|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(renamed "Drug War Chronicle" effective issue #300, August 2003) Issue #230, 3/29/02
"Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Drug Prohibition" Phillip S. Smith, Editor
subscribe for FREE now! ---- make a donation ---- search Visit http://www.drugwar.com/pperryfund.shtm for pictures of our New York event launching the John W. Perry Scholarship Fund! TABLE OF CONTENTS
(visit
the Week Online archives)
1. Editorial: Supreme Disappointment David Borden, Executive Director, [email protected], 3/29/02 The Supreme Court ruling this week permitting the federal government to evict all residents of a public housing unit if any resident of the unit uses drugs anywhere, with or without the knowledge of the other tenants, is disappointing but not surprising to those familiar with the Court's short- and long-term history. Just last week, for example, a good number of Justices expressed views seeming to indicate that they lean toward allowing public school systems to drug test all students, with or without probable cause. These are not the first times the Supreme Court has supremely failed to uphold the Constitution. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, for example, a previous generation on the Court upheld slavery, the only ruling on slavery the Court has ever issued. A subsequent constitutional amendment, of course, abolished slavery in the United States. The Court, hence, never again ruled on the issue, never pronounced slavery, and state sponsorship of slavery through laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, to be the abomination and violation of fundamental human rights that they were. It might be rhetorically interesting to ask the current Justices if, in their opinions, their Court of a previous generation was legally mistaken and morally corrupted when Dred Scott was handed down. That is, did the Constitution in fact require slavery to be banned, even before the abolitionist amendment got enacted? Did all three branches of the US government -- executive, legislative, and courts -- engage in massive, violent lawlessness directed at a large segment of the population under the control of another segment? If they say yes, Dred Scott was legally and morally wrong, then the next logical question is whether the Court can be legally and morally wrong again. If they answer no, if they say that Dred Scott was legally correct even if slavery was morally wrong, that the Court shouldn't have intervened to abolish slavery, that could also shed some light on the Court's current modus operandi. I'm not equating evictions from public housing nor even the drug war as a whole with slavery. But if the Court is in essence a political institution -- which few serious legal scholars doubt is the case, and which Dred Scott illustrated with brutal clarity -- then the possibility of Constitutional violations by those who safeguard the Constitution cannot be ignored. The possibility that massive government repression, that brutal violations of human rights, that unjust treatment by powerful bureaucrats, may go unchecked by judges who should know better, must be acknowledged. Understanding this, some may regard the Supreme Court as a mere instrument of power, for good or for evil, necessary for practical reasons to obey but not meriting any special respect or moral stature beyond that. The federal bureaucrats responsible for evicting poor grandmothers and disabled people from their housing because of drug use over which they had neither control nor knowledge behaved with barbarism and senseless cruelty. But a majority of Supreme Court justices, just like the bureaucrats, are blinded by drug war extremism and consider it legally acceptable. We must continue to seek justice from the court, but we can never rely on it.
2. John W. Perry Scholarship Fund for Students Losing Financial Aid Because of Drug Convictions Holds Initial Fundraiser in NYC Nearly one hundred people gathered at the New York Society for Ethical Culture on Central Park West Tuesday evening to kick off a scholarship fund designed to provide an alternative for college students denied federal financial aid because of drug convictions. Braving blustery winds and a chilling drizzle, dozens of people arrived checkbook in hand to contribute to the John W. Perry Scholarship Fund. Perry, a New York City police officer, drug reformer and ACLU and Libertarian Party activist died in the line of duty at the World Trade Center on September 11. The Perry Fund, which is organized by the DRCNet Foundation, raised $5,000 that evening, including a $2,000 contribution from the Drug Policy Alliance, with total available funds expected to exceed $10,000 in the immediate future. DRCNet hopes to raise at least $100,000 to provide scholarships averaging $1,000. The Perry Fund has its genesis in a 1998 law, authored by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), that delays or denies federal financial aid to would-be students for any state or federal drug offense. Under the Higher Education Act (HEA) drug provision, any drug offense, no matter how minor, automatically triggers loss of financial aid eligibility for time periods ranging from a year to indefinitely. Over 46,000 students have been denied access to federal aid under the HEA's anti-drug provision during the current academic year. "The HEA anti-drug provision is a counterproductive law," DRCNet executive director David Borden told the crowd. "It is a second punishment suffered only by the poor and working classes, and it is racially discriminatory in effect because of the drug war's racial disparities. Our coalition continues to call for full repeal," he said. Norman Siegel, former long-term director of the New York Civil Liberties Union and current director of the Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, an organization drawing attention to civil liberties issues in the wake of September 11, emceed the event. Calling Perry "a very special New Yorker" and a "renaissance man," Siegel told how, on the morning of September 11, Perry was at One Police Plaza filling out his retirement papers -- preparing for a second career in law -- when the planes struck the World Trade Center. He rushed to the scene and never came back. Siegel also recounted how on September 9, Perry had spent the day with him campaigning in Siegel's run for NYC Public Advocate. "John W. Perry would be very proud of what we're doing in his name," said Siegel. "He cared about the Constitution." Perry's mother, Patricia Perry, told the crowd her son was a man who was always searching. "I am very proud he grew up to be the man he became," she said. Explaining that "John was careful about what he put in his body because he was proud of the way he looked," nevertheless "he wanted people to learn to tolerate and embrace those who believe or behave a little differently. And he did all he could to speak out against the drug laws." While the purpose of the gathering was to increase the scholarship fund, much of the rhetoric attacked the law that made such a fund necessary. "We are the DARE generation," said Students for Sensible Drug Policy (http://www.ssdp.org) president Shawn Heller. "Stop using our names for your drug war politicking," he said in remarks aimed at Souder and his congressional ilk. Heller explained that SSDP has spread to over 200 campuses around the country, in part because of students' reaction to the provision. Saying that the campaign to repeal the HEA drug provision had "caught fire across the nation," Borden added that scholarship funds "have a special resonance," as a public statement and that the Perry Fund also aims in a direct way at particular groups of people -- financial aid professionals and students they know of who have lost aid because of the drug provision. "The Perry Fund will create a chain of communication reaching large numbers of people affected by the provision and catalyzing social change" he predicted. Keynote speaker Ira Glasser, recently retired executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, returned to the theme of racial inequality with a speech titled "American Drug Laws: The New Jim Crow Justice." "This is a civil rights issue," he told the audience. "The HEA anti-drug provision is a disproportionate and discriminatory race-based program," he said. Citing statistic after statistic about racial bias in drug law enforcement and the futility of racial profiling as a law enforcement tool, Glasser ridiculed such tactics. "Even if we assume for the sake of argument that all drug dealers are black, which they aren't, it does not follow that all blacks are drug dealers," he said. "Most NBA players are black, but that doesn't mean if you want an NBA team you go and round up the first five black guys you see. This would be laughable if it weren't so brutal," he groaned. "The drug war is a replacement for Jim Crow," said Glasser. "The Supreme Court says it's okay to kick people out of public housing because their kids smoked a joint down the street. Fourteen percent of African-American males can't vote because they have felony convictions, many of them drug convictions. That's 200,000 black votes in Florida alone. You remember Florida?", Glasser asked. "And now they want to keep these kids from going to college. What was the civil rights struggle about if it wasn't about housing, and education, and voting rights? "We can honor John Perry's memory by fighting this law and supporting this fund," urged Glasser. Other speakers included Judith Wallach, who delivered a welcome from the Ethical Society; Eric Blumenson, professor of law at Suffolk University in Boston, author of a law article being published in May that lays out constitutional arguments for challenging the HEA drug provision in court; and Kenny Kramer, who knew John Perry from their work together with the New York Libertarian Party. Kramer, who was the inspiration for the famous Seinfeld show character, recounted how it was Perry who encouraged him to run for NYC mayor (http://www.kramerformayor.com). Miriam Kramer of New York Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) read a statement by NY PIRG board member Charlene Piper, who has spearheaded opposition to the drug provision at Brooklyn College. And Ron Crickenberger, political director of the Libertarian Party, traveled up from Washington, DC to donate copies of the newly-published book "Drug War Addiction," written by another police officer who opposes the drug war, Colorado Sheriff Bill Masters (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/220.html#billmasters). Crickenberger offered free copies to anyone donating $100 to the Perry Fund and copies signed by Sheriff Masters to anyone donating $250, as well as to have Sheriff Masters send personally autographed copies to anyone contributing $1,000. Contributions to the John W. Perry Scholarship Fund may be sent to: DRCNet Foundation, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036. Checks should be made payable to "DRCNet Foundation," with "Perry Fund" or "scholarship fund" in the memo. Contributions to the DRCNet Foundation are tax-deductible. Please let us know if we may include your name in the donor list on the web site and promotional materials for future efforts. Application forms for the Perry Fund are scheduled to be completed over the next two weeks, and will be announced to the financial aid community at that time. The Perry Fund will also serve as a clearinghouse, pitching individual cases to community foundations and other scholarship providers. See http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com/perryfund/ for further information on this scholarship program. Visit http://www.drugwar.com/pperryfund.shtm for further reporting on this event, including extensive photographs. Visit http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--collegeaid-drugs0325mar25.story to read a national Associated Press report on the Perry Fund, and please let us know if you've seen the AP story in your local paper. Visit http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-nydrug272641490mar27.story for an article written by the Long Island newspaper Newsday. The Perry Fund was also covered by Black Entertainment Television Nightly News, and by various radio shows (possibly including CBS Radio News).
3. Supreme Court Upholds Zero Tolerance in Public Housing -- Officials Can Evict Families Over a Member's Drug Use If anyone ever needed proof that what is legal and what is just are not necessarily identical, one need only look at this week's Supreme Court decision in HUD v. Rucker, the case that pitted poor, elderly public housing tenants against public housing authorities who moved to evict them because of drug use by family members. In a unanimous decision, the Court on Tuesday ruled that public housing authorities may indeed evict tenants for drug use by family members -- even if they did not know about it and even if it occurred outside the property. The case arose out of the 1998 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which, among other things, required public housing agencies to use leases that allow for eviction of tenants if the tenant, tenant's family member, or guest engaged in drug-related crimes. The Oakland Housing Authority enforced the measure with vigor, moving to evict:
The Supreme Court disagreed. "It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity," wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the court. In its ruling, the court assiduously avoided the constitutional snares thrown up by the 9th Circuit, instead taking a crabbed view of the case as a lesson in landlord-tenant law. "The government is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate respondants [the tenants] as members of the general populace," wrote Rehnquist. "It is instead acting as the landlord of a property it owns, invoking a clause in a lease" that tenants have signed. There is no constitutional issue, Rehnquist wrote. Civil rights and tenants' organizations had filed briefs in the case to argue that the policy was unjust, resulting in "horror stories" and "draconian enforcement." A brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School said "a tenant who has only a fleeting connection to the alleged perpetrator of a crime is put at risk because of conduct that only the most paranoid or clairvoyant tenant could possibly have foreseen." Tenant advocates, civil rights groups and drug reformers reacted with horror to the decision. "The war on drugs is being waged most viciously against poor people," the Drug Policy Alliance's Daniel Abrahamson told the New York Times. "Any time the Supreme Court takes a case with drugs in it, it is another opportunity to further erode our civil liberties and constitutional rights." Cornell University law professor Jonathan Macey told the Times the decision "gives legitimacy to the war on drugs." It is "symbolic and morale boosting" for drug warriors, he said. Cardozo School of Law professor Paris Baldacci told the Times the Supreme Court was more concerned with crime than with innocent tenants. "It's that tone, that the court is so caught up in the sort of drug panic that it doesn't step back," he said. "Instead of getting the target who might be causing the reign of terror, this is sweeping up all the people who might have a drug problem." "The only way they can get away with it is because it affects poor people," Sheila Crowley, head of the National Low Income Housing Coalition told the Washington Times. The ruling has opened up both President Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, to jabs from people who recall their family members having drug problems while they occupy public housing (the White House and the governor's mansion). The irony is apparently lost on the Supreme Court.
4. Justice Department Fights to Maintain Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparities Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department is digging in its heels over proposed changes to federal cocaine sentencing guidelines. The US Sentencing Commission has been holding hearings on the disparities in sentencing for the sale of crack and powder cocaine. Under current law, possession of five grams of crack nets the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine, a 100-to-1 ratio that has left thousands of people, primarily African-Americans, facing years in prison for small-scale drug dealing. The current sentencing regime has been widely denounced as unfair, inhumane, racially discriminatory and lacking any scientific basis -- not only by the usual suspects, but by the Sentencing Commission itself, the Judicial Conference of the United States (representing federal judges), and even congressional Republican drug warriors such as Senators Orrin Hatch (UT) and Jeff Sessions (AL), who in January introduced a bill that would reduce disparities by raising the crack trigger to 20 grams and lowering the powder cocaine trigger to 400 grams. Even President Bush has weighed in against the existing disparities. Fourteen months ago, as he entered office, Bush said: "I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that maybe long minimum sentences for the first-time user may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease." Bush also added that he supported "making such the powder cocaine and the crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory." Either Bush has quietly changed his mind or his Justice Department wasn't listening. On March 19, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson told the Sentencing Commission that current penalties are "proper," that no changes in the law are needed, and that if any changes are made, they should only include raising the sentences for powder cocaine offenses. Armed with and speaking from a new Justice Department study that said disparities between crack and powder sentences are not as wide as believed and that the disparity should be reduced by increasing powder cocaine sentences, Thompson defended current policy. "Lowering crack penalties now would simply send the wrong message, that we care less about the people and the communities victimized by crack," Thompson told the commission. "It is something we really cannot support." Thompson and the Justice Department also alleged that crack, which is pharmaceutically indistinguishable from powder cocaine, is somehow more dangerous than powder. "If the debate over the appropriate sentences for crack and powder is to have any real meaning, it must be based on actual data, and it must take into account the more dangerous nature of crack cocaine," the study said. "Crack can be easily broken down and packaged into very small and inexpensive quantities, making it particularly attractive to some of the more vulnerable members of our society," Thompson added. But a memo produced by Ron Weich and distributed by the ACLU shreds Thompson's arguments and the study's findings:
5. The November Coalition Critiques Sessions-Hatch Sentencing Bill (courtesy November Coalition, http://www.november.org) Called the "Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001," and introduced by a drug warrior, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and cosponsored by another, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) last December, Senate Bill 1874 is a bold admission that crack laws have had negative, disproportionate racial impact on people of color. The proponents of the bill want elderly people to be released, and they argue that low-level players in drug conspiracies are serving too much prison time. The bill, however, doesn't address any of these problems, aside from lowering the current five-year sentence for merely possessing crack to one year. The law would also increase guideline sentencing numbers for powder cocaine convictions, adding more years to an already incredibly stiff guideline sentences and furthering the overcrowding of federal prisons. Future drug defendants, from provisions of this bill, would not be sentenced to more than 10 years if they had a 'minimal role' in the offense, which on the face of it sounds like reform. However, "What is a minimal role?" Chuck Armsbury of the November Coalition asks. "The prosecutors and FBI agents decide what the role is going to be, and the snitches tell the story." In December, according to the Wall Street Journal, Hatch and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), wrote Diana Murphy, Chair of the US Sentencing Commission, requesting "guidance as we continue to evaluate the appropriateness of the penalty differential between powder and crack cocaine." The Sentencing Commission published requests for comment in the Federal Register, and, rumor is, the comment time has been extended. The US Sentencing Commission admits that only about 67 crack defendants who entered the federal prison system in the last three years would have been helped by its recent proposals. Would have is an operative word here, indicating no hint of retroactivity for prisoners anywhere even as the word "reform" is awkwardly attached to a sentencing bill that would have only helped 67 people out of thousands upon thousands of crack arrests annually. "It is political grandstanding; they are trying to appease our mounting dissent," warns Gary Callahan, prisoner of the drug war and cofounder of the November Coalition. "Most prosecutors throw an 'intent to distribute' charge on top of the snitch's tale. I'm not sure I've never met a crack prisoner doing time for possession, but I've never been in the camps. So, I've asked men that have been to the camps. They haven't met any either." Sessions, Hatch and the entire Congress and Sentencing Commission do not really need this reminder, but perhaps our members do: Because people of color are historically policed as a group more repressively than white people, 85 percent of powder cocaine defendants are black or brown. "This train of pain may be headed in a new direction," wrote David Sullivan, a prisoner of the drug war. "But they are tentative, insufficient steps that only recognize that there has been great injustice in sentencing." "Our leaders have been ignoring the fact that prosecutors have a plethora of weapons in their legal arsenals. This power remains, just as the continued judicial approval of it. The result is simply license for continuing abuse, misuse and ever longer prison sentences," Sullivan concluded. November Coalition members consequently view S.B. 1874 as a mere admission of injustice in the present federal sentencing system, plus more proposed injustice. Members have written to say how disappointed they were that the news of "reform" was only a cloak for a rash of harsher guideline sentencing. Most feel ever more forsaken and abandoned by leadership. "Words rolling around in DC need to be taken to heart. To make such admissions of racial disparity or question it openly, such as Sen. Leahy has done, was encouraging," said Nora Callahan, Director of the November Coalition. "But the bill itself is another entire entity, with a title designed to raise hope, and contents that are cruel. Now that is a mixed message. The drug war is cruel, though, and you'd think we would all just get used to it. We don't, though. Every day the injustice breaks our hearts all over again. Bills like S. 1874 just make us more determined to expose the injustice, and makes it easier for us to do it, too."
6. State Medical Marijuana Update: Maryland, Vermont and Connecticut The chances for getting a medical marijuana law passed by a state legislature this year are growing slimmer, with bills in only two states -- Maryland and Vermont -- still alive. Both are pared down measures but would still be considered victories if they manage to win votes in the states' upper houses and survive gubernatorial vetoes. In a surprising turn of events over the weekend, Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee chair Joseph Vallario (D-Prince George's County) first killed the medical marijuana bill his committee was considering, then engineered a weaker amended bill easily approved by the committee, and then led the measure to a favorable vote in the whole House. It now goes to the Maryland Senate, where it must be voted out of committee before facing a floor vote. Early signs are that the measure will at least get a hearing. "We have a committee hearing set for April 3; that's a good sign because whether to schedule a vote or a hearing is at the discretion of the committee chair," said Richard Schmitz, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org). "We are hopeful that with the support of Vallario and with Del. Donald Murphy's [R-Baltimore County, sponsor of the Darrell Putnam Compassionate Use Act] tireless work, we will be able to move the bill out of committee next week," he told DRCNet. It didn't happen without some dramatic weekend maneuvers. Vallario, who as committee chair has the ability to effectively kill a bill by sitting on it, had been a long and bitter foe of medical marijuana, but appeared willing to hold hearings until he realized that the measure had enough votes to pass. Then waving a letter from DEA administrator Asa Hutchinson, he abruptly ended the session without allowing a vote. "I am not going to have a part in something that is in violation of federal law," a visibly angry Vallario said. As stunned spectators watched, Vallario then summoned lawmakers into his office for a 15-minute meeting. "Vallario said no way in hell was he going to allow a vote, but then he called Murphy into his office," said Schmitz. "He wouldn't allow the original bill to pass, but he offered instead a bill that would provide an affirmative defense. But he said Murphy's original bill would never make it out of committee." The Murphy bill would have provided for state registration of persons using marijuana under a doctor's recommendation. Under Vallario's amendment, all of that is gone. Instead, the bill will reduce the maximum penalty for people who use marijuana for medical purposes to a $100 fine. Medical marijuana users would still face arrest, but could argue in court that their use is medical and thereby punishable by a lesser fine than the current $1,000 and up to one year in jail. "Del. Murphy decided that one of his goals was to keep medical marijuana patients out of prison, so he accepted the amendment," said Schmitz. The Vallario amendment passed the committee easily on a 14-4 vote. "This is a victory," said Schmitz. "Patients will no longer face the threat of jail, and the $100 fine is the maximum. Judges could order lesser fines or no fines at all. We don't believe that prosecutors will waste their time harassing medical marijuana patients over a $100 fine." In Vermont, that state's medical marijuana bill has been passed by the House and was the subject of Senate committee hearings this week. The Vermont measure would allow seriously ill people to obtain a physician's certificate to use marijuana to alleviate pain, nausea and other symptoms associated with diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS. It authorizes patients or caregivers to grow and possess up to three mature plants, four immature plants, or three ounces of marijuana. Despite support from leading members of the Democratically-controlled state Senate, Democratic Gov. Howard Dean is a staunch opponent and has hinted that he is maneuvering to kill the bill in the Senate so as to avoid having to possibly veto it. "There are all kinds of interesting spots out there," said Dean at a news conference this week when asked about a possible veto. "Usually, you try to anticipate them ahead of time, and avoid those problems, which is what I anticipate we will do this time." But the bill has gotten a hearing in Senate committees this week, in no small part because the Democratic leadership has come out behind it. "It's going to be considered like any other bill," said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin (D-Windham). "I support it. I'm sending it to the Health and Welfare Committee, where it will get a clear hearing," he said, adding again, "I support it." Sen. Nancy Chard (D-Windham), chair of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee also endorsed the bill. "I support it, conceptually," she said. And she allowed a hearing to take place. Supporters of the bill used that opportunity to try to blunt criticism that the bill opened the door to marijuana legalization. Rep. David Zuckerman (P-Burlington), the House bill's lead sponsor, testified that the bill would preclude recreational use. "We are creating a distinction between medical use of marijuana and non-medical recreational use of marijuana," he said. "Let's look at who's using it and why," he said. "We are very confident that this bill will get out of the committee," said MPP's Schmitz. "No one testified in opposition, and Zuckerman and medical marijuana patient Katherine Perrera gave strong testimony." As for Gov. Dean, Schmitz said that he believed the governor is laying low. "The governor has made no secret of his opposition, but he hasn't said a word recently, he hasn't made a mention of a veto. We conducted polling showing 74% support for this. He is aware of those numbers." The Vermont bill still needs to be passed by the Health and Welfare Committee and the Judiciary Committee before coming to a Senate floor vote. In Connecticut, a medical marijuana measure that would have allowed patients with a doctor's approval to grow marijuana indoors died in the end-of-session rush. "It died in committee on Monday," said MPP's Schmitz. "There were 120 bills that needed votes that day. It was number 35. It got caught in a log jam." Medical marijuana via the state legislature in 2002 is down to two states.
7. DC Federal Court Declares Ban on Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Unconstitutional, Opens Way for New Initiative Effort Medical marijuana users and the Marijuana Policy Project won a major victory in federal court in Washington on Thursday when the court threw out Rep. Bob Barr's (R-GA) amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. The Barr amendment blocked the DC government from spending funds for a medical marijuana initiative. MPP immediately announced that it was kick-starting a medical marijuana initiative petition drive to put the issue on the District ballot in November. "MPP originally filed our initiative with the DC government in July. After delaying for five months, the government blocked us from moving forward with the initiative because of the so-called Barr Amendment -- so we sued them," wrote MPP executive director Rob Kampia in a statement announcing the decision. "Barr and his congressional allies tried to prevent our medical marijuana initiative from getting onto the local ballot, and we beat them." US District Judge Emmet Sullivan was unequivocal in declaring the Barr amendment unconstitutional. "There can be no doubt that the Barr Amendment restricts plaintiffs' First Amendment right to engage in political speech," he wrote before ordering the DC government to allow MPP's ballot drive to proceed. Barr has made blocking the District's residents from exercising their constitutional rights on the medical marijuana issue a personal crusade. When District voters went to the polls for a medical marijuana initiative in 1998, Barr blocked the District from counting the votes. It took eighteen months and a lawsuit for Washington residents to discover that they had approved medical marijuana by a margin of 69% to 21%. But Barr blocked the vote from being implemented and has offered language in each appropriations bill since then to similarly nullify democracy in the nation's capital. Time is short to get an initiative on the ballot, wrote Kampia. "With today's victory in court, we have less than two months to gather 16,000 valid signatures -- meaning we need 25,000 total signatures --to place our medical marijuana question on the ballot this November. If we do not gather the signatures in time, all of this will have been a wasted effort." According to Kampia, an initiative in the District could lead to the first congressional debate on the merits of medical marijuana. "Someone in Congress will introduce a motion to overturn the medical marijuana initiative, and our supporters in Congress will stand up for the rights of DC voters and medical marijuana patients, as they have done before," Kampia prophesied. "And the medical marijuana debate will play out in Congress... on national TV... for the first time ever." And all of this will cost money. Kampia is looking for donations totaling $50,000 to pay dozens of petitioners for the intensive effort. Potential donors may visit http://www.mpp.org/lawsuit/ online.
8. Vancouver Mayor Calls for Marijuana Legalization In an interview with the Vancouver Courier on Wednesday, Vancouver, British Columbia, Mayor Phillip Owens said that marijuana should be decriminalized. Owens told the Courier that marijuana should be available for sale like alcohol and tobacco. Owens becomes the first major Canadian politician to publicly call for an end to marijuana prohibition. With an estimated 10,000+ indoor marijuana grow operations within the city limits, Vancouver is the epicenter of the burgeoning British Columbia marijuana industry. BC Bud is estimated to employ nearly 100,000 British Columbians and generate at least $4 billion per year. (Earlier this week, police in Ontario estimated that marijuana had become that province's number three agricultural product with an estimated $1 billion income for marijuana growers. Ontario marijuana income surpassed that from hog production and is exceeded only by the income from the beef and dairy cattle sectors, Ontario officials said.) Owens' comments are a logical extension of his harm reduction approach to drug policy in Vancouver, which in addition to the marijuana growers is home to the continent's largest open-air hard drug scene. For Owens, hard drug use is a medical problem, not a criminal activity, and now, marijuana use should be viewed as neither. But marijuana prohibition is a huge problem for police, said Owen. Vancouver police are spending "in excess" of $1 million per year attempting to enforce the marijuana laws, to no apparent effect, Owen told the Courier. Wait, strike that, said Owen, there is one effect of enforcing the marijuana laws that is clear: It encourages criminals seeking black market profits. Part of the backlash against marijuana growers in Vancouver and across Canada stems from organized crime groups turning residential rental houses into potential hazardous industrial indoor grow ops. Under decrim, presumably, indoor grows would no longer be necessary as police would no longer be arresting growers. But Owens' argument fails to acknowledge the existence of a huge, highly profitable black market just minutes away: the United States. As long as marijuana prohibition exists in the US, Canadian growers will still succumb to the lure of black market profits and industrial grow ops aimed at the US market will continue to exist. The 69-year-old Owen told the Courier he has never used marijuana. "It just wasn't around," he said, explaining that beer was his drug of choice. "I never even heard about marijuana until I was married," he said. He did not explain the relationship between those two events. The public is ready for a debate on hard and soft drugs and is ready to change the marijuana laws, said Owen. Public opinion polls showing Canadians just about evenly split on ending marijuana prohibition back him up. Vancouver has come a long way in the past three decades. Just over 30 years ago, then Mayor Tom Campbell unleashed a police riot against a peaceful smoke-in in Gastown. Now, Campbell is gone, but the smell of pot smoke still lingers and is in fact growing rather stronger.
9. Marijuana Politics Hits French Presidential Race -- Jospin Plays It Both Ways With French presidential elections looming in May, the politics of cannabis has made its way into the campaign. Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin on Tuesday caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth among French conservatives when he remarked that smoking a joint at home was less dangerous than drinking and driving. The rightists' ire was not lessened despite the fact that Jospin quickly added that he would oppose any change in French cannabis laws, which, on paper at least, are among the most draconian in Europe. "Smoking a joint at home is certainly less dangerous than drinking and driving," Jospin told Agence France-Presse in a fax interview. And, hinting at a more lenient approach to marijuana users, Jospin added that while he opposed decriminalizing cannabis, the drug laws should be applied "in an intelligent manner" toward cannabis users. With Jospin locked in a neck-and-neck race with current President Jacques Chirac, of the conservative Rally for the Republic Party (RPR), Chirac backers jumped at the chance to criticize Jospin as soft on drugs. "This is typical of the attitude of his government, whose ministers have sought time and time again to trivialize this issue," RPR deputy Bernard Accoyer told Reuters. "He clearly has no idea of the real damage caused by cannabis," argued Accoyer. Jospin's foes also accuse him of pandering to pro-cannabis voters, a charge that may hold more weight. Some four million French are believed to be cannabis users. But with his remarks on the relative safety of cannabis balanced by his continuing refusal to countenance decriminalization, Jospin appears to be trying to pull a Bill Clinton on cannabis. He toked up the idea of a common sense approach to cannabis, but didn't inhale the argument that it should be decriminalized. Whether Jospin will win any cannabis votes with his "take both sides" position remains to be seen. Jospin danced a similar pirouette in 1997 after winning a parliamentary election. He suggested then that he would consider relaxing the cannabis laws, but backed off when the right squealed in protest. Twelve candidates are running for president, but only Jospin and Chirac have a chance of winning. Two candidates, the Green Party's Noel Mamerer and Olivier Besancenot, a 27-year-old Trotskyite mailman, back the outright legalization of cannabis. They were joined on Tuesday by Le Nouvel Observateur, a left-leaning political magazine, which said in an editorial that day that legalization of all drugs would be preferable to the status quo. "Instead of being run by gangsters, it would be in the hands of a few professionals," said the magazine.
10. DRCNet Files FOIA Request for Justice Department List of 52 Internet Drug Menace Web Sites As DRCNet reported two weeks ago, the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) in December released a study of the "drug menace" to American youth on the Internet (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/228.html#ominouslook). Although the study, "Drugs and the Internet: An Overview of the Threat to America's Youth" purported to target web sites involved in facilitating the use, manufacture or distribution of non-prescription drugs, NDIC's sample of 52 web sites, however, included "32 sites [that were] probably associated with drug legalization groups." NDIC did not list the names of the 52 web sites in the study. It rebuffed three weeks of efforts by writers from Wired Online, which broke the story, to obtain those names. NDIC also rebuffed DRCNet in our effort to determine whether DRCNet was one of the web sites listed. An NDIC spokesman contacted by DRCNet did say that monitoring of the web sites was not ongoing, but refused to confirm whether DRCNet was among those sites or release the names of the offending web sites. Drug reform organizations are concerned that an overanxious federal government will monitor constitutionally protected free speech in its effort to banish drug sales from the Internet. The Justice Department, via the NDIC study, has already made abundantly clear that it cannot or will not differentiate between web sites that facilitate drug sales and web sites that present a political viewpoint on drug policy. "This is an attempt at intimidation, an attempt to chill First Amendment rights," said Richard Glen Boire of the Center for Cognitive Liberties and Ethics (http://www.alchemind.org/CCLE/), an organization devoted to defending the mental freedom of individuals, including the right to alter their consciousness. "It encroaches upon cherished First Amendment rights in an area that is currently of great public importance and public debate," he told DRCNet two weeks ago. "This is an unsurprising, but very, very disturbing expansion of the war on drugs. It's as if they want to go after not just mind-altering substances, but the very words themselves," he said. "The government seems to think that even discussing drug policy with any point of view other than theirs is somehow unpatriotic or encouraging illegal drug activity. That's a chilling prospect." DRCNet this Monday filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with NDIC demanding that it release the names and Internet addresses of the 52 web sites. Under the act, the agency from which information is demanded must respond within ten working days by notifying the requester that it will or will not comply with the request. The act provides exemptions for certain categories of information, such as national security or oil wells, which should not impact the DRCNet FOIA request, but one category -- ongoing law enforcement investigations -- may provide cover for NDIC to refuse to release the information. If NDIC refuses to release the names, DRCNet can and will begin an administrative appeal, to which NDIC must respond within 20 working days. If the administrative appeal is rejected, DRCNet can pursue the matter in federal court. DRCNet will cross that bridge when we come to it. As far as responses, the law is one thing and reality is quite another. According to the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) "Using the Freedom of Information Act: A Step-By-Step Guide (http://www.aclu.org/library/foia.html#basics), federal courts accept delays in government responses as long as requests are being handled on a first-come first-serve basis. "Many agencies meet their deadlines, but others are notoriously slow," the ACLU noted. "When dealing with a backlogged agency, you could wait up to three months before you hear anything, and they may occasionally take years before a final response is made." The NDIC is an obscure Justice Department fiefdom and is probably not inundated with FOIA requests. The clock is ticking.
11. Alerts: HEA, Bolivia, DEA Hemp Ban, SuperBowl Ad, Ecstasy Legislation, Mandatory Minimums, Medical Marijuana Click on the links below for information on these issues and web forms to help you contact Congress: Repeal the Higher Education Act Drug Provision (Please submit listings of events concerning drug policy and related topics to [email protected].)
April 2, Grand Junction, CO, Protest for Liberty and Against Victimless Crimes. At City Hall, Mesa County Justice Center, visit http://students.mesastate.edu/~jahawk/ for information.
April 4-7, Geneva, Switzerland, Congress of the Transnational Radical Party, visit http://www.radicalparty.org for information.
April 6, Ann Arbor, MI, "Hash Bash," 11:00am candlelight vigil at Federal Building (Liberty at Division), noon at University of Michigan Diag and 4:20 at Wheeler Park (Depot & N. 4th). Visit http://www.hashbash.com or e-mail [email protected] for information.
April 6, noon-3:00pm, Tucson, AZ, "Prisoners Are People Day," presentations by community leaders, live music, food, children's activities, access to community service providers, prisoner art show and more. Sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, at Himmel Park, 1000 N. Tucson Boulevard, for further information call (520) 623-9141.
April 6, 1:00pm, Asheville, NC, memorial service for AIDS and harm reduction activist Marty Prairie. At the Cathedral of All Souls, Biltmore Village, e-mail [email protected] for information.
April 7-16, upstate New York, New York Interfaith Prison Pilgrimage, mile per day or more walk to major prisons "to vigil, pray, and seek a new, more humane response" to incarceration and the prison system. For further information, visit http://users.bestweb.net/~cureny/walk.htm or contact the Western New York Peace Center at (716) 894-2013, the Judicial Process Commission at (716) 325, 7727, or e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].
April 8, 9:00am-noon, Philadelphia, PA, "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs." Judges forum sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild, at Temple University School of Law, Kiva Auditorium (Ritter Hall Annex), $35.00 with CLE credit, $10.00 without, contact Roseanne Scotti at (215) 746-7370 or [email protected] for information or to register.
April 8, 6:00pm, Philadelphia, PA, "Table Talk: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs," dinner, speech and discussion with Judge James P. Gray of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. At the White Dog Cafe, 3420 Sansom St., $30/person includes three course dinner with tax and gratuity, senior and student discounts available. Call (215) 386-9224 or visit http://www.whitedog.com/04082002.html for further information.
April 8-13, Gainesville, FL, "Drug Education Week," series of presentations on different topics in the drug war, including daily keynote, followed by Saturday free concert. Hosted by University of Florida Students for Sensible Drug Policy, visit http://grove.ufl.edu/~ssdp/ or e-mail [email protected] for further information.
April 9, noon, Houston, TX, "Moving Beyond the War on Drugs." Drug Policy Forum of Texas luncheon with Dr. Marsha Rosenbaum, at the Warwick Hotel, contact [email protected] for information.
April 10, 8:00pm, St. Louis, MO, "Why We Must End the War on Drugs." Presentation by Mike Gray at Washington University, McDonnell 162, contact John Payne of Washington University Students for Sensible Drug Policy at [email protected] for info.
April 12-14, Chicago, IL, "Towards a Sensible Drug Policy: Educating, Empowering and Encouraging Reform," 2nd annual midwest conference by Students for Sensible Drug Policy. HEA protest at 11:30am on 4/12, conference at Loyola University's Lake Shore campus, early bird registration through April 1, contact Matt Atwood at (847)800-6696 or [email protected] or visit http://www.ssdp.org for further information.
April 13, 1:00-10:00pm, Tallahassee, FL, "Tallahassee Hemp Culture Fest." Bands and speakers to be announced, contact Florida State University NORML at [email protected] for information.
April 13, 5:30pm, Honolulu, HI, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii Annual Meeting, featuring former ACLU director Ira Glasser. At Che Pasta Restaurant, 1001 Bishop Street in Bishop Square, reception at 5:30, dinner at 6:30, program at 7:30. Admission $25 for members or $35 for non-members (membership available at door), RSVP to Darlene Hein at (808) 384-7794 or April 18-20, San Francisco, CA, 2002 NORML Conference. At the Crowne Plaza Hotel at Union Square, registration $150, call (202) 483-5500 for further information. Online registration will be available at http://www.norml.org in the near future.
April 19-20, Sweetwater, TN, "Freedom Fest," sponsored by NORML UTK. Visit http://www.webnow.com/goldenboy/ to order tickets, or contact Rachel at [email protected] for further information.
April 19-21, Seattle, WA, Amnesty International USA 2002 Annual General Meeting. At the Renaissance Madison Hotel, visit http://www.aiusa.org for further information. (Dues-paying Amnesty members will have the opportunity to vote on a groundbreaking anti-drug war resolution.)
April 20, Eau Claire, WI, noon, Hemp Festival with UWEC SSDP. Music, information, speakers, raffle and more, at the Eau Claire Rod and Gun Park, visit http://www.uwec.edu/Student/CHILI/ for further information.
April 20, noon, Jacksonville, FL, Jacksonville Hemp Festival. Contact Scott at (904) 732-4785 for further information.
April 20, noon-11:00pm, Kingston, RI, Fourth Annual "Day for HOPE," sponsored by the University of Rhode Island's Hemp Organization for Prohibition Elimination (HOPE). On the URI Quad, featuring music, speakers, vendors and food. Contact Thomas Angell at [email protected] for further information.
April 20, 3:00-8:00pm, Atlanta, GA, "Atlanta 420," regional gathering of marijuana activists and reformers with entertainment, speakers and organizations. Presented by CAMP, in Piedmont Park, in downtown Atlanta, e-mail [email protected], visit http://www.worldcamp.org or call (404) 522-2267 for information.
April 20, 4:20pm-1:00am, Detroit, MI, "4/20 at the Forum." At G.I. Forum Hall, 6705 West Lafayette, visit http://www.geocities.com/legalizemichigan/420FORUM.htm for further information.
April 20, 2002. Moscow Hemp Festival in Moscow, Idaho. E-mail [email protected] for more information.
April 20-21, Montreal, Canada, First Congress of the Marijuana Party of Canada. At the Université de Québec à Montréal, 320 Sainte-Catherine east, room DS-R510, for information contact Boris St. Maurice at (514) 528-1768 or mailto:[email protected]">[email protected].
April 24-27, Albuquerque, NM, "Public Health for All is Justice Served," Twelfth North American Syringe Exchange Convention. For information, e-mail [email protected], visit http://www.nasen.org or call (253) 272-4857.
April 27, 7:00pm-4:00am, Mays Landing, NJ, 4th Annual Cures Not Wars Benefit Concert. Speakers and music, at Finnerty's Hut, 7134 Black Horse Pike (route 322), age 21 and over, admission $10. Contact Mark Dickson at [email protected] for information.
April 27-28, Middletown, CT, "Northeast Summit for New Drug Policies." Regional gathering of anti-prohibition thinkers and activists, hosted by Wesleyan University Students for Sensible Drug Policy and cosponsored by Efficacy, for interested parties of all ages. Recommended donation $5-$15 sliding scale, contact Booth Haley at (860) 685-4350 or [email protected] or visit http://dgelbtuch.web.wesleyan.edu for further information.
May 3-4, Portland, OR, Second National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics, focus on Analgesia and Other Indications. Sponsored by Patients Out of Time, the Oregon Nurses Association and Oregon Health Division, for further information visit e-mail [email protected], http://www.medicalcannabis.com or call (434) 263-4484.
May 4, international, "Million Marijuana March," demonstrations in many cities worldwide. Visit http://www.cures-not-wars.org/mmm/ for information and local event listings.
May 22, Portland, OR, noon-1:30pm, "Rethinking the War on Drugs," luncheon forum with New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Sponsored by the Cascade Policy Institute, at the Benson Hotel, Mayfair Ballroom, 309 SW Broadway. RSVP to (503) 242-0900 or [email protected], or visit http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/events/Gov_Johnson_Web_Flyer.pdf for further information.
June 22, Philadelphia, PA, "Mid-Atlantic Criminal Justice Colloquium: Fostering Compassion, Dignity and Hope," colloquium organized by the Drug Concerns Working Group of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). For further information or to get involved, contact Melissa Whaley at (856) 303-0280 or [email protected].
July 5-7, Bryn Mawr, PA, "Liberty & Crisis," student seminar with the Institute for Humane Studies. Participation free, application deadline March 29, visit http://www.theihs.org/tab3/thefirst.html or e-mail [email protected] for further information.
September 26-28, Los Angeles, CA, "Breaking the Chains: People of Color and the War on Drugs." Conference by the Drug Policy Alliance, e-mail [email protected] to be placed on mailing list for when details become available.
December 1-4, Seattle, WA, "Taking Drug Users Seriously," Fourth National Harm Reduction Conference. Sponsored by the Harm Reduction Coalition, featuring keynote speaker Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former US Surgeon General. For information, e-mail [email protected], visit http://www.harmreduction.org or call (212) 213-6376. If you like what you see here
and want to get these bulletins by e-mail, please fill out our quick
signup form at https://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml.
PERMISSION to reprint or
redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby
granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and,
where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your
publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks
payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for
materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we
request notification for our records, including physical copies where
material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network,
P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202)
293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank
you.
Articles of a purely
educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet
Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
