of Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) benefits to undergo an assessment to see if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they might be using illicit drugs. Recipients who are deemed "suspicious" would then go into a pool for random drug testing, with half of the pool members being subjected to drug testing.

People who fail the drug test would lose their benefits unless they enrolled in a drug treatment program and produced negative results on future drug tests. Repeated positive drug tests could result in the permanent loss of benefits.

The bill defines "reasonable suspicion" as having been charged with a drug offense, having previously presented positive drug test results, or having been assessed as a likely drug user by the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory test, a commercial test that claims a 90% accuracy rate.

The House approved the bill despite a legislative staff financial analysis that showed the state would spend $2.7 million on the program to possibly the save the state $1.5 million in denied benefits. That means the state would lose $1.2 million next year if the bill were to become law.

Indianapolis, IN
United States

Connecticut Towns Pay Out Big for Deadly SWAT Drug Raid

Five Connecticut towns whose SWAT team killed an unarmed man during a 2008 drug raid have agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the man's family. Another lawsuit, filed by the man who owned the home that was raided, is pending.

Gonzalo Guizan
In a joint statement, officials from Easton, Monroe, Trumbull, Wilton and Darien all maintained their police were not responsible for the death of Gonzalo Guizan that day. Eaton First Selectman Thomas Herrmann spoke for all five towns.

"While the defendants, police departments and officers from Darien, Easton, Trumbull, Monroe and Wilton maintain they were not responsible for the unfortunate death of Mr. Guizan, the insurers for the defendants, who will bear the full cost of the settlement, believed that it was best to resolve the matter rather than incur further attorneys' fees, which were anticipated to be significant," Hermann said. "The defendants concurred, further believing it was important to facilitate the Guizan family being relieved of the combined burden of litigation."

But the attorney representing the homeowner, Ronald Terebisi, told the Stamford Advocate the settlement was solid evidence the towns knew their SWAT team had gone overboard.

"This is a clear admission of misconduct on their part," said Gary Mastronardi. "There is undisputed evidence Guizan and Terebesi were huddled in a corner when police shot," he said. "This is just the first of two shoes that have dropped," Mastronardi added, referencing his pending lawsuit for Terebisi's emotional suffering and damage to his home.

A federal judge last summer had upheld the lawsuits, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide if the SWAT team had used excessive and unreasonable force against the pair. That led to pressure on the towns to settle, even though they had filed an appeal.

The raid was organized by former Easton Police Chief John Solomon, who said in pretrial depositions that he had been under pressure to "do something" about Teresbisi, who was considered a blot on the neighborhood. Terebisi had entertained strippers at his home and was once found passed out in his home because of drug use. On one occasion, a boyfriend of one of the strippers shot up Terebisi's house, heightening neighborhood concerns.

On May 18, 2008, things came to a head. That morning, a stripper called Easton police and said she had seen a small amount of drugs in the house. (She later admitted that she had left the house after having a dispute with Terebisi.)

Early that afternoon, the Southwest Emergency Regional Response Team, dressed in full SWAT garb, took off for Terebisi's house after Solomon and others warned them that Terebisi was armed and would likely shoot at police. Police videos showed them throwing a flash-bang grenade through a window, smashing down the back door, and yelling out, "Police, warrant!"

One of the officers, Monroe police officer Michael Sweeney, yelled "I'm hit, I'm hit," and then there was the sound of repeated gunfire. When it was over, Guizan lay dead on the floor with six gunshot wounds and Terebisi, who had been pinned by one of the officers, was handcuffed and dragged out of the house.

SWAT members then searched the house, but found no guns. They did find two crack pipes and a small amount of cocaine. Sweeney, the officer who yelled "I'm hit," was the one who fired on Guizan and Terebisi. He turned out to have been hit by debris from a third flash-bang explosion. He claimed in testimony that he had struggled with the pair and shot because he felt his life was in danger, but other officers at the scene didn't back up that account. Guizan was found lifeless in a corner.

Sweeney received the Monroe Police Officer of the Year award for his part in the raid.

Easton, CT
United States

North Dakota Welfare Drug Testing Bill Defeated

A bill that would have required welfare recipients to undergo drug testing died Friday in the North Dakota House. It was defeated soundly on a 72-19 vote.

North Dakota becomes the second state to kill welfare drug test bills this year. A similar bill in Virginia was defeated earlier this month.

The North Dakota bill, House Bill 1385, originally would have required all welfare applicants to undergo mandatory, suspicionless drug testing at their own expense as part of the application process. Those who failed the drug test would have lost benefits for one year, or six months if they completed drug treatment and passed a drug test. The bill was amended in committee to require drug tests of applicants only upon "reasonable suspicion."

Mandatory suspicionless drug test bills have become law in Florida and Georgia, but have been blocked or put on hold by legal challenges. Federal courts have repeatedly held that a drug test constitutes a search under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and a search requires either a warrant or probable cause. Some states have sought to address that legal problem by calling for an initial assessment to see if there was evidence that would support a drug test, as North Dakota legislators did in committee.

But that was not enough to keep the bill alive. It was opposed by state social services officials, who said it was probably unconstitutional and unfairly targeted the poor. Legislators also balked at the potential costs, which a legislative fiscal analysis put at $595,000 in program costs for the first two years, as well as $125,000 in anticipated legal costs.

The state only has 1,800 participants in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, and 45% of those are children.

Bismarck, ND
United States

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Safe Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum), Synthetic Drugs (Mephedrone, Synthetic Cannabinoids)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School