Like other interest groups, the drug reform movement has the Obama transition under a microscope, searching for clues on the new administration's intentions as it scrutinizes those appointments for

Bolivian President Evo Morales said at a Monday news conference at the UN that he would like to improve t

American hemp consumers still can't grow their own, but as of this week, they now have one more choice of where to import it from.

Obama’s selection of federal prosecutor Eric Holder to serve as attorney general has provoked concern among reformers, namely due to Holder’s calls for increased marijuana enforcement and harsher sentences in Washington, D.C. during the mid-90’s.

U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.

"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling. [Washington Post]

There’s nothing good to be said about that, but it’s incomplete in terms of giving us a sense of what Holder’s overall drug policy priorities may be. 3 years later, Holder was sounding a bit more reasonable on the issue of drug sentencing:

QUESTION: In the last couple of weeks there has been renewed dialogue about mandatory minimum sentences. Some conservative groups and some traditionally thought of as liberal groups are both saying that the mandatory minimums are not working, they are filling jails unnecessarily. Is the administration fairly well satisfied that mandatory minimums are good idea? Or will you try -- will this administration try again in the coming Congress to take another look at mandatory minimums?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I do not think that we should ever foreclose the possibility that we take a look at how the laws that we have passed are working. I tend to think that mandatory minimum sentences that deal with people who commit violent crimes are almost always good things. I think the concerns are generally raised about mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders. And I think there are some questions that we ought to ask.

I do not go into it with a presumption that they're necessarily bad, but we ought to look at the statistics and see, are we putting in prison, are we using our limited prison space for the kind of people that we want to have there? Are the sentences commensurate with the kind of conduct that puts people in jail for these mandatory minimum sentences?

Those are the kinds of questions I think that we ought to ask. And as thinking legislators on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, I would hope that we would ask those questions and then go into it with an open mind.

Almost a decade later, the disastrous consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing are more evident than ever and even notorious drug warriors like Joe Biden have pushed drug war posturing aside to begin addressing the problem. As the political landscape surrounding drug sentencing continues to evolve, Holder’s "open mind" along with Obama’s concerns about over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders could provide a positive climate for sentencing reform.

Beyond that, we just don’t have a great deal of evidence to draw upon. I haven’t seen any public statements from Holder regarding medical marijuana and other top drug policy reform issues. Realistically, it may be a best-case scenario that we’re faced with a long-time U.S. attorney who appears viable and at least lacks a lengthy track record of drug war grandstanding. The totality of Holder’s scary drug policy demagoguery potentially falls far short of what we might hear from others with his background. Silence on most of our issues is arguably the best reformers can hope for when it comes to selecting the next head of the DOJ.

At this point, I know nothing about Eric Holder that would indicate opposition to the drug policy reforms Obama endorsed on the campaign trail. Holder enters office fully cognizant of Obama’s perspective on the war on drugs and I remain hopeful that he’ll become a critical figure in moving forward the reforms we’ve been told to expect from this administration.

The drug czar's recent claim that there are more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks stores in San Francisco has finally achieved the level of public embarrassment it so thoroughly deserved.

San Francisco's Department of Public Health, which issues permits for medical marijuana dispensaries, is also befuddled by the federal data.

"It was extremely incorrect," said Larry Kessler, a senior health inspector at the department. "I don't know how they got that." [San Francisco Chronicle]

SF Chronicle obtained the alleged dispensary list from ONDCP and found double listings, closed businesses, and even a business in Los Angeles. With their fraud fully exposed, ONDCP has issued a totally bizarre reply saying it's "good news" that their story got press.

It’s straight-up insane. By the time you get to the part about how many Taco Bells there are in San Francisco, you’ll join me in hoping Sarah Palin is the next drug czar so we can at least get MSNBC to give these clowns the daily fact-checking they deserve.

Pete Guither has the details. I agree with Pete that we’re just not going to know who the next drug czar is for a while still, but it’s worth noting that none of the names circulating thus far are very encouraging.

If we end up disappointed, it will be our own fault for thinking Obama’s nominee wouldn’t completely suck.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November, 13, 2008
CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or adam@votehemp.com, or Tom Murphy at 207-542-4998 or tom@votehemp.com

Licensed Hemp Farmers Heard by US Court of Appeals
Decision in Lawsuit Could Bring Back Hemp Farming in US

ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., were heard yesterday, November 12, 2008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The oral arguments before the three judge panel centered on the farmer’s assertion that because there is no possibility the hemp crop could be diverted into the market for drugs, the Commerce Clause does not allow DEA to regulate industrial hemp farming in North Dakota. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state-regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. The court’s decision is not expected until next year.

The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and seed breeder Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only are oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis genetically distinct from drug varieties, but there are absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from eating it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html).

Representative Monson observed oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. In court Mr. Sandler argued, “Given North Dakota’s unique regulatory regime, nothing leaves the farmer’s property except those parts of the plant Congress has already decided should be exempt from regulation: hemp stalk, fiber seed and oil. The question is whether there is any rational basis for Congressional regulation of the plant itself growing on the farmer’s property. The answer is no — because industrial hemp is useless as drug marijuana and there’s no danger of diversion, so there’s no possible impact on the market for drug marijuana.”

The government’s arguments centered on the idea that the plaintiffs should apply to the DEA for permission to grow hemp and that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issues raised by the farmers. “The plaintiffs should await the DEA’s decision on their application,” said Melissa Patterson on behalf of the government. In response, Judge Michael Milloy asked, “Isn’t it true the DEA will not rule on the farmer’s applications to grow hemp, you’ve had eleven months?” Ms. Patterson answered, “The DEA has not replied out of respect to the pending proceedings.” In response to the jurisdictional objections made by the DEA, Judge Lavenski Smith said, “When there is a legitimate constitutional issue brought before us we can hear the case.”

Background

In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org.

# # #

The US Supreme Court Monday heard oral arguments in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No.

A pair of North Dakota farmers who want to be able to grow hemp were in US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota, Wednesday to argue their case.

If there is one man who symbolizes and epitomizes the federal war on drugs, it is the head of the White House Office of National Drug Co

The political landscape in Washington, DC, is undergoing a dramatic shift as the Democratic tide rolls in, and, after eight years of drug war status quo under the Republicans, drug reformers are no

President-elect Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff is hardly a good sign for reformers. As Jacob Sullum points out, he’s a complete nightmare when it comes to drug policy:

"We are going to continue to find ways within the administration to fight legalization and the notion of legalization," Rahm Emanuel, a key Clinton drug-policy adviser, said yesterday. "We're against the message that the initiative sends to children. Marijuana does not come cost-free. It is illegal and it is dangerous."

Of course, that was more than 10 years ago, when even Bob Barr was still in full-blown drug war demagogue mode. Has Emanuel improved? Unfortunately not, and if anything he’s gotten worse as demonstrated by this totally deranged attack on former AG Alberto Gonzalez for saying the war on drugs wasn’t a "real" war:

"Thanks for the white flag. From the United States' most senior law enforcement official, the man who should be leading the war on drugs, this white flag of surrender will not be reassuring to the millions of parents trying to protect their kids."

This full-scale war mentality regarding drug policy is about as bad as it gets and I just shudder to think this is the guy who’ll have the president’s ear on a daily basis. Obama has called for "shifting the paradigm" with regards to the war on drugs, only to then surround himself with the worst drug warriors in the democratic party.

It’s too soon to call this a betrayal of anything Obama has pledged regarding reform; I doubt drug policy was a factor in Emanuel’s or Biden’s selection. But it’s a harsh reminder that vehement support for the war on drugs continues to thrive on both sides of the aisle. Reform won't come easily for Obama even if he's completely serious about changing our approach to the war on drugs.

President-elect Obama has pledged to end the federal government’s war on medical marijuana, but he doesn’t take office for several weeks. Meanwhile, the DEA has spent the last 8 years periodically raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in California based on undisclosed criteria, stealing money, scaring patients, and even convicting good people on harsh charges for activities that are legal under state law.

So what happens now? With their livelihood threatened, will the bloodsucking narc-warriors dive in for one last bite? They’ve got everything mapped out and they’ve spent years investigating this (which is embarrassingly easy since these are legal, storefront co-ops). No one really knows what the marching orders will be after January, so you can bet there are scores of pissed-off drug cops just dying to throw one last flurry before the bell rings.

You’d think the election of a more supportive president would enthrall the medical marijuana community, but I’m hearing that people on the ground in California are buzzing nervously about the coming weeks with no clear indication of what direction things will go. The potential withdrawal of prosecutorial resources could have a chilling effect, but prosecutions are only one dimension of the problem. Asset forfeiture is another major concern following DEA’s recent threats against landlords, and you can bet there’s no limit to the greed and spite that has defined the federal war on medical marijuana since its inception.

So while I’ll decline to speculate what’s to come, I keep reminding myself that the federal drug warriors’ actions always carry political consequences. These raids have long sought to create the perception of impracticality surrounding state medical marijuana laws, and that strategy has failed. Medical marijuana continues to gain momentum as a political issue, as evidenced by the strong showing in Michigan and universal support from candidates in the democratic primaries.

The faceless drug war army perched over California must consider the ramifications of any ugliness they unleash in the weeks to come, because any action they take will provoke tremendous rallying cries that will surely reverberate all the way to Washington, DC. A final exhibit in the repugnance of the federal war on medical marijuana might be exactly what it takes to bring about the burial of this bullshit once and for all. If DEA wants to play hardball, it would seem wise to wait until the new referee takes the field.

Bertha Madras has apparently left her position as deputy director for demand reduction at ONDCP, as evidenced by a missing staff bio and this article identifying her as a "former" staffer. If drug abuse suddenly skyrockets, it will prove she was really good at her job. But I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

Instead, Bertha will be remembered for saying some of the most horrible things you could ever imagine. Here she is opposing overdose prevention and arguing that drug overdoses are good for you:

Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user’s motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.

"Sometimes having an overdose, being in an emergency room, having that contact with a health care professional is enough to make a person snap into the reality of the situation and snap into having someone give them services," Madras says. [NPR]

She will be difficult to replace, I’m sure.

Just when you thought anti-marijuana propaganda couldn't get any more frivolous and shallow, the drug czar arrives with a new slogan: "Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren’t many jobs out there for potheads."

The whole thing is just absurd on its face, released days after a former marijuana user was elected president and weeks after the drug czar’s own blog observed that 75% of illicit drug users have jobs.

These new ads read like a mockery of typical drug czar propaganda, devoid of facts and premised on the self-evidently false proposition that marijuana use is some kind of physical handicap. It is just so over-the-top crazy and childish that I must keep reminding myself that it is the nation’s top drug policy official who is responsible for this.

Friends:

     The 2009 Criminal Justice Transition Coalition, which includes The Sentencing Project and 20 other prominent national organizations, has just released a collaborative report identifying critical needs for federal policy reform. Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress contains comprehensive policy recommendations at every stage of the justice system for the new Administration and Congress.
 
      "Americans of all political stripes, and especially professionals with experience in every aspect of the criminal justice system, recognize that the system is failing too many, costing too much, and helping too few," said the report. Included among the recommendations to overcome these challenges are:
 
·         Eliminate the crack cocaine sentencing disparity;
·         Expand alternatives to incarceration;
·         Fund prisoner reentry through the Second Chance Act;
·         Extend federal voting rights to people released from prison;
·         Restore welfare and food stamp eligibility to individuals with    drug felony convictions; and
·         Analyze and reduce unwarranted racial and ethnic disparity in the federal judicial system.
 
     The policy catalogue will be distributed to the Obama/Biden transition team and key leadership on Capitol Hill. The administration's transition team has already identified the need to eliminate crack cocaine sentencing disparities as one of its civil rights agenda items.

     In its entirety, the document identifies 15 issue areas within criminal justice for policy change. Additional issue areas featured in the catalogue include death penalty reform, prison reform, and juvenile justice. The comprehensive document features contacts for various field experts and organizations, and includes issues pertinent to the community of criminal justice advocates, practitioners and legislators.

     We hope you find this document useful in your work, and look forward to collaborating with you on many of these policy reforms.
                                             
-The Sentencing Project

Already cool relations between Bolivia and the US grew even chillier over the weekend, as Bolivian President Evo Morales announced Saturday that he was suspending anti-drug operations by the US DEA

Barack Obama wasn't the only big winner in Tuesday elections; marijuana polled just as well, if not better.

With Tuesday's election now behind us, and the incoming Obama administration turning its attention to filling all those cabinet and White House posts, speculation is already starting about who will