It's official!! The California Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 initiative has qualified for the November ballot. Californians will be voting on legalizing weed this year!
Both a medical marijuana dispensary initiative and a hemp/marijuana legalization initiative are trying to make the November ballot in Oregon. The dispensary initiative is currently better positioned to do so, but the legalization initiative has about 90 days to join it.
In a guest piece for the Chronicle, law professor John Calvin Jones dissects the case of a New Jersey man who ended up headed for prison for growing marijuana after police were called because he and his girlfriend were too loud during sex. He has some useful tips for people who want to know how to exercise their rights and avoid ending up like this guy.
StoptheDrugWar.org is pleased to be the first drug policy organization to offer this important new video to our members -- your donations will support our work of building the movement and fueling public debate, too.
Millions of people have viewed -- and benefited from -- the film "Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters." The new Flex Your Rights film, "10 Rules for Dealing with Police," has taken things to the next level, in more ways than one.
An Atlanta cop gets nailed, a Tarheel State two-fer, and the de rigeuer dope-smuggling jail guard.
Things that make you go hmmm... In one incident in Mexico this week, gunmen attacked a convoy carrying two prisoners. In the aftermath, the two prisoners were turned over to the Mexican Marines. Next thing you know, one of them turns up dead on the side of a road and the other has gone missing. Hmmm.
New Jersey MS patient John Ray Wilson was convicted of growing marijuana in December. The state legalized medical marijuana in January. But Wilson was still sentenced to five years in prison last week.
New York City is about to pay big time -- again! -- for forcing people accused of minor crimes, including public marijuana possession, to undergo humiliating strip-searches. This is the third time in nine years the city has had to pay out for this practice. Will NYC ever learn?
The illegal drug supply is increasing, and Mexican narcos are public enemy #1, according to the Justice Department's primary drug intelligence unit. There's no end in sight, the unit concludes.
Dutch marijuana laws only allow coffee shops to have 500 grams on hand at any given time. When you're selling that much pot in an hour, the law becomes a hindrance and a nuisance. But a court ruling Thursday strongly suggests to coffee shop owners that they better heed the law.
Canadians who support marijuana decriminalization outnumber opponents by 20 percentage points, according to a new poll. 20% aren't sure.
Events and quotes of note from this week's drug policy events of years past.
"An Argument to Avoid Making," "If You Call Yourself a Drug Policy Reformer, You Need to Watch This," "The Real Reason Football Players Aren't Supposed to Use Marijuana," "Researchers Prove Definitively That the Drug War Sucks," "The 'Fake Marijuana' Situation is Getting Confusing," "The War on Drugs Is Doomed," "Cops + Drugs = Corruption," "'No, the Number One Thug in This Movie is Definitely Scott Morgan.'"
Do you read Drug War Chronicle? If so, we need your feedback to evaluate our work and make the case for Drug War Chronicle to funders. We need donations too.
Apply for an internship at DRCNet and you could spend a semester fighting the good fight!
Californians will be voting on whether to legalize marijuana in November. The California Secretary of State's office Wednesday certified the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 initiative as having handed in enough valid voters' signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
Will California take the next step? (photo courtesy wikimedia.org)
The initiative is sponsored by Oaksterdam medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee and would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults and allow for personal grows of up to 25 square feet. It also provides for the taxed and regulated sale of marijuana by local option, meaning counties and municipalities could opt out of legalized marijuana sales.
Some 433,000 valid signatures were required to make the ballot; the initiative campaign had gathered some 690,000. On Tuesday, state officials had certified 415,000 signatures as valid, but that didn't include signatures from Los Angeles County. Initiative supporters there Wednesday handed in more than 140,000 signatures. With an overall signature validity rate of around 80%, that as much as ensured that the measure would make the ballot.
Late Wednesday afternoon, the California Secretary of State's office made it official. Its web page listing Qualified Ballot Measures now includes the marijuana legalization under initiative approved for the November ballot. The 104,000 valid signatures from Los Angeles County put it well over the top.
"This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources, and making criminals of countless law-abiding citizens. Elected officials haven't stopped these punitive, profligate policies. Now voters can bring the reality check of sensible marijuana regulation to California."
"If passed, this initiative would offer a welcome change to California's miserable status quo marijuana policy," said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which recently endorsed the initiative. "Our current marijuana laws are failing California. Year after year, prohibition forces police to spend time chasing down nonviolent marijuana offenders while tens of thousands of violent crimes go unsolved -- all while marijuana use and availability remain unchanged."
Proponents of the measure will emphasize the fiscal impact of taxing marijuana -- the state Board of Equalization has estimated that legalization could generate $1.3 billion in tax revenues a year -- as well as the impact that regulation could have on reducing teen access to the weed. They can also point out that by now, California has lived with a form of regulated marijuana distribution -- the medical marijuana dispensary system -- for years and the sky hasn't fallen.
Opponents, which will largely consist of law enforcement lobbying groups, community anti-drug organizations, and elements of the African-American religious community, will argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and that crime and drugged driving will increase.
But if opponents want to play the cop card, initiative organizers have some cards of their own. In a press release Wednesday evening, they had several former law enforcement figures lined up in support of taxation and regulation. "As a retired Orange County Judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working," said retired Superior Court Judge and former prosecutor James P. Gray. "Controlling marijuana with regulations similar to those currently in place for alcohol will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business."
"The Control and Tax Initiative is a welcome change for law enforcement in California," said Kyle Kazan, a retired Torrance Police officer. "It will allow police to get back to work fighting violent crime."
Jeffrey Studdard, a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, emphasized the significant controls created by the Control and Tax Initiative to safely and responsibly regulate cannabis. "The initiative will toughen penalties for providing marijuana to minors, ban possession at schools, and prohibit public consumption," Studdard said.
But the three leading contenders for the California governorship, which is also up for grabs this year, were quick to stake out positions opposing the initiative. "I've already indicated that that's not a provision I am likely to support," state Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown told a gathering of law enforcement officials in Sacramento Wednesday. "I've been on the side of law enforcement for a long time and you can be sure that we will be together on this November ballot."
Republican candidate Meg Whitman is "absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason," said spokeswoman Sarah Pompei. "She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization," she said.
"Like electing Jerry Brown, the idea of legalizing drugs is one more bad idea from a bygone era," said Jarrod Agen, communications director for GOP candidate Steve Poizner. "Steve Poizner feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state's economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit," he said.
The campaign should be a nail-biter. Legalization polled 56% in an April Field poll, and initiative organizers say their own private research is showing similar results. But the conventional wisdom among initiative watchers is that polling needs to be above 60% at the beginning of the campaign, before attacks on specific aspects of any given initiative begin to erode support. But despite the misgivings of some movement allies, who cringe at the thought of defeat in California, this year's legalization vote is now a reality.
"California led the way on medical marijuana with Prop. 215 in 1996," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Now it's time again for California to lead the way in ending the follies of marijuana prohibition in favor of a responsible policy of tax and regulation."
back to top
Oregon, the first state to decriminalize marijuana in the modern era and one of the first to approve a medical marijuana law, could become a battleground for marijuana reform again this year. Two separate initiatives, one aimed at improving the state's existing medical marijuana program, and one that seeks to legalize and regulate marijuana and hemp, are campaigning to be certified for the November ballot.
The medical marijuana initiative, I-28, would create a system of state-regulated dispensaries and state-licensed medical marijuana producers. Dispensaries would have to be Oregon nonprofits, and pay a $2,000 license fee and a 10% tax on gross sales. Licensed producers would have to pay a $1,000 license fee and the 10% tax. Patients registered under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program would be able to buy their supplies at any dispensary, and dispensaries would be able to buy from any licensed producer.
I-28 would not stop patients from growing their own, nor would it impede them from resorting to a caregiver, as they can do currently.
"Our medical marijuana law lacks an effective supply system," said John Sajo of Voter Power, the group behind both the passage of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act in 1998 and the current initiative to reform it. "The law is pretty good on keeping patients from getting arrested, but has produced very mixed results in terms of actually getting patients their medicine. A supply system that relies on patients producing their own medicine is primitive. Instead, we'd like to do it like California, where they can go to a dispensary and have myriad choices," he said.
The current system, which does not allow for medical marijuana sales, results in thousands of patients begging their medicine from other patients, Sajo said, and leaves thousands more with without an adequate supply or with no supply at all. "The law works well for you if you live on a farm or have good social skills, but if you're terminally ill in a hospice, you might be out of luck," he said.
But the California dispensary system is often criticized in Oregon as little more than money-grubbing capitalism at odds with Oregon values that exploits patients. The Oregon medical marijuana community contains a sizeable contingent that holds to beliefs and values that might seem quaint or unusual in the rest of the country, especially in light of the recent debate over health care reform: that patients should not have to pay for their medicine and that no one should be profiting from sick patients.
"We face a barrage of criticism that we will be exploiting patients and selling medicine at top dollar, but we've done everything we can to structure the system to avoid that," said Sajo. "We will be taking the best from California and avoiding the worst. There are places there, like Harborside and the Berkeley Patients Group, that are excellent members of the community, that fund social services, that provide high-quality labeled medicine. I think our Oregon dispensary system, with its uniform statewide regulation, will tend to create a system like that rather than one like in Los Angeles, with its fly-by-night dispensaries."
Competing with I-28 for the interest and dollars of the marijuana community, as well as national reform groups, is the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA) initiative campaign, which would legalize and deregulate hemp production, provide for licensed marijuana cultivation with the crop to be purchased by the state, and provide for sale to adults through a system of state stores. Its ballot summary reads as follows:
"... Measure replaces state, local marijuana laws except medical marijuana and driving under the influence laws; distinguishes 'hemp' from 'marijuana'; prohibits regulation of hemp. Creates agency to license marijuana cultivation by qualified persons and to purchase entire crop. Agency sells marijuana at cost to pharmacies, medical research facilities, and to qualified adults for profit through state stores. Ninety percent of net proceeds goes to state general fund, remainder to drug education, treatment, hemp promotion. Bans sales to, possession by minors. Bans public consumption except where signs permit, minors barred. Agency to regulate use, set prices, other duties; Attorney General to defend against federal challenges/prosecution. Provides penalties. Effective January 1, 2011"
The charge for OCTA is being led by Oregon NORML. The time is right, said Oregon NORML executive director Madeline Martinez. "Our position is that our initiative is the right initiative at the right time," said Martinez. "We are emphasizing the Oregon cannabis control commission and the industrial hemp angle. With hemp, we can get some green jobs going."
"Paul Stanford is funding a lot of this effort," said Martinez, referring to the medical marijuana entrepreneur who operates clinics in four states -- Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Michigan -- under the auspices of The Hemp Cannabis Foundation. Stanford also heads the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp (CRRH), a political action committee, which will be helping to fund the initiative effort.
But while signature gathering for I-28 is well underway, OCTA has yet to begin signature gathering -- and the clock is ticking toward a July 2 deadline. OCTA has been delayed by a last-minute challenge to its ballot title, which the Oregon Supreme Court just resolved yesterday. That leaves I-28 much better positioned at this point to actually make the November ballot.
"Oregon law requires that we turn in signatures gathered by paid signature gatherers monthly," said Sajo. "We turned in 60,000 signatures in January, 7,000 more in February, 8,000 more in March, and an additional 15,000 signatures gathered by volunteers. That means we've collected over 90,000 signatures, and since we only need 82,000 to qualify, now we're working on the buffer. We are aiming at 120,000 to 130,000. If we turn in signatures by May 21, the state will verify those we've turned in and tell us how many are valid, and we will still have until the July 2 deadline to collect any more that we need."
"We have a little over 90 days to gather all the OCTA signatures, and that will put a squeeze on us, but our campaign is ready and we've got everybody at the starting gate ready to run out and gather them once we get the go-ahead," said Martinez. "We are still confident about our prospects."
"We are currently in the process of collecting pledges from people who really want to sign the petitions," said OCTA director of field operations Kyndall Mason. "Our ballot title was challenged, and that's being deliberated on the fast-track by the state Supreme Court, but this delay is not helpful. Still, we've been laying low and building grassroots support."
It's not just grassroots support. In addition to the dollars coming from Paul Stanford, OCTA can also count on some out-of-state support, including a series of six concerts by musician John Trudell, and appearances by national NORML officers. NORML founder Keith Stroup has already been out campaigning, the organization has committed to a small campaign donation, and NORML will hold its annual conference this year in Portland, or "Potland," as some Oregon activists are referring to it.
And OCTA activists continue to seek support. "We're in the process of outreach to national groups," said Mason. "We're getting individual donations, and we have some house parties lined up, but thanks to Paul Stanford we have a lot of funding right now."
Like I-28, OCTA needs 82,769 valid signatures by July 2 to make the November ballot. But because of the ballot title challenge, OCTA is going to have to collect them in a compressed time period.
"We think we'll start signature gathering in mid-April, and we're pretty confident we will be able to turn in enough to qualify. We want to collect 125,000 signatures to have that margin of comfort," said Mason. "We don't see any reason to postpone this at this point. All of us really agree that now is the time to capture the momentum that is out there."
As with OCTA, money is a concern for I-28, too. Voter Power is taking on the bulk of responsibility for financing the campaign, said Sajo. "We did get a Marijuana Policy Project grant and we just got a small grant from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), but otherwise, we're just raising money from small contributors and from our medical marijuana clinics."
"Our grants program approved $25,000 to help I-28 qualify for the ballot," confirmed DPA executive director Ethan Nadelmann. "We've done our due diligence, and our sense is that this initiative is a winner. It will help resolve a bunch of issues with the Oregon medical marijuana program."
Voter Power operates four clinics in Oregon, said Sajo, but he also noted that the medical marijuana business has become more competitive. "Our market share is declining at the same time we are trying to fund this political effort," he said.
There is some tension between the two initiative campaigns -- OCTA supporters accuse an I-28 advocate of doing the last-minute ballot title challenge that has delayed their signature-gathering -- and leaders of both campaigns are striving to minimize them, but haven't quite mastered that old adage about "if you can't say something nice..."
"Oregon NORML doesn't take a stand on I-28," said Martinez, but couldn't resist adding: "Dispensaries are so '90s. There is such a small segment of Oregonians who could create revenue from the dispensaries in comparison to the 357,000 Oregonians who consume cannabis. If we're looking at this from a revenue perspective and we're serious, it's only logical to look at the larger population, and that's cannabis consumers, not medical marijuana patients."
"We haven't taken a formal position on OCTA," said Voter Power's Sajo. "Informally, we'd like to see something like that happen, but we're not sure the timing is right to do it this year. We do support taxing and regulating marijuana, and we'll vote for it if it qualifies, but in terms of strategies for our movement, trying to do two initiatives at the same time divides our resources and creates confusion. We don't think OCTA is ready for prime-time."
But for many Oregon activists the internecine sniping is beside the point. "We absolutely support both initiatives," said Melanie Bariskis of Southern Oregon NORML, "but the problem is that OCTA is not yet ready for circulation. Right now, we are pushing I-28 and gathering signatures for it. We support OCTA philosophically, and we will support it with signature gathering when it is ready."
We will know by early July whether either, neither, or both initiatives make the November ballot. Perhaps by then, Oregon's medical and recreational marijuana communities can take those rifles they're using in their circular firing squads and begin aiming them at their real foes.
back to top
by John Calvin Jones, professor of law, American University in Bosnia and Hercegovina
[Editor's Note: Last week we reviewed Flex Your Rights' new video, "10 Rules for Dealing with Police." Coincidentally, this piece from law professor John Calvin Jones came in over the transom at the same time. Like Flex Your Rights, Jones, too, is attempting to educate Americans about how to effectively exercise their constitutional rights -- and what can happen to you when you fail to do so. Jones' rules are a little different from Flex Your Rights' "10 Rules," but both are saying essentially the same thing. Here we present Jones' analysis of the case of one New Jersey man and what happened to him when he failed to exercise his rights.]
The latest case of a naïve marijuana grower comes out of New Jersey, where, on March 15, an appellate court affirmed a ruling from 2007 which denied a motion to suppress evidence: a seizure of a lot of weed from the house of one Brian McGacken. Recent headlines on Slate and other web sites emphasized why the police arrived at McGacken's house in the first place -- apparently he and his girlfriend were loud while having sex -- so loud that police received an "anonymous 911 call." Having the police come to your home because of loud sex could lead to amusing anecdotes down the years, but it is doubtful McGacken is finding anything to laugh about.
Instead, we have a scenario where police enter the house, follow McGacken upstairs (without being invited), smell pot, then start asking questions, and well, we know the rest. Before reviewing the legal arguments and ultimate ruling of two New Jersey Appellate Division judges (Lihotz and Ashrafi) in New Jersey v. McGacken, let me start with the errors of Brian McGacken.
According to the opinion, as admitted by McGacken, when police arrived at his place to investigate the 911 call, McGacken invited the police into the foyer. Rule #1: If you are growing any plants, much less have any weed in your domicile, do not invite the police inside. Then, after McGacken explained that any reports of screaming were accurate -- as then confirmed by his sex partner, police asked McGacken for ID. Rule #2: If you are growing weed in your house, speak to the police as little as possible. And since the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), unless you live in one of 20 states that have a law requiring you to identify yourself, which NJ does not, then you do not need to say anything to the police. That is, it is not a crime to refuse to answer or ID yourself -- even the Appellate Court in McGacken's case noted that. Regardless, if you do live in one of those self-ID states, just give your full name -- do not lie -- and then say nothing more.
By the way, the Supreme Court qualified the issue of ID laws in Hiibel, noting that one must identify only when police say that they have reason to believe that a person is suspected of committing a crime. If you ask the police if you are suspected of a crime, and they say no, as was the case with McGacken, not only are you not required to show ID, but you should then apply Rule #3: Always ask the police, "Am I free to leave?" If they say "no," but are still in your house -- tell them to leave, that you do not consent to their presence or search, and get the phone and tell them that you are calling your lawyer. (The reason you say that you are calling a lawyer is two-fold: first, it puts the cops on notice that they should go harass someone else; and second, while they will tell you that you cannot use the phone, they know that one can always have counsel present while in custody -- so you can surely have advice of counsel when you are not in custody). Of course, you do not have to call any real lawyer, just call your own voicemail and make a recording of the events in a loud voice saying stuff like: "The police are in my house/apartment without a warrant and no probable cause, they are not invited, I have asked them to leave, I do not consent to any search, etc." If after all that, the police still do not leave, just sit there -- and be quiet.
Needless to say, McGacken did not follow rules #2 or #3 either. But, according to the court opinion -- McGacken admitted he went upstairs to get his ID, and was followed by New Jersey State Trooper Thomas Holmes.
According to the opinion, "Trooper Holmes testified that he followed defendant upstairs for two reasons -- to protect his own and his fellow trooper's safety and to make sure there was no other person in the home in need of aid." But did he really?
Earlier in the opinion, the judges wrote that:
"Trooper Thomas Holmes and a fellow trooper responded [to the 911 call]. [Once on the scene, they] heard and saw nothing unusual from outside the residence. They knocked on the door and announced that they were the State Police. Within a reasonable time, defendant opened the door dressed only in a bathrobe. Otherwise, defendant's demeanor and conduct were normal, and he was completely cooperative. When told about the report of screaming, defendant invited the troopers to step inside and explained that the screaming came during loud sex with his girlfriend. The troopers asked to talk to the girlfriend. She came from upstairs wearing only a towel and confirmed defendant's explanation."
If the two occupants of the house said that they are the only two in the house, and the officers believe them, then there is no reason to make sure there is no one else in the house "in need of aid." Further, if the police accept the explanation for the screaming, and the police are ready to end a routine follow-up to an unnecessary 911 call, then there is no reason to suspect that Trooper Holmes or his fellow trooper would be at risk from the sex screamers. But if the police thought that McGacken was lying or acting suspicious, then there might be cause to keep an eye on McGacken. But, according to the ruling, that's not what police thought.
"No evidence suggested [that] the police had any suspicion of criminal activity by defendant or his girlfriend, or [that the police] wished to conduct a search for evidence of crime. Trooper Holmes testified that... nothing that defendant and his girlfriend did or said downstairs raised suspicion of criminal activity."
The police and the court admit that Trooper Holmes lied when he testified there was no suspicion of criminal behavior. He could not have believed the report of the two lovers, but still had cause to look around to see if someone were in need of assistance. And thus, because he did not believe their explanation, Holmes implied that the two were hindering or obstructing an investigation, an arrestable offense.
But as the court recognizes that Holmes declared that he had no suspicions, that means Holmes believed no one else was in the house -- therefore there was no need to go upstairs in the name of what the court references as an exigent circumstance, of the sort where police may enter a house without a warrant so as to preserve life or prevent serious injury. Again, because Trooper Holmes testified that he had no suspicions that McGacken and his girlfriend were lying, he had no basis to justify a warrantless intrusion.
But that's not how the appeals court ruled. The New Jersey judges referred, over and over, to the idea of this type of warrantless search as necessary to save lives -- and not search for evidence of a crime. So, what did Trooper Holmes do and see when reaching the upstairs bedroom with McGacken? First the court says that Holmes smelled marijuana.
What happened next for this Trooper -- who was not searching for evidence of a crime, but merely responding to a perceived exigency to save a life? According to the court:
"Upstairs, Trooper Holmes saw defendant use his foot to push a tray under a couch. [Holmes] asked defendant what was on the tray, and defendant soon admitted that the tray contained marijuana. In defendant's bedroom, the trooper saw, in plain view, a number of growing marijuana plants, as well as bagged and loose marijuana. He placed defendant under arrest."
Thus, two New Jersey Appellate Court judges decided to abandon all pretense of reason. Without comment they claim that Holmes had to go upstairs to find someone to rescue, though he did not suspect anyone was in need of aid.
McGacken's misadventure leads us to yet another rule, Rule #4: When police ask you something, do not answer. Police are not your friends. They use drug arrests -- the easy pickings -- to gain fame (for some reason local press usually lauds these cops) and fortune. All states and the federal governments have seizure laws that allow law enforcement to take cars, houses, bank accounts, and boats on the mere suspicion that you are engaged in drug-related criminal activity. You can even be acquitted or have charges dropped, yet the cops can keep your stuff.
But more importantly, getting back to Rule #4 and anything related to a search of your person, house, car, or stuff, note what the court did not report that Holmes did after seeing McGacken move the tray? The police officer did not go over and grab the tray. Even though the court said that Holmes was within his right to make a warrantless search given the exigent circumstance of trying to save someone in imminent harm -- and not intending to seize evidence or make an arrest, Holmes did not even try.
Because the tray was not in plain view -- it was hidden under the couch -- and Holmes did not have probable cause to search without a warrant, the cop relied on the tried and true method to collect evidence and make an arrest: a confession. That leads to Rule #5: Never consent to a search. Because the tray was not in plain view -- it was hidden under the couch -- and Holmes did not have probable cause to search without a warrant, the cop relied on the tried and true method to collect evidence and make an arrest: a confession! That is why you are not supposed to answer their questions -- just call the lawyer (see Rule #3 above).
Holmes was careful to say that in no way did he look under the couch to see what was on the tray. However, Holmes testified, and the court explained, that the seized marijuana plants were "in plain view" (meaning not in a closed space, drawer, etc.). Even Trooper Holmes knows Rule #6: If it is in plain view, it belongs to the police, not you!
This exercise in legal sophistry and hypocrisy is not to advocate that anyone should violate state or federal laws -- especially drug laws. Instead it should serve to emphasize that every person should know the limits, guidelines, and rules on constitutional provisions about search and seizure. Even in those states that allow licensed grow operations the Obama administration is still making busts. If you want to stay out of prison, or reduce your chances of getting busted, follow the general advice of The Clash and "know your rights."
back to top
 It's here. The "10 Rules for Dealing with Police" DVD. Donate $30 or more and get a free copy mailed within one week.
|
| From the creators of the classic, Busted: The Citizenâs Guide to Surviving Police Encounters (2003), our friends at the group Flex Your Rights are now releasing their new achievement, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. Because StoptheDrugWar.org (DRCNet) members like you supported Busted, you've earned the first chance to see this important new DVD.
10 Rules for Dealing with Police, a 40-minute educational drama, is the most sophisticated and entertaining film of its kind. Narrated by the legendary trial lawyer William "Billy" Murphy, Jr. (from HBO's The Wire), 10 Rules depicts innocent people dealing with heavy-handed policing tactics used every day in the United States.
Through extensive collaboration with victims of police abuse, legal experts and law enforcement professionals, Flex Your Rights has developed a powerful multi-language (English, Spanish & Arabic) resource that provides proven survival strategies for dealing with racial profiling and police abuse.
Do you know what your rights are if you're stopped by police? Most people don't, and the consequences can be severe. From simple misunderstandings to illegal searches and excessive force, a bad police encounter can happen to anyone. But after watching 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, you'll be more confident and better prepared to handle every kind of police situation.
Get 10 Rules today!
Learn How To...
- Deal with traffic stops, street stops & police at your door
- Know your rights & maintain your cool
- Avoid common police tricks
- Prevent humiliating searches
Bonus Features
- 10 Rules for Non-citizens (en Español)
- Q&A with 10 Rules Creators
- Spanish & Arabic Subtitles
We still offer Busted on DVD, too. Add $25 to your donation for a total gift of $55 and get both videos: 10 Rules AND Busted. Or get two copies of either DVD for $55. It's your choice. You can also add BOTH of our popular anti-prohibitionist t-shirts for your donation of $100 -- a terrific value while you support the important work of StoptheDrugWar.org. Get yours today!
StoptheDrugWar.org is the #1 source for the latest news, information and activism promoting sensible drug law reform and an end to prohibition worldwide. With 1.8 million unique readers in 2009 and with leading news and commentary sources making use of our web site on a regular basis, StoptheDrugWar.org is advancing the drug war debate and growing the drug policy reform movement, helping to start or spark the creation of organizations like Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Flex Your Rights and many others. Our strategy is working, and your generous donation will make a difference during these economically challenging times. Thank you for helping -- we look forward to sending your copy of 10 Rules!
|
| StoptheDrugWar.org is the #1 source for the latest news, information and activism promoting sensible drug law reform and an end to prohibition worldwide. Your donations support our work of building the movement and fueling the public debate! |
10 Rules testimonials:
"The 4th Amendment has been on life support during both the Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations. The clearest and most constitutionally-grounded guide for all of us against this government contempt for our 4th Amendment rights is 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. It should be shown in schools, in local legislatures and in Congress.
Nat Hentoff
"10 Rules will educate all individuals about how to safely exercise their rights and protect themselves against abusive and illegal police behavior. It should be required viewing in high schools across the country."
Prof. Angela J. Davis, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law & former Director of the DC Public Defender Service, Author, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor
"Chronic disregard for civil rights is tearing apart the fabric of America. Flex Your Rights has hit the nail on the head in this hard-hitting instructional video."
Mike Gray, Author of The China Syndrome and Drug Crazy
"I believe 10 Rules will make an extraordinary contribution to the cause of social justice. Only those police officers who disregard the law have something to fear from its message. As an ex-cop, I thank Flex Your Rights for all you've done and continue to do."
Norm Stamper, Ph.D., Former Chief of the Seattle Police Department & Author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing
"I read the 10 Rules screenplay and am thoroughly pleased. It is well written, and I believe it realistically and fairly grasps the issue of racial profiling. Go forward!"
Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, Executive Director, Black Ministers' Council of New Jersey & Pastor, St. Matthew A.M.E. Church
"10 Rules is an outstanding screenplay that resonates with authenticity, ripples with humor, and draws blood with its pointed examination of law enforcement in our cities. America's urban youth will love this movie, which talks straight and provides crucial, relevant advice on how to use America's unique Constitutional protections. Two thumbs up."
Eric E. Sterling, Esq., President, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation & Adjunct Lecturer in Sociology, George Washington University
"Good community policing is impossible when officers disrespect constitutional rights. 10 Rules will help citizens understand their rights and ensure that law enforcement is professional and accountable to the public."
Ronald E. Hampton, Executive Director of the National Black Police Association & former Community Police Officer for the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department
|
|
back to top
(We reprint Phil's review of this important new release from last week's Chronicle.)
Phillip S. Smith, Writer/Editor
In 2008, the latest year tallied in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, more than 14 million people were arrested in the United States, and uncounted millions more were subject to "stop and frisk" searches either on the streets or after being stopped for an alleged traffic violations. Of all those arrests in 2008, more than 1.7 million were for drug offenses, and about half of those were for marijuana offenses. For both pot busts in particular and drug arrests in general, nearly 90% of those arrested were for simple possession.
 |
|
| 10 Rules is available with a donation to StoptheDrugWar.org now! |
|
"10 Rules" will help the both the entirely innocent and those guilty of nothing more of possessing drugs in violation of our contemptible drug laws reduce the harm of their run-ins with police. Not that it encourages the violation of any laws -- it doesn't -- but it does clearly, concisely, and effectively explain what people can do to exercise their constitutional rights while keeping their cool, in the process protecting themselves from police who may not have their best interests in mind.
Those stops and those arrests mentioned above, of course, were not random or evenly distributed among the population. If you're young, or non-white, or an identifiable member of some sub-culture fairly or unfairly associated with drug use, you are much more likely to be stopped, hassled, and perhaps arrested. The writers of "10 Rules," Scott Morgan and Steve Silverman of Flex Your Rights understand that.
Building on the foundation of their 2003 video, "Busted: A Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," which featured mainly young, white people involved in police encounters, Morgan and Silverman have expanded their target audience. In three of the four scenarios used in the video -- a traffic stop and search, a street stop-and-frisk search, and a knock-and-talk home search -- the protagonists are a young black man, a young Latino man, and a black grandmother, respectively. In only one scene, two young men apparently doing a dope deal on the street, are the citizen protagonists white.
That's not to say that "10 Rules" is intended only for the communities most targeted by police, just that the writers understand just who is being targeted by police. The lessons and wisdom of "10 Rules" are universally relevant in the United States, and all of us can benefit from knowing what our rights are and how to exercise them effectively. "10 Rules" does precisely that, and it does so in a street-smart way that understands cops sometimes don't want to play by the rules.
"10 Rules" build upon the earlier "Busted" in more than one sense. While "10 Rules" is expanding the terrain covered by "Busted," it has taken the cinematic quality to the next level, too. While "Busted" was made using a beta cam, this flick is shot in High Definition video, and that makes for some great production values, which are evident from the opening scene. "10 Rules" was shot on a bigger budget that "Busted," it has more actors (including some drug reform faces you might recognize), and more professional actors, and it has more of the feel of a movie than most video documentaries.
And it has legendary defense attorney William "Billy" Murphy, who plays the role of socratic interlocuter in the video. (You may remember him from appearances on HBO's "The Wire.") Appearing in a courtroom-like setting before a multi-ethnic group of very interested questioners, the pony-tailed lawyer begins with a basic discussion of the rights granted us by the US Constitution, especially the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments dealing with the right to be free of unwarranted searches, the right to stay silent, and the right to legal counsel. His performance, folksy, yet forceful; scholarly, yet street-savvy, sparkles throughout; his natural charisma shines through.
From there, we alternate between Williams and his audience and the scenarios mentioned above. We see the young black man, Darren, get pulled over in traffic, produce a bit of bad attitude, and suffer mightily for his efforts. He gets handcuffed, manhandled, and consents to a search of his vehicle, after which the cop leaves his belongings strewn in the wet road and gives him a traffic ticket.
Then it's back to the courtroom, where Darren, angry and feeling disrespected, tells his tale. Murphy is sympathetic, but explains that Darren broke rule #1.
"Rule #1, always be calm and collected," the veteran attorney intones. "A police encounter is absolutely the worst time and place to vent your frustrations about getting stopped by the police. As soon as you opened your mouth, you failed the attitude test. Don't ever talk back, don't raise your voice, don't use profanity. Being hostile to police is stupid and dangerous."
Such advice may be frustrating, but it's smart, and it's street-smart. Murphy noted that things could have turned out even worse, as the video showed in an alternate take on the scene with Darren twitching on the ground after getting tasered for his efforts. He also threw in some good advice about pulling over immediately, turning off the car, keeping your hands on the wheel, and turning on an interior light just to reduce police officers' nervousness level.
Murphy uses the same scenario with Darren to get through rule #2 ("You always have the right to remain silent"), rule #3 ("You have the right to refuse searches"), rule #4 ("Don't get fooled" -- the police can and will lie to you or tell you you'll get off easier if you do what they ask), and rule #5 ("Ask if you are free to go"). This time, the cop still has a bad attitude and Darren still gets a ticket, but he doesn't counterproductively antagonize the cop, he doesn't get rousted and handcuffed, he doesn't allow the cop to search his vehicle, he doesn't get intimated by the officers' threat to bring in a drug dog that will tear up his car, and he does ask if he's free to go. He is.
Which brings us to a discussion of probable cause and and rule #6: "Don't expose yourself" and give police probable cause to search you. The video shows a car with bumper stickers saying "Got Weed?" "Bad Cop, No Donut," and "My other gun is a Tech-9" -- probably not a smart idea unless you really enjoy getting pulled over and hassled. More generally, "don't expose yourself" means that if you are carrying items you really don't want the police to see (and arrest you for), don't leave them lying around in plain sight. That's instant probable cause.
I'm not going to tell you the rest of the rules because I want you to see the video for yourself. But I will tell you about the heart-rending scene where the black grandmother lets police search her home in the name of public safety -- there have been some gang gun crimes, they explain pleasantly -- and ends up getting busted for her granddaughter's pot stash, arrested, and is now facing eviction from her public housing. Under Murphy's guidance, we rewind and replay the scene, with grandma politely but firmly exercising her rights, keeping the cops out of her home, and not going to jail or being threatened with losing her home.
In a time when police are more aggressive than ever, "10 Rules" is an absolutely necessary corrective, full of folksy -- but accurate -- information. "10 Rules" is the kind of basic primer on your rights that every citizen needs to know, it's well-thought out and well-written, and it not only is it full of critically important information, it's entertaining.
Go watch it and learn how to flex your rights. Better yet, watch it together with your friends, your family, or your classmates, then practice putting the rules into effect. Sometimes it's as simple as saying a simple phrase -- "Officer, am I free to go?" Do some role-playing, practice saying the magic words, and "10 Rules" can help you survive any police encounter in better shape than otherwise. When you're done, watch it and practice again -- familiarity is the best help when facing an intimidating police officer staring down at you.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to people who feel strongly enough about the rule of law in this country to help others learn how the law protects them and how to protect themselves within the law. A big thank you to the guys at Flex Your Rights is in order. And they would be the first to tell you the best way to thank them is to learn and apply the "10 Rules."
back to top
An Atlanta cop gets nailed, a Tarheel State two-fer and the de rigeuer dope-smuggling jail guard make the hall of shame this week. Let's get to it:
In Atlanta, an Atlanta police officer was arrested Wednesday for participating in multiple cocaine sales and protecting what he thought were cocaine deals, but were actually FBI stings. Officer Lucius Solomon, 31, faces seven drug and weapons counts, including conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and possessing a weapon while participating in drug sales. He's facing up to 65 years in prison.
In Raleigh, North Carolina, a former Burgaw police officer was sentenced last Friday to 10 years and one month in federal prison after being convicted in December of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Michael Carl Stevenson, 46, went down after traveling to Richmond County to buy a half kilo of cocaine with a convicted drug dealer and the dealer's uncle. All three were arrested during a controlled buy. Prosecutors said Stevenson had taken three Narco test kits from the department to test the drugs and that he had run the license plate of the other vehicle they met at the buy. Testimony during trial also revealed that Stevenson had stored drugs for the convicted dealer at his home and profited from it.
In Durham, North Carolina, a former Durham police officer pleaded guilty in federal court March 18 to a single weapons charge in a plea agreement that saw a drug distribution charge dropped. Sherrod Peace, 35, copped to possession of a firearm in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in return for the dismissal of a charge of distributing less than five grams of crack cocaine. Peace was indicted in January after Durham police received a complaint in October 2009 and investigated further, with help from the DEA. He was accused of selling crack and carrying a firearm while doing so. He is out on bond until he is sentenced in August.
In Chicago, a Cook County Jail guard was arrested March 16 after being caught going to work with marijuana in his boot and the trunk of his car. Jail guard Kenneth Crawford, 33, went down after drug dogs sniffed out the weed, and allegedly struggled with investigators as they tried to take him into custody. He is now charged with possession of contraband in a penal institution, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, official misconduct, resisting arrest and battery to a police officer.
back to top
by Bernd Debusmann, Jr.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations make billions each year trafficking illegal drugs into the United States, profiting enormously from the prohibitionist drug policies of the US government. Since Mexican president Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and called the armed forces into the fight against the so-called cartels, prohibition-related violence has killed over 18,000 people, with a death toll of nearly 8,000 in 2009 and over 2,000 so far in 2010. The increasing militarization of the drug war and the arrest of several high-profile drug traffickers have failed to stem the flow of drugs -- or the violence -- whatsoever. The Merida initiative, which provides $1.4 billion over three years for the US to assist the Mexican government with training, equipment and intelligence, has so far failed to make a difference. Here are a few of the latest developments in Mexico's drug war:
Friday, March 19
In Monterrey, Nuevo Leon armed men blocked highways leading out of the city with buses and trucks they commandeered in an apparent attempt to disrupt military operations in the area. The incidents began on Thursday, when armed men began pulling drivers out of vehicles and parking them across the highways. The tires of several vehicles were slashed to make them more difficult to move. At least 31 separate roadblocks were set up.
Saturday, March 20
In Acapulco, a wedding ended in disaster after a ferocious firefight broke out between a group of men attending the party and a group of armed men who arrived in a pickup truck. Five men, all between the ages of 25 and 33, were killed, and four were wounded. In another part of the city, a clash between groups of rival gunmen left one dead. In another incident, two policemen and two gunmen were killed after a gunfight broke out on the Iguala-Ciudad Altamirano highway.
Sunday, March 21
In Santa Catarina, Nuevo Leon, gunmen attacked a convoy in which the local public security chief, Rene Castillo Sanchez, was traveling. In the gun battle that ensued, two bodyguards were killed and several people were wounded. The assault was apparently an attempt to rescue two prisoners who had been taken into custody earlier in the day and were also traveling in the convoy. One of the two men was wounded in the clash.
After the shootout, the two prisoners were taken to Castillo's office, where they were transferred into the custody of Mexican marines, who took the two men to a local hospital by helicopter. One of the men, who was unscathed in the attack on the convoy, was later found dead wrapped in a blanket and tossed on the side of a road. The second suspect is now also reported missing. It is unclear exactly what happened, but many fear that the men were executed by the Mexican military.
Monday, March 22
In Chilpancingo, Guerrero, the dismembered bodies of two police officers were discovered outside police headquarters. Notes from the killers were left at the scene, but police have refused to disclose their content. One of the dead was a regional police commander, and the other a state police official. Nearby, in Acapulco, another two mutilated bodies and a note were left outside the home of a former deputy traffic police chief.
Tuesday, March 23
In Ciudad Juárez, several aircraft carrying an additional 450 federal police agents landed in the city. This brings the total number of federal police personnel in the city to 3,500, where they operate alongside local and state police forces and elements of the Mexican Army. So far this year, some 500 people have been killed in Ciudad Juárez.
In Mexico City, Hillary Clinton arrived with a delegation of high ranking officials to meet with Mexican officials, including President Calderon and Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa. Among the other individuals in attendance were Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen. The subject of the meetings was US-Mexico cooperation on issues related to drug and weapons trafficking and the fight against drug cartels. Clinton's arrival came 10 days after three individuals with ties to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juárez were gunned down by men thought to be tied to the Juárez Cartel.
Wednesday, March 24
In Tuxtepec, Oaxaca, nine people were killed in a series of incidents involving a group of gunmen. The killings began when individuals traveling in two vehicles shot four men dead in a motorcycle repair shop. A fifth person was killed as the men made their escape. Soon after, the gunmen ran into a Mexican army convoy, and shot dead two soldiers. Following the clash, the gunmen fled into a pizza shop, where another two men were shot dead.
Thursday, March 25
In Michoacan, a high-level heroin trafficker was arrested by police. Jose Antonio Medina, 36, is thought to have run a network that transported 440 pounds of black tar heroin a month into Southern California. Medina's network was independent, but he was known to cooperate closely with La Familia Michoacana, the primary drug trafficking organization in the state of Michoacan.
In Matamoros, Tamaulipas, 41 prisoners escaped from a local prison. Two guards are also reported missing. All but three of the prisoners were charged with federal crimes, rather than state crimes. In the past, many local leaders have complained that the federal government overburdens their prison with federal prisoners, who are often more dangerous and violent, and often tied to drug trafficking groups.
Total Body Count for the Week: 251
Total Body Count for the Year: 2,323
Total Body Count for 2009: 7,724
Total Body Count since Calderon took office: 18,528
Read the last Mexico Drug War Update here.
back to top
New Jersey Multiple Sclerosis patient John Ray Wilson was sentenced last Friday to five years in prison for growing marijuana plants to ease his symptoms. Wilson, whose case we profiled in December, originally faced up to 20 years in prison, but a jury failed to convict him of the most serious charge, maintaining a habitation where marijuana is manufactured. He was convicted of manufacturing marijuana (17 plants) and possession of psychedelic mushrooms.
courthouse demo supporting John Ray Wilson, 2009
Wilson was convicted in December, before New Jersey recognized medical marijuana. Ironically, it became the 14th state to do so between the time Wilson was convicted and his sentencing. But the new New Jersey law would not have protected Wilson's marijuana growing because it only allows for patients to obtain it at state-monitored dispensaries.
State Superior Court Judge Robert Reed banned any references to Wilson's medical condition during his trial, finding that personal use was not a defense and that New Jersey had no law protecting medical marijuana use. Wilson was ultimately able to make a brief, one-sentence mention of his medical reasons for growing marijuana, but that wasn't enough to sway the jury.
Wilson's attorney, James Wronko, told the Associated Press that the outcome might have been different had the jury been allowed to hear more about his illness. "We're disappointed that he's in state prison for smoking marijuana to treat his multiple sclerosis," Wronko . "I think anytime someone using marijuana for their own medical use goes to state prison, it's clearly a harsh sentence."
Wilson's case became a cause célèbre for regional medical marijuana advocates, and also drew attention from the state legislature. Two state senators, Nicholas Scutari, sponsor of the medical marijuana bill, and Ray Lesniak, called in October for Gov. Jon Corzine (D) to pardon Wilson. But Corzine punted, saying he preferred to wait until after Wilson's trial had finished. Now, Wilson has been sentenced to prison, Corzine's term has ended, and new Republican Gov. Chris Christie is not nearly as medical marijuana-friendly.
Wronko said an appeal of the sentence was in the works.
back to top
For the third time in the past nine years, New York City has been forced to pay big bucks for subjecting nonviolent prisoners -- including minor marijuana offenders -- to illegal strip searches. In a settlement announced Monday, the city announced it had agreed to pay $33 million to end the most recent lawsuit stemming from the searches.
The settlement applies to roughly 100,000 people who were strip-searched after being charged with misdemeanors and taken to Rikers Island or other city jails. These were people who were arrested and strip-searched between 1999 and 2007.
In 2001, under the Giuliani administration, the city settled a similar lawsuit on behalf of 40,000 people strip-searched prior to arraignment for $40 million. In 2005, the city agreed to pay millions of dollars more to settle a lawsuit on behalf of thousands of people illegally strip-searched at Rikers and other city jails between 1999 and 2002.
The most recent settlement came from a lawsuit filed in 2005 by a local law firm. In 2007, the city acknowledged wrongdoing and agreed to hire monitors to ensure that the practice was stopped. But the settlement includes at least 19 people who had been illegally strip-searched after 2007.
Richard Emery, law lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times it had been settled law since 1986 that it was unconstitutional to require people accused of minor crimes to submit to strip searches. "The city knew this was illegal in 1986, they said it was illegal and they stopped in 2002, and they continued to pursue this illegal practice without justification," he said. "We hope the settlement constitutes some semblance of justice."
It is expected that about 15% of those illegally strip searched, or 15,000 people, will file claims seeking damages. If that's the case, each plaintiff who files would collect about $2,000, although at least two women subjected to involuntary gynecological exams will receive $20,000. The law firm will get $3 million for its efforts.
Emery said many of those strip-searched had been charged with misdemeanors like shoplifting, trespassing, jumping subway turnstiles, or failure to pay child support. Others were small-time marijuana offenders. Under New York law, pot possession is decriminalized, but the NYPD has a common practice of ordering people to empty their pockets -- which you are not required to do -- and then charging them with public possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor.
David Sanchez, 39, of the Bronx, was one of the people strip-searched after a minor pot bust. He said he was searched twice by officers after being arrested in a stop and frisk outside a friend's apartment, but after he was arraigned and taken to Rikers Island, jail guards demanded he submit to a strip-search.
"I was put into a cage and told to take off my clothes," he said Monday, describing how he had to squat and spread his buttocks. "It was horrifying, being a grown man. I was humiliated."
"I don't know why it was done," Emery said, "but it seems like it was a punishment, a way of showing the inmates who is in charge."
And now the good burghers of New York City will pay yet again for the misdeeds of their public servants. Will the third time be the charm? Check back in a few years.
back to top
In a report released Thursday, the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) said that overall, the availability of illegal drugs is increasing and that "the overall threat posed by illicit drugs will not diminish in the near term." The announcement comes after more than four decades of harsh state and federal policies designed to curb the supply of illicit drugs.
The report, the National Drug Threat Assessment 2010, also once again identified Mexico's so-called drug cartels as the "single greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States." It blamed the cartels, or DTOs (drug trafficking organizations), as it more accurately but less catchily refers to them, for much of the increase in illegal drug availability.
The NDIC noted that the prevalence of four out of five of the major drugs of concern -- heroin, marijuana, MDMA (ecstasy), and methamphetamine -- was "widespread and increasing in some areas." Only cocaine availability was down, with NDIC reporting persistent shortages.
Heroin availability was up, and NDIC said that was "partly attributable to increased production in Mexico," where opium production more than doubled between 2007 and 2008. Meth availability was up "as the result of higher production in Mexico," and "sustained" US domestic production. Also, "marijuana production increased in Mexico." Only with MDMA did NDIC point the finger at anyone else -- in this case, Asian DTOs who produce it in Canada.
"Mexican DTOs, already the predominant wholesale suppliers of illicit drugs in the United States, are gaining even greater strength in eastern drug markets where Colombian DTO strength is diminishing," NDIC said as it pronounced them the greatest drug trafficking threat. It included the following bullet points making the case:
- Mexican DTOs were the only DTOs operating in every region of the country.
- Mexican DTOs increased their cooperation with US-based street and prison gangs to distribute drugs. In many areas, these gangs were using their alliances with Mexican DTOs to facilitate an expansion of their midlevel and retail drug distribution operations into more rural and suburban areas.
- In 2009, midlevel and retail drug distribution in the United States was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members representing approximately 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities.
- Mexican DTOs increased the flow of severaldrugs (heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana) into the United States, primarily because they increased production of those drugs in Mexico.
- Drugs smuggled into the United States by Mexican DTOs usually are transported in private or commercial vehicles; however, Mexican DTOs also use cross-border tunnels, subterranean passageways, and low-flying small or ultra-light aircraft to move drugs from Mexico into the United States.
- Mexican DTOs smuggled bulk cash drug proceeds totaling tens of billions of dollars from the United States through the Southwest Border and into Mexico. Much of the bulk cash (millions each week) was consolidated by the DTOs in several key areas, including Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and North Carolina, where it was prepared for transport to the US-Mexico border and then smuggled into Mexico.
- According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Mexican DTO members or associates acquire thousands of weapons each year in Arizona, California, and Texas and smuggle them across the border to Mexico.
The report came as a senior US delegation led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returns from Mexico City, where it spent two days in talks with Mexican officials about increasing cooperation in their joint struggle against the drug traffic.
back to top
A Dutch court Thursday fined a Terneuzen cannabis coffee shop owner $10 million Euros (more than $13 million US dollars), after convicting him and 15 others, including former employees, of drug trafficking and involvement in a criminal organization because the coffee shop's stash exceeded what is allowed by Dutch law.
downstairs of a coffee shop (courtesy Wikimedia)
Coffee shop owner Meddy Willemsen took the financial hit after police found more than 440 pounds of marijuana at his Checkpoint coffee shop in raids in 2007 and 2008. Dutch law allows coffee shops to have no more than 500 grams (slightly more than one pound) on hand at any given time.
But Checkpoint, near the Belgian border, was reportedly serving up to 3,000 customers a day at its peak. If each customer bought the allowed five grams, that would add up to 15,000 grams. If Checkpoint were to have complied with Dutch law, it would have had to have had someone bringing it a fresh pound of pot every few minutes.
The case is illustrative of the "backdoor problem," where, while Holland allows for the sale of marijuana at coffee shops, it has not adequately allowed for them to be supplied. As a result, supplying the coffee houses has become part of a $3 billion a year illicit cannabis cultivation industry that is increasingly infested by organized crime elements.
Still, the court said Willemsen got off lucky. He would have had to pay an even larger fine if Middelburg municipal authorities had not turned a blind eye to his activities."Checkpoint could not have expanded as much as it did without collaboration from the municipality of Middelburg," it said. "Also, the police never warned that the coffee shop had to scale down."
The Checkpoint case is being widely viewed as a test case for cracking down on large-scale border coffee shops that cater to a largely foreign clientele. The verdict is undoubtedly sending chills down the spines of other large border town coffee shop owners.
Willemsen better have sold a whole bunch of pot while his shop was open. He certainly has a huge fine to pay now.
back to top
An EKOS Research Associates poll has found that half of all Canadians support marijuana decriminalization, while only 30% oppose it, with 20% apparently uncertain or without strong views on the matter. That's a 5% increase in support since EKSOS last polled on the issue a decade ago.
The numbers are lower than those reported in
recent Angus Reid polls on marijuana legalization. In those polls, support for legalization was 55% in July 2007, 51% in October 2007, and 53% in May 2008.
A notable aspect of the EKOS poll is the high number of undecideds. While opposition to decriminalization has been declining (down from 37% in 2000), uncertainty has also been increasing, up from 16% in 2000. Optimistically one hopes the new undecideds are former opponents.
Also notable about the EKOS poll is the political context. Canada is six years into Conservative rule, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week released a Youtube video in which he said he rejected marijuana legalization.
In the EKOS poll, the Conservatives were the only party with less than majority support for decriminalization at 39%. Some 63% of left-leaning New Democratic Party voters supported decrim, as did 59% of Green Party members, 58% of the Bloc Quebecois, and 53% of the main opposition party, the Liberals.
Regionally, support for decrim was strongest in British Columbia (54%), Ontario (53%), and Quebec (51%). Support was lowest in the prairie provinces of Alberta (45%) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (45%).
Support for decriminalization was also strong among young people (58% for under-25s), and, while declining with age, was still above 50% for every age group except the over-65s. Among seniors, support declined to only 38%.
Harper and the Conservatives have been pushing a harder line on crime, drug offenses, and marijuana offenses in particular. This poll is only the latest indicator that the Conservative push may not be in line with public opinion.
back to top
April 1, 1909: The Opium Exclusion Act takes effect.
March 30, 1961: The UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is convened in New York City, the first of the three international treaties binding signatory nations into prohibitionist systems.
March 30, 1992: Bill Clinton, during the 1992 presidential campaign, says, "When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale."
March 29, 2000: CNN reports that a multi-nation drug sweep known as Operation Conquistador nets 2,331 arrests, 4,966 kilograms of cocaine, 55.6 kilograms of heroin, and 362.5 metric tons of marijuana. The 17-day operation takes place in Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua, Anguilla, St. Martin, British Virgin Islands, Barbuda, Grenada, Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, Aruba, Curacao, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. Drug availability is not reduced in the operation's wake.
April 1, 2000: Canada's premier national newspaper, The National Post, editorializes in favor of legalizing marijuana.
March 31, 2001: An editorial in The Lancet -- the United Kingdom's top medical journal -- criticizes the futility of drug prohibition and America's present anti-drug strategies.
March 26, 2002: A unanimous US Supreme Court rules that public housing tenants can be evicted for any illegal drug activity by household members or guests, even if they did not know about it.
March 28, 2002: Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan rules that the Barr Amendment, which blocks the District of Columbia from considering a medical marijuana voter initiative, infringes on First Amendment rights.
March 28, 2003: The Hemp Industries Association, several hemp food and cosmetic manufacturers and the Organic Consumers Association petition the federal Ninth Circuit to again prevent the DEA from ending the legal sale of hemp seed and oil products in the US.
back to top
Along with our weekly in-depth Chronicle reporting, DRCNet also provides daily content in the way of blogging in the Stop the Drug War Speakeasy -- huge numbers of people have been reading it recently -- as well as Latest News links (upper right-hand corner of most web pages), event listings (lower right-hand corner) and other info. Check out DRCNet every day to stay on top of the drug reform game! Check out the Speakeasy main page at http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy.
prohibition-era beer raid, Washington, DC (Library of Congress)
Since last issue:
Scott Morgan writes: "If You Call Yourself a Drug Policy Reformer, You Need to Watch This," "The Real Reason Football Players Aren't Supposed to Use Marijuana," "Researchers Prove Definitively That the Drug War Sucks," "The 'Fake Marijuana' Situation is Getting Confusing," "The War on Drugs Is Doomed," "Cops + Drugs = Corruption," "'No, the Number One Thug in This Movie is Definitely Scott Morgan.'"
Phil Smith posts early copies of Drug War Chronicle articles.
David Guard posts numerous press releases, action alerts and other organizational announcements in the In the Trenches blog.
Again, http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy is the online place to stay in the loop for the fight to stop the war on drugs. Thanks for reading, and please join us on the comment boards.
back to top
Do you read Drug War Chronicle? If so, we'd like to hear from you. DRCNet needs two things:
- We are in between newsletter grants, and that makes our need for donations more pressing. Drug War Chronicle is free to read but not to produce! Click here to make a donation by credit card or PayPal, or to print out a form to send in by mail.
- Please send quotes and reports on how you put our flow of information to work, for use in upcoming grant proposals and letters to funders or potential funders. Do you use DRCNet as a source for public speaking? For letters to the editor? Helping you talk to friends or associates about the issue? Research? For your own edification? Have you changed your mind about any aspects of drug policy since subscribing, or inspired you to get involved in the cause? Do you reprint or repost portions of our bulletins on other lists or in other newsletters? Do you have any criticisms or complaints, or suggestions? We want to hear those too. Please send your response -- one or two sentences would be fine; more is great, too -- email [email protected] or reply to a Chronicle email or use our online comment form. Please let us know if we may reprint your comments, and if so, if we may include your name or if you wish to remain anonymous. IMPORTANT: Even if you have given us this kind of feedback before, we could use your updated feedback now too -- we need to hear from you!
Again, please help us keep Drug War Chronicle alive at this important time! Click here to make a donation online, or send your check or money order to: DRCNet, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036. Make your check payable to DRCNet Foundation to make a tax-deductible donation for Drug War Chronicle -- remember if you select one of our member premium gifts that will reduce the portion of your donation that is tax-deductible -- or make a non-deductible donation for our lobbying work -- online or check payable to Drug Reform Coordination Network, same address. We can also accept contributions of stock -- email [email protected] for the necessary info.
back to top
Want to help end the "war on drugs," while earning college credit too? Apply for a StoptheDrugWar.org (DRCNet) internship and you could come join the team and help us fight the fight!
StoptheDrugWar has a strong record of providing substantive work experience to our interns -- you won't spend the summer doing filing or running errands, you will play an integral role in one or more of our exciting programs. Options for work you can do with us include coalition outreach as part of the campaign to rein in the use of SWAT teams, to expand our work to repeal the drug provision of the Higher Education Act to encompass other bad drug laws like the similar provisions in welfare and public housing law; blogosphere/web outreach; media research and outreach; web site work (research, writing, technical); possibly other areas. If you are chosen for an internship, we will strive to match your interests and abilities to whichever area is the best fit for you.
While our internships are unpaid, we will reimburse you for metro fare, and DRCNet is a fun and rewarding place to work. To apply, please send your resume to David Guard at [email protected], and feel free to contact us at (202) 293-8340. We hope to hear from you! Check out our web site at http://stopthedrugwar.org to learn more about our organization.
back to top
