The Chicago Tribune on Biden:

He has proven to be a reliable moderate on crime issues--particularly where narcotics are concerned--and was a principal author of the 1994 crime bill which sought to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets through a federal grant program. That bill also expanded the reach of the federal death penalty.

Um, Biden coined the term "drug czar" and created ONDCP, the propaganda wing of the federal drug war. He tried to one-up the Republican anti-drug plan by calling for larger foreign drug war investments. He authored the RAVE Act to allow federal prosecution of property owners who fail to successfully prevent drug use. He championed research into biological warfare techniques to eradicate South American drug cultivation, even after experts said it was way too dangerous to even consider. He was last seen proposing ridiculous drug war legislation only a month ago. Really, the list just goes on and on.

So no, Joe Biden is not a "moderate" when it comes to crime issues. His hard-line authoritarian record speaks for itself, runs out of breath, and then speaks for itself some more. To call him a "moderate" is just ignorant and wrong, to the point of utterly trivializing the word and conjuring a wretched spectacle of what it would take to earn a more fitting description of his extensive jail-mongering credentials.

I can only assume this profound mischaracterization of Biden's record was arrived at through the tired assumption that democrats are "soft" on crime, republicans are "tough," and therefore "moderates" are democrats who support harsh laws. Joe Biden is exactly the reason such stereotypes should be avoided by responsible journalists.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Among the likely choices for Obama's running mate, Joe Biden was not the person reformers were hoping to see on the democratic ticket. Radley Balko sums up Biden's drug war credentials:

…from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.

On the other hand, Biden has recently spoken out against the crack/powder sentencing disparity and introduced legislation to address that issue. Pete Guither also notes that Biden's votes on civil liberties issues have consistently improved over the years, which may be a sign that he's evolving in his thinking. But I see no evidence that Biden has ever stepped back in any meaningful sense from his rabid drug warring ways. If he's made any philosophical realignments on drug policy in general, he hasn't said so out loud.

Thus the silver-lining may be that as Vice President, Biden would no longer be serving on the judiciary committee, where he's exerted his influence in the form of the various atrocities outlined above. As VP he'd technically be losing his authority over drug policy issues, except to whatever extent Obama may seek his advice when selecting the drug czar and so forth. It's certainly possible that Obama's more enlightened views would prevail within his administration, or even that Biden's "tough on crime" credentials could provide cover for reform, but Biden would be a strange ingredient in the behind-the-scenes reform agenda that's so often attributed to Obama by liberal reformers. It was bad enough when Obama softened his reform positions to avoid attacks from the right. Will he now begin watching his step around his own running mate?

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

David Borden, Executive Director

A Massachusetts initiative that would decriminalize marijuana possession looks set to win in November, if polling numbers from this month are any indication.

Petitioners for an initiative making adult marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority on Hawaii's pot-friendly Big Island failed to gather enough valid signatures to qualify for the Nov

Dear friends:

Wow.

We just got some encouraging news from Massachusetts: 71% of Massachusetts residents support a landmark ballot initiative to decriminalize marijuana possession in the state, according to a new statewide poll from Boston's Suffolk University and the local NBC affiliate.

The initiative will be on Massachusetts' ballot this November 4. If it passes, it would remove the threat of arrest or jail for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, replacing it with a $100 fine — which could be paid through the mail without lawyers or court appearances, just like a speeding ticket.

71% support eclipses what we've seen in all previous polling — support has generally remained in the 60% range — and so these newest numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, these results clearly point to widespread support for marijuana law reform in Massachusetts and bode well for the initiative's chances this November.

Can you help capitalize on this unprecedented level of support? If you want the chance to help pass a historic marijuana policy, here's your chance.

Your help really matters, because victory is by no means assured. Powerful, well-financed organizations within the state — including the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and the Massachusetts Family Institute — have publicly announced their plans to work against the initiative, and both are already marshalling their forces to prevent it from passing. So this encouraging poll is a double-edged sword: While it reveals the initiative to be enormously popular in Massachusetts, it will also motivate prohibitionist opponents to an even greater degree.

Would you please consider donating $10 or more to the campaign today, to help provide the resources to counter the coming attacks?

Thank you in advance for anything you can do to help the campaign capitalize on the groundswell of public support and fight back hard against those who want to continue jailing marijuana users. 

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Former Republican Congressman and current Libertarian Party Candidate for president Bob Barr Monday issued a statement criticizing the widely

At a press conference last Friday, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for emptying pris

In June, foes of Mendocino County, California's relaxed marijuana cultivation ordinance, managed to narrowly r

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr is the first presidential hopeful to speak out regarding the brutal drug raid in Berwyn Heights, MD that resulted in the death of the mayor's two dogs:

The former Republican Congressman from Georgia released a statement on his presidential campaign website about the July 29 Prince George's police and sheriff's raid on the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo.
…

The raid, he wrote, "illustrates how the drug war threatens the liberties of all Americans."

He said he believed that law enforcement has become more arrogant and less accountable, usually with very little public attention, and promises that as president, he will improve the situation.

"As president I will ensure that federal law enforcement agencies set a good example for the rest of the country," he said. "In a Barr administration, government officials will never forget that it is a free people they are protecting." [Washington Post]

I'm still getting used to hearing words like these from former drug warrior Bob Barr, but I'll take it. Barr, despite his unfortunate history, is now speaking out against abusive drug war policing with a vigor unmatched, or even attempted, by the major party candidates.

Unfortunately, we can be reasonably sure we won’t hear a word about this from Obama or McCain. Sure, it is an ugly national controversy with a fairly obvious right and wrong side. And yes, a careful statement promising to defend the rights of innocent, everyday people against government abuse would be politically safe, in and of itself. After all, there's nothing anti-police about standing up for professionalism in law-enforcement.

But implicit in all this is the central question of how far we as a society are willing to push the limits of peace and freedom in the name of a war on drugs that has already exhausted many of us to the point of unrestrained bitterness. It's a conversation that can't be avoided once Cheye Calvo's name is spoken and one which the major party candidates remain hesitant to explore. Their silence becomes increasingly hard to explain as it becomes steadily more apparent each day that the drug war blood bath sometimes doesn't discriminate as well as it's supposed to.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Organizers of a Joplin, Missouri, initiative that would decriminalize possession of up to 35 grams of marijuana are in a sprint to the wire in a last-minute bid to get the necessary number of signa

An initiative that would make adult marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority in Fayetteville, Arkansas, is now in the signature-gathering phase.

Come join us for a free picnic meant to encourage registered voters to sign the Joplin Sensible Sentencing Initiative!

From a recent interview in Rolling Stone:

The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers $500 billion since 1973. Nearly 500,000 people are behind bars on drug charges today, yet drugs are as available as ever. Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs, or will you make some significant change in course?

Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.

The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives -- it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense.

I've heard it said, and I agree, that this is a solid response from a mainstream politician on the presidential campaign trail. But I also think it simply reflects a realistic summary of what the centrist, mainstream view on U.S. drug policy sounds like. In other words, rather than commending Obama for not spouting tired war metaphors, let us welcome the new status quo.

We've reached a point at which this type of rhetoric is probably the most politically palatable perspective a serious candidate could offer. We've heard McCain making some similar points, and while I certainly won't be holding my breath, I think the possibility exists that we'll make it through the entire campaign without witnessing any serious controversy surrounding the concept that our drug war needs a major ideological makeover.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

A crazy woman, Dr. Ada M. Fisher, was authorized to speak to the press on behalf of the McCain campaign at the NAACP convention. She took that opportunity to make some of the most unfortunate and incoherent remarks about drug use in recent memory:

AF: "…Obama in his book about his father talked about his use of drugs. And I think it’s disingenuous of people to vote for somebody for President when you won’t allow a drug user in any secure or nuclear facility. Yet we as a nation, are willing to consider making somebody President of the United States I think that speaks very poorly…Bill Clinton said he smoked but he didn’t inhale…But he didn’t come out and flagrantly say he used drugs…and if that’s going to be our standard God helps us in nuclear facilities and secure facilities who have this kind of history..and this nation must be very careful when it lowers the bar on who and what it will accept.
…

AF: See, if you admit it, it should disqualify you. Otherwise, we’ll have to let all those people who …applied for jobs in these facilities…There is a reason that those rules are there. I was a detox director for 16 counties in North Carolina , so I have a great understanding about what drugs and what they do to people. And I know that in moments of weakness, people tend to revert those things that they’ve used in the past. I don’t think it’s disingenuous, I don’t think its fair. If I ran for President of the U.S. and I had that history, I would expect people to look at that very carefully. We cannot have a nation high on drugs and have the President… as an example. I’m sorry I disagree with that. [Wonkette]

On second thought, I give up. I just cannot compete with this. It never even occurred to me before that if we elect an admitted drug user to be president, we'll have to let druggies work in our nuclear facilities. Drug policy reform was a fun hobby, but I've been outclassed. See ya in hell, hippies.

Note: Pete Guither has more at DrugWarRant, observing among other things that no one seems to have a problem putting recovering alcoholics in the White House.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Oregon has already decriminalized marijuana possession and enacted the second-largest state medical marijuana program in the country, and now some Oregon activists are ready to move to the next lev

[Courtesy of Marijuana Policy Project] 

Dear friends:

The Massachusetts government has announced that it has certified a landmark marijuana decriminalization initiative for the November 4 ballot — which is the first time in history that an initiative to decriminalize marijuana possession will appear on any statewide ballot.*

When MPP polled Massachusetts voters in February 2007 on this question, we found that the initiative was supported by a 60% to 30% margin (with 10% undecided).

The initiative would reduce the penalties in Massachusetts so that the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana will be punishable only by a ticket and a $100 fine — similar to a speeding ticket — with no arrest, no jail or other penalties, no lawyer's fees, and no court appearances. Please visit http://www.sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/ to learn more about the initiative.

MPP has been working closely with the Massachusetts campaign operation, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP), to ensure the initiative's placement on the ballot. CSMP turned in more than 100,000 signatures last November and another 20,000 last month to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Your help is now needed to wage a strong campaign between now and Election Day to ensure that this groundbreaking initiative passes. Would you please visit www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org/donate.html to donate $10 or more today?

CSMP — led by campaign manager and long-time Massachusetts activist Whitney A. Taylor — is well-positioned to make history this November: In addition to completing both parts of the intensive signature drive, the campaign successfully lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature not to take any action that would harm the campaign, in addition to building a statewide coalition of opinion leaders who support the initiative and volunteers who will be working to pass the initiative.

Would you please visit www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org/donate.html to make your most generous donation to the campaign today? I want to thank you in advance for anything you can do to help.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

* Seven out of seven statewide initiatives to end various aspects of marijuana prohibition have failed over the course of our nation's history — in California (1972), Oregon (1986), Alaska (2000 and 2004), Nevada (2002 and 2006), and Colorado (2006). At a minimum, all seven initiatives would have removed all penalties for marijuana possession.  The Massachusetts initiative is polling much better than any of these seven initiatives because it seeks a more modest change — to treat marijuana possession like a speeding ticket, rather than imposing no penalty at all.

On November 4th Massachusetts voters will have the chance to pass a ballot initiative decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana -- removing the threat of jail time for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana for personal use.

In response to the announcement that the initiative will be on the ballot a columnist for Boston's tabloid newspaper wrote the column below which was printed today.

Letters to the editor of the Boston Herald need to be short and well written - under 200 words. The average printed letter is about 120 words in length.

Please also support the initiative. For details visit http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/

**********************************************************************

Contact: letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com

Pubdate: Sun, 6 Jul 2008
Source: Boston Herald (MA)
Copyright: 2008 The Boston Herald, Inc
Author: Howie Carr

SENSIBLE POT A HALF-BAKED POLICY, DUDE

Marijuana makes you stupid. It's as simple as that.

And now in Massachusetts, we are going to have a ballot question that asks the following: Do you really want to make it even easier than it already is to get stupid, and stay stupid?

Yes, the Bong Brigade is on the march again. They want to put the high back into high school, the truckin' back in truck stops, the joint back in all those joint legislative committees. Stand by to see stoners at the Stone Zoo, potheads in Marblehead. The grass is always greener in Greenfield, dude.

If you liked HempFest on the Boston Common every September, you're going to love legalized marijuana.

This one's, like, totally for Jerry Garcia!

This year, the front group is something called the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, and it's pushing a Sensible State Marijuana Policy. Its flacks are available for media interviews to discuss their "sensible policy."

Organizers include the usual "concerned citizens," with a few token "former law enforcement professionals" thrown in. Their goal is to use the initiative to abolish criminal penalties for less than an ounce of marijuana or, to use their preferred word, hemp, as in, "Dude, did you know, like, George Washington's army used hemp when it was fighting in, uh, like, was it the Civil War, man?"

The sensible group's press release sounds like it was written after watching a "Dragnet 1967" marathon on TVLand. Harmless people, we are told, "are arrested, booked, entered into the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system, resulting in a possible sentence of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine."

Key word: possible.

Do you know how difficult it is to actually be thrown in jail around here? You can lie under oath and obstruct justice, and you don't have to do a day in the can - am I right Tom Finneran?

Pot charges are usually meaningless add-ons, like piling a driving-to-endanger on top on an OUI, or like Neil Entwistle being charged with possession of an unregistered handgun. The potheads say 7,500 marijuana citations make it onto the CORI system every year. But how many of those Class B controlled-substance convictions are added to someone's CORI record along with more serious raps like, say, for possession of Class D controlled substances (cocaine) with intent to distribute?

The ganja-guys then cite the alleged "collateral damage" of this CORI indignity: "inability to find employment, obtain housing and receive a college loan."

Please. The reason stoners can't find employment is because they're too wasted. They forgot to turn on the alarm clock. They went out for a smoke break and never returned. They missed the bus, man. They can't "obtain housing" because they can't get it together to ever leave mom's rent-free basement.

Unless you're in the cop's face when you light up - like they do at HempFest - you face almost zero chance of getting arrested.

Decriminalizing pot doesn't seem like a big deal, I'll grant you. After the courts decreed Adam and Eve are going to be Adam and Steve, bringing Cheech & Chong along for the ride amounts to little more than a footnote.

But the problem with this ballot question is, it will lead to more pot smoking, which this society needs like . . . like, fill in the blank, dude. How can the same health pests who loathe tobacco not care a whit about a different debilitating drug that you have to ingest into your lungs in the form of smoke?

The fact is, once you make something legal, even if it's just de facto, it's easier to get. Pot does fry your brain. On my radio show, I can tell a stoner within 10 seconds.

They . . . talk . . . slow. They mention "hemp." They talk about "thousands" of political prisoners locked up for pot. And since their vocabulary is so stunted, because their memories are shot, they keep repeating the same words over and over again.

Sensible . . . sensible . . . sensible.

**********************************************************************

Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

Or contact MAP's Media Activism Facilitator for tips on how to write LTEs that are printed.

heath@mapinc.org

**********************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list (sentlte@mapinc.org) if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from your efforts.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list (sentlte@mapinc.org) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts.

Two weeks ago, we reported on the battle over Measure B in California's Mendocino County.

[Courtesy California NORML]

June 20, 2008

In final election returns, Mendocino's anti-marijuana Measure B eked out a narrow 52-48% victory. The final margin was the same as the one announced after election day, before 11,000 absentee ballots were counted.

California NORML, which supported the No on B campaign, regards the result as a moral victory, given that Measure B had been widely expected to win by a lopsided margin. Pre-election polls had suggested a victory margin of 60 - 65% , leading Measure B proponents to express disappointment at the narrowness of their win.

The final margin was so close that opponents would have won in a general election, where turnout is larger, younger, and more liberally inclined. Marijuana proponents intend to return to the county with more workable proposals for legally regulating the county's marijuana industry.

The No on B campaign succeeded in raising substantial doubts about Measure B, arguing that it in no way addressed the underlying problems of large-scale growers. http://nomeasureb.org. Measure B repeals Mendocino's Personal Use of Marijuana Initiative, Measure G, passed by an overwhelming 58% of the vote in 2000, but otherwise leaves the county's marijuana policy in doubt, since it seeks to establish the same state limits for marijuana growing that were recently declared unconstitutional in the California appeals court Kelly ruling. Measure B's validity will be subject to two immediate court challenges.

The No on B campaign thanks supporters and volunteers for helping wage a strong mail, media, and get-out-the-vote campaign. "Everything was stacked against us from the beginning," said No on B campaign director Laura Hamburg. Measure B was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, with support from the city councils of Willits and Ukiah, the district attorney, the county's leading newspaper and major media, and local development interests upset by the difficulty of paying wages competitive with the marijuana industry. California NORML is proud to have played a leading role in supporting the No on B campaign, along with a devoted core of Mendocino activists, the Mendocino Marijuana Patients Union, and the Mendocino Green Party. Thanks too to the Drug Policy Alliance for their financial support.