Privacy

RSS Feed for this category

Drug Trade Among Whites More Open in NYC?

Location: 
New York, NY
United States
While police crack down on drug deals in mostly minority neighborhoods, the drug trade among whites in New York City operates with relative impunity, statistics show. In 2009, only 10 percent of the 46,000 people arrested on marijuana-related charges by the New York City Police Department were white, according to a 2010 study — though whites are often among its heaviest drug users.
Publication/Source: 
Metro (NY)
URL: 
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/738857--drug-trade-among-whites-more-open

'False Positives' Suggest Police Exploit Canines to Justify Searches

Location: 
IL
United States
A study of "false positives" involving drug-sniffing police dogs suggests some police forces may be using canines to do an end-run around constitutional protections against search and seizure, and may be profiling racial minorities in the process. A survey of primarily suburban police departments in Illinois, carried out by the Chicago Tribune, found that 56 percent of all police searches triggered by a drug-sniffing dog turned nothing up. But, perhaps tellingly, that number jumped to 73 percent when the search involved a Latino subject -- meaning that nearly three-quarters of all dog alerts on Latinos turned up no contraband.
Publication/Source: 
The Raw Story (DC)
URL: 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/false-positives-police-canines-searches/

California Supreme Court Okays Text Message Searches in Drug Arrests

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can search text messages on the cell phones of people they arrest without obtaining a search warrant. Citing US Supreme Court precedent from the 1970s, the court held that reviewing cell phone text messages was a valid search incidental to arrest.

Cell phones the new snitches? (image via Wikimedia)
The ruling came in California v. Diaz, in which Ventura County resident Gregory Diaz was arrested for selling Ecstasy to an undercover informant. Sheriff's deputies seized Diaz' cell phone along with six tabs of the drug. An hour and a half after the arrest, a detective without a search warrant looked at the phone' text message folders and found a coded message referring to Ecstasy sales.

When faced with the incriminating text message, Diaz admitted to doing the drug deal. He pleaded guilty to transporting a controlled substance, but reserved his right to appeal. He was sentenced to probation and did appeal the lawfulness of the cell phone search.

In a 5-2 decision, the state high court majority held that the search was allowable under US Supreme Court rulings that permitted the warrantless searches of personal property "immediately associated" with the arrested person, such as clothing or cigarette packs. Writing for the majority, Justice Ming Chin held that the cell phone was personal property, that it was immediately associated with Diaz, and that the search was therefore valid.

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Kathryn Werdegar argued that searching the cell phone's text messages was "highly intrusive" and could have been carried out after police obtained a search warrant. Earlier US Supreme Court rulings should be reevaluated in light of technological innovations, she wrote.

Justice Werdegar may have been in the minority in the California case, but the high court in at least one other state has ruled that warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest are unconstitutional. In Ohio v. Smith, decided in December 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of a drug suspect's cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Once the cell phone is in police custody, the state has satisfied its immediate interest in collecting and preserving evidence and can take preventive steps to ensure that the data found on the phone is neither lost nor erased," Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote for the majority in that case. "But because a person has a high expectation of privacy in a cell phone's contents, police must then obtain a warrant before intruding into the phone's contents."

With state supreme courts in two different states coming to starkly different conclusions about the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest, this issue would appear to be likely to be headed for resolution at the US Supreme Court.

San Francisco, CA
United States

Ruling Lets California Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant

Location: 
CA
United States
A Superior Court in Ventura County, California, ruled that police in that state can search the contents of an arrested person's cell phone. The ruling allows police in California to access any data stored on an arrestee's phone: photos, address book, Web browsing history, data stored in apps (including social media apps), voicemail messages, search history, chat logs, and more. According to Catherine Crump of the American Civil Liberties Union, "The police can ask you to unlock the phone -- which many people will do -- but they almost certainly cannot compel you to unlock your phone without the involvement of a judge," she said.
Publication/Source: 
CNN (US)
URL: 
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/01/05/search.warrant.phone.gahran/

Warrantless GPS Not a Shortcut for Drug Investigators, Judge Panel Finds [FEATURE]

Special to the Chronicle by Clarence Walker

[Editor's Note: Houston-based Clarence Walker has spent more than two decades as an investigative crime journalist, associate producer for cable TV criminal justice shows, and stringer for wire services. He has also published extensively in daily and weekly newspapers in Texas and New York, and legal journals. Look for more on GPS surveillance and the Antoine Jones case, including a full-length interview with the current Supermax resident, in the next week or two.]

In an August ruling that created a split with federal circuit courts in New York and California, the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia became the first in the land to hold that police cannot use a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to track a person's movement for an extended period of time without a warrant.

http://stopthedrugwar.com/files/gps-tracking.jpg
Police placed a warrantless GPS Tracking Device on Jones' vehicle.
Just three weeks later, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld warrantless GPS tracking in similar circumstances. Given the rifts in the federal circuit courts, and now, among the differing appeals courts, the issue is almost certainly headed for the US Supreme Court for resolution.

The DC ruling in US v. Lawrence Maynard came in the case of two conjoined defendants, Lawrence Maynard and Antoine Jones, who were convicted of cocaine conspiracy offenses in the DC district court. Jones, the owner of a Maryland night club, had been targeted by the FBI and other federal and state police agencies as a major player in a multi-million dollar cocaine ring with ties to a Mexico-based organized crime group. Investigators said Jones and his co-conspirators distributed cocaine throughout the DC metro area.

In September 2005, Judge Paul Friedman of the federal district court issued a warrant for the FBI to install a GPS device on the Cherokee Jeep that Jones drove. For unknown reasons the investigators allowed the GPS warrant to expire, rendering it invalid. Why agents never requested another warrant remains unclear, but they went ahead and placed a GPS on Jones' vehicle.

The warrantless GPS produced 3,106 pages of data showing the movement of the vehicle at 10-second intervals. US attorneys said the data evidence placed Jones at a Fort Washington, Maryland residence where FBI in 2005 recovered 97 kilos of cocaine and almost a million dollars. Jones was arrested the same day of the raid and held without bond on multiple drug trafficking and conspiracy charges.

The first trial went disastrously for prosecutors. Jurors in the case handed down numerous acquittals and deadlocked on multiple other charges. After the trial, jurors told the Washington Post that the government had failed to prove its case. They wondered why none of the defendants were caught with or near the kilos of cocaine worth millions and why neither Jones nor his associates were ever photographed at the location where the drugs were found. And they questioned the GPS evidence, which they said only placed Jones' vehicle in the immediate area.

While Jones was acquitted of the most serious charge of conspiracy, he remained in jail pending retrial on the remaining charges.  The feds did better the second time around. Using the same GPS and informant evidence as in the first trial, they managed to convince a jury to convict Jones this time. He was sentenced to life in prison, and currently resides in the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, as he awaits a government appeal of the August appeals court ruling.

In that decision, federal Judge Douglas Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, held that the warrantless use of such surveillance technologies violates constitutional protections against warrantless searches. The heart of the ruling concerned a person's privacy expectation irrespective of the criminal nature involved.

http://stopthedrugwar.com/files/judge-douglas-ginsburg.jpg
Federal Appeal Court Judge Douglas Gingsburg voted to overturn Antoine Jones' conviction.
"It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the people, amusements, and chores that make up that person's hitherto private routine," Ginsburg wrote.

Government prosecutors argued the extended surveillance -- 28 days worth of GPS tracking without a warrant -- did not violate Jones's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy because he had been traveling in full view on public roads. In so doing, they relied on the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Knotts, which held that police could legally track a suspect's car electronically without a warrant.

Other circuit courts have interpreted the Knotts decision to allow extended surveillance. But the DC panel held that relying on Knotts to approve extended warrantless surveillance was a misreading of the case because the Supreme Court had reserved its opinion on whether such tactics could be used in full-time, "dragnet-type" surveillance.

Although in the minority in the 9th Circuit case later that month, Judge Alex Kozinski strongly agreed with his brethren on the DC appeals court. "By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives," he wrote in a stinging dissent.

The DC appeals court ruling was welcomed by civil libertarians, defense attorneys, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed amicus briefs arguing that a warrant should be required for GPS tracking.

"Today's decision brings the Fourth Amendment in the 21st century," said Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the ACLU.

"This is the first decision on the federal appellate side that's really given momentum to the requirement for a warrant," said Washington, DC, attorney Daniel Prywes.

"The big picture is if the court allows warrantless GPS, it will take us one giant step closer to a surveillance society and that much further away from a free society," said ACLU attorney Bryan Caves. "Warrantless GPS would allow police anywhere to track a person's movement over an extended period of time without judicial supervision. And that's scary."

The lawyers weren't the only ones happy with the decision. "I was overwhelmed with happiness" when the verdict came in, said Antoine Jones. "But the first time in my life I got brain lock!  When I read my appeal attorney's email and it said, 'We won!' I had to call one of my homies and asked him to email my wife and my loved ones because I lost it. I had to go and pray, thanking God to get it back together."

But unless and until the US Supreme Court decides the GPS tracking issue in his favor, Antoine Jones remains inmate number 18600-016 at the Florence Supermax. Journalist Clarence Walker interviewed him over a matter of weeks via email and phone calls this fall. Jones continues to fight to see the light of day and decries what he called a rigged trial.

"The next step is to see if the government will appeal the decision," he said. "If the appeal is forwarded to an en-banc hearing, my attorney, Stephen Lecklar, said he doesn't think the government will get a favorable ruling because the three-panel judges has already ruled in my favor."

Jones said the government might bypass the en-banc hearing and appeal to the Supreme Court."So if the government doesn't appeal the reversed decision, I will be released immediately."  Jones added that if the Supreme Court affirms the reversal, "It will crush the government because all 50 states would require police to get a warrant before they can place an electronic device on vehicles."

Jones did not receive a fair trial, he said. "It would take days to explain all the misconduct by the government and how I was punished with prejudice in both trials. I have five civil complaints dealing with this case and I am going to win," he predicted. "Without the trial judge's prejudice against me the government wouldn't have had a chance and I would have walked free during the first trial -- or at least, the case would have been dismissed in pretrial."

Jones pointed to an admitted warrantless search of his apartment by federal agents. "Once the agent admitted this error, Judge Huvelle should have ruled in my favor, but she didn't rule to avoid a mistrial. That violation alone should have caused a mistrial or acquittal."

"To make matters worse the agents also entered my house illegally with a key and the judge wouldn't allow my wife or son to testify to the illegal search which allowed me to get convicted on this prejudiced evidence," Jones said.

Nor was Jones impressed by the quality of justice in the federal courts, and he aimed his broadside at the defense bar, as well as prosecutors and the judiciary. "These days the feds don't have to try to get you to roll over on your co-defendants," he said. "They get the high-paid shyster lawyers to do their dirty work. I explained to my attorney in the beginning of the case that I was going to war and I didn't want to hear what the government had to say or offer."

What the lawyers are doing in DC District Courts is coercing their clients to attend a "reverse debriefing" whereby the government will present evidence from a case, Jones explained. "And then the government and defense attorneys manipulate and encourage the defendant to work with the government or take a plea."

Lawyers for some of the co-defendants in the case decided to snitch for the feds. Jones recalled how the tactics backfired.  "Almost all of my co-defendants and their lawyers tried to get them to flip on me but those who declined and went to trial with me the first time, they were acquitted. But two of my co-defendants attended the debriefing and testified against me. They went to prison but the other three who declined to testify went home."

As he awaits his freedom, Jones said he relied on faith and family to see him through. "The only thing that keeps me going is the grace of God, his protection and my family support," he said. "I am at the US federal prison in Florence, Colorado, and this place is a living hell!"

http://stopthedrugwar.com/files/attorney-eduardo-balarezo.jpg
Attorney  A. Eduardo Balarezo represented Jones during trial.
Jones' trial attorney, Washington-based Eduardo Balarezo, confirmed most of Jones' story. While he would not agree that some officers perjured themselves at trial, he added, "Although I think some of them massaged the truth a little bit."


Balarezo didn't think much of the government's stated reason for failing to obtain a warrant before GPSing Jones' vehicle. "The government basically said that getting a warrant would be onerous and not necessary, yet they were able to get one, but then let it expire and still placed it on my client's car," he noted.

Now, Jones may help make history as, one way or another, the warrantless GPS tracking issue makes its way to the Supreme Court. The former DC club owner is ready to start fresh once given the chance to walk out the prison doors.

"If the Lord blesses me to prevail and get my freedom, I will educate the youth and give back to the community," he said. "The real story is to put the past behind me and do the Lord's work to help others and save our youth."

Washington, DC
United States

Proposed Medical Marijuana Database Worries Some Patient Advocates

Location: 
CO
United States
Among the 90-some pages of draft rules and procedures for Colorado’s medical marijuana industry unveiled earlier this week by the Colorado Department of Revenue's Medical Marijuana Advisory Board is one that makes some patients particularly nervous. It's a plan for a massive new database of MMJ patients who enroll in the Medical Marijuana Registry -- and it will be available to law enforcement agencies round the clock. "This patient and medicine tracking database is a clear violation of Article XVIII, Section 14 of Constitution, Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment, which requires that the health agency maintain a confidential registry of patients, which can only be accessed by law enforcement for the purpose of determining whether a person who has been detained is a member of the Registry," said The Cannabis Therapy Institute in a press release.
Publication/Source: 
Face the State (CO)
URL: 
http://facethestate.com/by-the-way/19754-proposed-medical-marijuana-database-worries-some-patient-advocates

Flex Your Rights on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano

Steve Silverman and I appeared on yesterday's episode of Freedom Watch on FOX Business Network to discuss our latest film, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. The movie has gotten a lot of attention this month, and it was a blast appearing on a show that I've praised in the past.

A Cop's Advice on Dealing with Cops

Neill Franklin from LEAP has an awesome piece in The Huffington Post today on the importance of knowing your constitutional rights during police encounters. It includes a cool slideshow of all the rules from 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. Check it out.

Mother Tests Positive for Poppy Seeds, Cops Take Her Newborn Baby

With all the recent discussion of marijuana legalization, it's easy to forget how many other ways the drug war is ruining innocent lives. This disturbing story from Pennsylvania is another example of how inaccurate and irresponsible drug testing practices are creating nightmares for innocent families.

this is not a drug (photo courtesy AJU_photography via flickr.com and change.org)
The birth of a couple’s first child is supposed to be a joyous occasion -- and for the first three days, it was for Elizabeth Mort and her partner Alex Rodriguez. But then the commonwealth of Pennsylvania took their young daughter away after the hospital where she was born reported the mother for testing positive on a drug test. Her drug of choice? An "everything" bagel from Dunkin’ Donuts.

"The best thing in my life had been taken from me and there was nothing I could do to get her back," Mort says. For five excruciating days, officials with Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (LCCYS) kept mother away from child, all based on a positive drug test they didn’t even bother to investigate -- and which the hospital never even informed the mother about. Now, aided by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the parents are fighting back with a lawsuit against both LCCYS and Jameson Hospital. [Change.org]

This isn't the first time something like this has happened, but hopefully the lawsuit will send a message to the drug war idiots who keep allowing these sorts of outrages to take place. Breaking up new families, even temporarily, is profoundly traumatic and it's intolerable that drug test results – notoriously unreliable as they are -- could ever be considered a reasonable justification for taking an action like this. That scores of innocent people would be grievously harmed by such policies is not a coincidence, it's inevitable.

The blame for this continuing fiasco rests first with hospital and law enforcement officials around the country, who continue to preside over an error-prone policy of treating mothers as drug suspects. But it doesn't stop there. The entire drug testing industry is culpable for marketing their products as a reliable indicator of drug use, such that numerous agencies see fit to administer harsh punishments based solely on drug test results. Ultimately, the drug war mentality itself, and all who promote and defend it, are responsible for the consequences of the hysteria they've fought so hard to perpetuate in our society.

Prop 19: What Went Right, What Went Wrong [FEATURE]

In the week since Proposition 19, the California marijuana legalization initiative, was defeated 46% to 54%, the post-mortem analyses have been coming down fast and furious. Even in defeat, Prop 19 continues to generate mountains of verbiage, and advocates will tell you that's just one of the positive outcomes generated by the initiative.

As the polls closed, Oaksterdam waited.
Indeed, the post-election output on Prop 19 has been stunning. Russ Belville of NORML has 10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats, while the Christian Science Monitor has Three Reasons Prop 19 Got the Thumbs Down (federal government opposition, midterm voter demographics, and fear of regulatory gridlock), and Pete Guither at the Drug War Rant has his own Prop 19 Wrap-Up.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, a libertarian and academic advocate for legalization, asks Why Did California Vote Down Pot? Miron answers that Prop 19 overreached with its arguments (on tax revenues and ending the Mexican drug war) and its provisions (limiting employers' rights). In Post-Prop 19, the Los Angeles Times, in a piece whose tone hints at support for legalization in principle, blames initiative organizers for presenting the public with "a badly drafted mess."

Steve DeAngelo of the Harborside Health Center in Oakland warns that Voters Won't Approve Legal Pot Until Advocates Earn Their Trust, and argues the movement should be concentrating on developing a well-regulated and demonstrably safe medical marijuana cultivation and distribution system to allay the fears of parents and others concerned about the Wild West aspects of California's dispensary system. Interestingly, the 11 counties surrounding San Francisco Bay, where local authorities have most promptly moved to put regulations in place, are the only counties where a majority of voters did vote yes on 19.

Pollwatcher Nate Silver wonders Are Parents Just Saying No to Marijuana Legalization?, pointing to national survey data suggesting that being a parent drops support for legalization by 10 to 15 percentage points. Atlantic magazine business and economics editor Megan McArdle reprises ongoing arguments in Will Pot Be Legal? and sides with Silver on the role of parents.

And that's just a representative sample of the debate over why Prop 19 lost. For Prop 19 supporters, that ongoing argument is just more evidence that the measure has caused a seismic shift in the political discourse on pot.

"We started putting out the message two months ago that Prop 19 is a winner," said Drug Policy Alliance head Ethan Nadelmann. "It transformed the debate. Compare where we are now to where we were two years ago. There is a consensus that between the messaging that came out, the positive impact on the public dialogue, the mainstream players coming out with endorsements, and getting more votes than Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, Prop 19 was a major step forward," he said.

"What was significant was George Soros coming in with that contribution and his op-ed," Nadelmann continued. "Soros has been a major supporter of marijuana decriminalization, but he was always ambivalent about legalization, in part because of concerns about the impact on young people. Prop 19 being on the ballot and his being asked by so many people what he was going to do encouraged him to think more deeply about it. That he decided to write that piece and make that contribution, even in late October, when he knew the odds of winning were not great, is important for the future."

Even though Soros didn't come through until the final week of the campaign, and the campaign struggled financially (even while outdistancing the opposition), Nadelmann didn't see that a reason the measure lost. "I'm skeptical that substantially more money earlier on would have clinched this," he Nadelmann. "What was really problematic was the turnout. Young people did not show up en masse."

He wasn't the only one looking at turnout. "In a midterm election year like this with a Republican sweep nationally, we didn’t see the types of voters who favor marijuana legalization coming to the polls," said Mike Meno, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

"The only way to respond to a loss is to learn from it," said NORML founder Keith Stroup. "There were two or three specific areas where our opponents were effective, specifically on the employer-employee issue. You had the Chamber of Commerce saying employers couldn’t fire someone coming to work stoned, and some of the law enforcement folks got traction with the idea that roads would be filled with stoned drivers. We have to be clear that if someone is stopped for driving while impaired and they pass the alcohol test, that police have the right to take them in for a drug test," he said.

That position isn't likely to sit well with the veteran stoner demographic, who will argue that marijuana really doesn't impair driving ability that much among experienced tokers. Better to test for actual impairment than the presence of metabolites, especially if impairment is assumed under a "zero tolerance" DUID law, but that's going to be a hard sell for the general public.

"I am among those people who felt that even though we lost, Richard ended up doing a good thing for the movement," said Stroup. "I don't think legalization was ever taken seriously by politicians and the press until Prop 19 came along. It was probably worth the three or four million dollars spent to force marijuana legalization into the mainstream."

"One of the things that really caught on with the opposition and helped spread seeds of doubt in voters' minds was the local control aspect, allowing different counties to decide whether to regulate," said Meno. Ironically, that provision was a concession designed to blunt potential opposition by allowing more conservative areas to opt out.

"The polling shows that workplace concerns and fears of driving under the influence helped motivate the no vote," Meno added. "Those same concerns apply to alcohol, but they're not arguments for making alcohol illegal. With sensible public education, these issues can be addressed. We need to deal aggressively and proactively with the issues around driving while impaired so there isn't the really poor media coverage we saw this time. That gave people the ability to leap from legalization to impaired driving. We need to address these fear-based arguments," he said.

Even the Prop 19 campaign now says maybe the workplace language wasn't a good idea. "I remember having an uneasy feeling about the employment part, but one of our more conservative consultations was for it," said Richard Lee, the man behind Prop 19. "I should have listened to my gut, but it's hard not to want employees to be free from uncalled for drug testing."

"This result was predictable from the early polls," said Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML, which endorsed Prop 19 but was skeptical about its prospects from the beginning. "One of the problems was that legalization scores in the low fifties in the polls, and you need it in the sixties to pass. In any initiative, there are particulars that people object to, and support begins to erode, and this was criticized from all sides."

The California public is ready to go along with legalization if presented with a plan that makes sense and will actually do what it promises, but Prop 19 wasn't that plan, Gieringer said. "The closer you looked at Prop 19, the less it offered in immediate benefits to the state," he argued.

"As soon as any city or county tried to implement 19, they would get hit with a federal injunction, which the feds would certainly win," Gieringer said. "So, no tax and regulate, no tax revenues, and you get a bunch of lawsuits with the feds. It wasn't going to solve the drug war in Mexico, it wasn't going to save all that much in arrests, especially since Schwarzenegger signed that decriminalization bill, and a lot of marijuana offenses have to do with exporting out of state, and that would remain. Prop 19 would have been the first step in a much larger battle going on for years before you really get those benefits, and voters didn't trust that those benefits would actually come."

"We've lost a lot of battles at NORML," Stroup laughed wryly. "But what is important when you lose is what you learn. We came away from California knowing we can do it better, and we will do it better. I think in 2012, the whole West Coast will be proposing that we legalize marijuana."

Richard Lee and his crew are already making plans to put together a new initiative in 2012, but if California's recent history is any indicator, they are unlikely to be the only ones. If one or more of them make it to the ballot in 2012, they better have learned the lessons of 2010.

CA
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, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 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, Defelonization, 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, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School