El viernes pasado, el Gobernador de California, Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), vetó un proyecto que habría permitido que los agricultores californianos cultivaran cáñamo industrial. Defendido por el Asambleísta Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), el Proyecto de la Asamblea 1147 [Assembly Bill 1147] habría definido el cáñamo industrial como cultivo agrícola, habría limitado su contenido de THC para menos de 0,3% y habría ordenado el examen anual de los campos para asegurar el cumplimiento de los límites al contenido.

(cortesía Centro de Medios Independientes)

Schwarzenegger creyó en el pretexto padrón de la policía estadounidense de que permitir la producción de cáñamo dificultaría el paro de los cultivos externos de marihuana: “Por ende”, dijo, “la ley californiana ha expresado preocupaciones de que la implementación de esta medida puede gastar sus recursos y causar problemas considerables en las actividades de represión a las drogas. Esto es preocupante dadas las necesidades de erradicación y prevención a la producción de drogas en este estado”.

Curiosamente, la policía en países en que el cultivo de cáñamo es una parte legal y productiva de la economía no parece tener ningún problema en la distinción entre el cáñamo industrial y la marihuana.

La industria del cáñamo no quedó contenta. “El veto del Gob. Schwarzenegger es un desaliento a miles de agricultores, negociantes y consumidores que quieren traer de vuelta el cáñamo industrial a California para crear empleos, aumentar la recaudación de impuestos y beneficiar al medio ambiente”, dijo Eric Steenstra, fundador y Presidente de la Vote Hemp, el principal grupo de defensa de la agricultura del cáñamo industrial del país, en un comunicado de prensa el lunes denunciando el veto. “El veto no estaba basado en hechos, sino en un temor irracional de parecer indulgente con las drogas en un año electoral. Su mensaje de veto muestra que él sabía que el cáñamo industrial es un problema de desarrollo económico y de agricultura, pero se acobardó ante los lobistas confusos de la guerra a las drogas. El AB 1147 habría refrenado el exagero de las autoridades federales que ha impedido las variedades de cáñamo industrial que no son drogas de ser cultivadas en suelo estadounidense para tener fibra y semillas. Es poco ingenioso citar las restricciones federales cuando los lobistas de la guerra a las drogas se rehúsan a discutir con la amplia coalición de agricultores, negociantes y ambientalistas que redactaron la legislación sobre el cáñamo industrial. El cáñamo industrial seguirá siendo el único cultivo que es legal importar, vender y consumir, pero ilegal cultivar, en California”.

“Es una infelicidad que el Gobernador Schwarzenegger haya vetado el AB 1147. Habíamos ansiado por el cultivo y producción de aceite y semillas de cáñamo en nuestros productos aquí en California”, dijo David Bronner, presidente del Comité de Alimentos y Aceites de la Hemp Industries Association y presidente de Alpsnack/Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. “Los agricultores aquí en California, como los agricultores por todos los Estados Unidos, están siempre buscando cultivos lucrativos como el cáñamo para añadir a su rotación. Este veto claramente demuestra por qué el HR 3037, la Ley de Agricultura del Cáñamo Industrial de 2005 [Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005], necesita ser aprobado a nivel federal”.

Ahora, siete estados (Hawai, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Dakota del Norte y Virginia Occidental) han cambiado sus leyes para darles a los agricultores el derecho afirmativo a cultivar cáñamo industrial comercialmente o para fines de pesquisa. Pero, el proyecto que el Gob. Schwarzenegger vetó difiere de aquellas leyes. En aquellos siete estados, las leyes exigen una autorización de la DEA para cultivar la planta, autorización que la agencia vacila históricamente en dar. El proyecto de California habría estipulado explícitamente que el gobierno federal no tiene ninguna base ni ningún derecho de meterse con el cáñamo industrial en California.

Era apenas una cuestión de tiempo. Primero, vinieron las leyes que ordenaban que los criminales demonizados favoritos de la sociedad, los criminales sexuales, debían registrar sus paraderos junto al estado aun después de haber cumplido sus sentencias. Después, varios estados empezaron a aprobar legislación que exigía que los preparadores de metanfetamina condenados hicieran lo mismo. Ahora, un congresista republicano de Nuevo México, el Dip. Steve Pearce, ha entrado con legislación federal que crearía un registro electrónico nacional de “narcotraficantes criminales” y exigiría que los estados hagan lo mismo o corran el riesgo de perder el auxilio federal.

¿queremos ayudar a nuestros hijos a encontrar narcotraficantes?

El proyecto exigiría que tanto el fiscal general de los EE.UU. como varios estados establecieran dichos registros. Los estados que no obedecieran serían penalizados mediante la suspensión de un porcentaje de los fondos federales de control de la criminalidad que reciben a través de la Ley Abarcadora de Control de la Criminalidad y Calles Seguras [Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act]. Los narcotraficantes condenados pueden ser exentos de registro si se vuelven delatores, o, en el texto anódino del proyecto, si dan “asistencia considerable en la investigación o proceso de otra persona que haya cometido una infracción”.

El proyecto ordena que los estados aprueben leyes penalizando la inobservancia al registro. Dichas leyes deben tener sentencias de duración superior a un año. En otras palabras, deben ser crímenes.

En un comunicado de prensa alardeando su nuevo bebe legislativo, Pearce presentó su defensa del proyecto en términos de protección de los niños y le dio a sus bases de apoyo el crédito por la idea. “Durante nuestra gira de concienciación sobre la metanfetamina por todo el 2º Distrito en Agosto, escuché varias veces que deberíamos tratar a los narcotraficantes condenados como tratamos a los infractores sexuales”, dijo el Dip. Pearce. “Ambos tienen la lisura de violentar a nuestros hijos y destruir sus vidas. Nuestras comunidades necesitan más herramientas para proteger a nuestros niños. En particular, los padres y maestros tienen el derecho de saber cuando alguien que puede envenenar a su hijo o hija vive en el barrio”.

Hasta ahora, ningún otro legislador ha dado su apoyo al proyecto. Ha sido enviado al Comité Judiciario de la Cámara.

Caro lector de la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas:

Muchos entusiastas de la reforma de las políticas de drogas leyeron hace dos semanas sobre nuestro nuevo blog acerca de un nuevo documental, Waiting to Inhale: Marijuana, Medicine and the Law [Esperando para Inhalar: La Marihuana, la Medicina y la Ley], y un debate emocionante aquí en Washington entre dos de mis colegas y un representante de la secretaría antidroga de los EE.UU. que ocurrió después de la exhibición de la película. Tengo el placer de anunciar que la DRCNet está disponibilizándole este film como nuestro más reciente premio de membresía – done $30 o más a DRCNet y puede recibir una copia de Waiting to Inhale como nuestro agradecimiento por su apoyo.

Su donación ayudará a DRCNet mientras hacemos lo que creemos que será un plan increíble de dos años para avanzar considerablemente la reforma de las políticas de drogas y la causa de terminar la prohibición globalmente y en los EE.UU. ¡Por favor, haga una donación generosa hoy día para ayudar a la causa! Sé que usted sabrá que el dinero fue bien gastado después de ver lo que la DRCNet está preparando. Nuestro formulario de donación electrónica le permite donar por tarjeta de crédito, por PayPal o imprimir un formulario para enviar juntamente con su cheque u orden de pago por correo. Por favor, fíjese que las contribuciones a la Red Coordinadora de la Reforma de las Políticas de Drogas o Drug Reform Coordination Network, nuestra entidad de presión política, no son deducibles del impuesto a la renta. Las donaciones deducibles pueden ser hechas a la Fundación DRCNet, nuestra ala de concienciación. (Escoger un regalo como Waiting to Inhale reducirá la parte de su donación que usted puede deducir por el costo del artículo.) Ambos grupos reciben cartas de los miembros en la siguiente dirección: DRCNet, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036.

Gracias por su apoyo. Si usted no ha visto nuestra nueva página web, espero que tenga un momento para hacerlo – está buenísimo, si se me permite decirlo. :)

Cuídese bien y espero tener noticias suyas.

Sinceramente,

David Borden
Director Ejecutivo

El martes, la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. oyó los argumentos orales en dos casos consolidados que cuestionan si los inmigrantes que son residentes legales de los EE.UU. deben enfrentarse a deportación obligatoria por pequeñas infracciones como la tenencia de drogas. Miles de inmigrantes se enfrentan a una punición tan perturbadora y de acuerdo con la National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, más de un millón y medio de personas han sido deportadas desde la presentación de la deportación obligatoria por “crímenes agravados” según la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad de 1996 [1996 Immigration and Nationality Act] que está siendo desafiada en estos casos.

la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU.

Muchos de aquellos deportados de acuerdo con la ley de inmigración fueron en realidad declarados culpables de crímenes serios, pero muchos otros no lo fueron. En un caso cubierto por la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas, João Herbert, que fue adoptado por una pareja estadounidense de un orfanato brasileño cuando niño, pero que nunca solicitó la ciudadanía estadounidense, fue arrestado en su adolescencia por vender una bolsita de marihuana. Fue condenado a libertad vigilada, pero las autoridades federales buscaron exitosamente deportarlo de acuerdo con la ley de 1996. Enviado a una tierra que nunca conoció, él sobrevivió algunos años como profesor de inglés antes de ser muerto por la policía brasileña en 2004.

En los casos delante de la corte el martes, López vs. Gonzales y Toledo-Flores vs. EE.UU., las infracciones por las cuales los EE.UU. buscan deportar a los inmigrantes son aún más triviales que las del caso de Herbert. José Antonio López era dueño de una bodega y de un puesto de tacos en Sioux Falls, SD, que vino de México en 1985. El hombre casado y padre de dos hijos, que son ciudadanos estadounidenses, se confesó culpable de decirle a alguien cómo obtener cocaína. Dicha infracción es una contravención de acuerdo con la ley federal, pero era crimen según la ley de Dakota del Sur. Los funcionarios federales de inmigraciones clasificaron su infracción como “crimen agravado” de acuerdo con la ley de inmigración y lo deportaron a México.

Reymundo Toledo-Flores fue arrestado por tenencia de cocaína en Tejas, donde eso es contravención, pero cuando fue atrapado intentando reentrar al país recibió una sentencia de prisión de dos años porque las autoridades de inmigraciones consideraron su aprehensión en Tejas un “crimen agravado” de acuerdo con la ley de inmigraciones. Él está recurriendo de la sentencia.

“El problema aquí es que la ley estadual y la ley federal no están de acuerdo en la determinación de la gravedad de la infracción”, dijo el Desembargador David Souter durante la argumentación oral del martes. “¿No es muy raro que el Congreso hubiera querido una lectura del estatuto que volvería su definición de contravención un crimen agravado para fines de las leyes de inmigración?” preguntó.

Los abogados del gobierno Bush debatieron que los funcionarios de inmigraciones clasificaron correctamente ambos casos. “La definición estatutaria de ‘crimen agravado’ abarca grandes categorías de conducta criminal de acuerdo con la ley estadual, sin exigir un paralelo con la ley federal”, escribió el Subfiscal General de Justicia de los EE.UU. en documento presentado a la corte.

El Subfiscal de Justicia Edwin Kneedler le dijo a la corte el martes que la ley de inmigración “mira la ley estadual”. Si un delito de drogas es crimen según la ley estadual, es un crimen deportable de acuerdo con la ley federal, debatió.

Pero tres ex abogados del Servicio de Inmigración y Naturalización discordaban en una posición favorable que ellos presentaron. “No hay indicios claros de que el Congreso pretendiera que la definición de crimen agravado se aplicara a los delitos de drogas que son... contravenciones de acuerdo con la ley federal”, escribieron ellos.

El Desembargador Jefe John Roberts estaba teniendo ideas similares. “Debe hacerle sospechar”, le dijo a Kneedler, “que su análisis de una infracción de ‘tráfico de drogas’... lleve a la conclusión de que la simple tenencia se iguala al tráfico de drogas”.

“Los inmigrantes no deberían ser echados del país por hacer lo que el presidente de los Estados Unidos hizo”, dijo Bill Piper, director de asuntos nacionales de la Drug Policy Alliance. “Está claro que el tipo de delitos de drogas que discutimos aquí no es el tipo de delitos que el Congreso pretendía cuando aprobó esa ley”, le dijo él a la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas. “También parece que esto plantea problemas de protección igual porque parece que ser deportado o no depende del estado en que se fue condenado. En aquellos estados en que la tenencia de drogas es crimen, se es deportado; en aquellos que no es, no se es deportado”.

Los grupos de derechos de los inmigrantes y de las libertades civiles están pidiendo a la corte que rechace la interpretación amplia de la ley del gobierno federal y aun el Center for Immigration Studies, que generalmente defiende una línea dura en la represión a la inmigración, no se quedó tan entusiasmado con la deportación de pequeños infractores de la legislación antidroga. “Si la legislatura estadual ha decidido que esto es un crimen serio y alguien que lo comete será deportado, no es como si esa persona no supiera que eso era ilegal”, dijo el Dr. Steven Camarota, director de pesquisa del grupo. “No veo ningún problema en echar a estas personas. En algunos casos, con todo, las personas se confiesan culpables de crímenes sin darse cuenta de que estarían sujetas a deportación y eso levanta una cuestión de justicia”, le dijo él a la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas. “Todo el sistema de justicia criminal debe moderar la justicia con la misericordia, pero con la inmigración hemos creado tantas excepciones y renuncias que a veces es bueno ser duro”.

Para Camarota, todo el debate sobre la deportación de inmigrantes por pequeñas infracciones de la legislación antidroga “no es nada” en comparación con los verdaderos problemas de inmigración que el país se enfrenta. “Estamos hablando de miles de personas cuando hay 37 millones de inmigrantes en el país”, señaló. “No hay nada equivocado en la forma por la cual el gobierno está abordando esto, pero parece que hay demasiado debate sobre algo tan pequeño. Deberíamos poner los recursos en la imposición general de las leyes de inmigración”.

“La ley de 1996 es destructiva de verdad”, dijo Arnaldo García de la National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “En cualquier semana, hay 20.000 residentes permanentes legales que cometieron pequeñas infracciones esperando en la cárcel de acuerdo con los trámites de deportación. Eso incluye casos como el de un chico de 20 años que tuvo relaciones con su enamorada de 17 años e incluye cosas como el arresto de personas con tenencia de pequeñas cantidades de marihuana”, le dijo él a la Crónica. “El gobierno federal está intentando institucionalizar un doble estándar. Los residentes legales tienen derechos iguales bajo nuestro sistema judicial, pero después que completaron sus sentencias, son sometidos a una punición injusta – la proscripción para siempre. Ésta es una enorme fenda en la fundación del tratamiento igual bajo la ley”.

Hay poca cosa que los residentes permanentes pueden hacer, dijo García. “Lo que se puede hacer es asegurarse de que se conoce la ley”, dijo. “Si se es arrestado, se necesita tener el consejo de un abogado de inmigraciones para saber las consecuencias de la acusación y si ella es una infracción deportable. Algunos jueces trabajarán contigo – haciendo cosas como condenarte a 364 días en vez de 366, la diferencia entre una contravención y un crimen --, pero el INS solamente quiere deportarte. He visto personas que entran para hacer su teste de ciudadanía y la inmigración las está aguardando porque fueron presas cuando adolescentes”.

La protección final contra la deportación según la ley de inmigración es volverse ciudadano estadounidense. “Eso es más fácil decir que hacer”, dijo García. “Hay una enorme espera. Estoy trabajando con una familia que envió su petición de reunificación en 1994. Su caso está saliendo ahora”.

Repetimos el editorial de Julio de David Borden sobre este tópico debido a su pertinencia esta semana.

sesión usual de edición de David Borden del jueves por la tarde

Aun usando la lógica de la guerra a las drogas (que, generalmente, es una mala idea), esta idea fracasa decisivamente. La mayoría de los niños no empieza a usar drogas porque le son ofrecidas por traficantes profesionales. La mayoría de los chicos empieza a usar drogas porque le son ofrecidas por otros chicos - niños que les están ofreciendo por razones sociales o porque se han involucrado en dicha empresa criminosa, pero en cualquiera de los casos no por los adultos varias veces condenados que aparecerían en la página web del estado. También es importante recordar que la mayoría de los traficantes de drogas nunca fue atrapada, por lo tanto, nunca aparecerá en el registro por ese motivo.

Entonces, aunque un registro permita que los padres tengan ciencia de alguna parte de los verdaderos traficantes de drogas que existen, no tendrá en cuenta (y quizá desvíe la atención de) las maneras más comunes a través de las cuales las drogas llegan a las manos de sus hijos. Además, el mismo proceso económico incontenible que vuelve cualquier prisión de un traficante una oportunidad de empleo para nuevos traficantes, también debe aplicarse, por lo menos parcialmente, a cualesquiera traficantes reincidentes que perdieron el negocio porque algunos padres lograron hacer que sus hijos mantuviesen distancia de cualquier traficante - si los niños son determinados o simplemente voluntariosos, terminan consiguiendo sus drogas de otra persona.

Con todo, más resplandeciente es un argumento que fue señalado en una publicación de un blog "de teste" por un miembro de nuestro personal, Scott Morgan, en nuestra página web que será lanzada pronto. Scott usó un registro similar en Tennessee, limitado a infractores por delitos de metanfetamina, para mostrar cuán útil sería (quizá sea) para cualquier joven, en cualquier comarca en el estado, que desee encontrar pistas de gente en su comarca que pueda venderle metanfetamina u otras drogas - un resultado exactamente opuesto a lo que el registro pretende prevenir.

La diferencia principal entre el registro de Tennessee y el registro propuesto de Maine, sin contar que el de Maine incluye todas las drogas ilegales, es que el de Maine está limitado a infractores "habituales" de la legislación antidroga, la gente que ha sido condenada varias veces por tráfico de drogas. Pero, los infractores reincidentes son exactamente las personas que tienen más chances de infringir la ley nuevamente - los listados más útiles para los niños u otros que quieran localizar vendedores de drogas convenientemente restringidos. De cualquier forma, no se puede escapar de la idea de que un registro de infractores de la legislación antidroga es en verdad una campaña publicitaria sufragada por el contribuyente que apoya al tráfico de drogas.

Al fin, debemos regresar a la cuestión de que la principal manera por la cual los jóvenes empiezan a involucrarse en el consumo de drogas es a través de la influencia de los otros chicos - en muchos casos, comprando las drogas de otros chicos, en las escuelas. Éste es uno de los factores que ha llevado a un aumento en la predominancia de armas en las escuelas - adonde va el mercado ilegal, también tienden a ir las armas.

Pero no necesitaba ser así. Aunque el consumo de alcohol por menores de edad sea una cuestión importante (el alcohol es una droga como cualquiera de las otras, y bien destructiva), por lo menos los chicos no lo están comprando de otros chicos, en la escuela, de personas que portan armas. Esa situación existe con las drogas ilegales precisamente porque las hemos prohibido. Con la legalización de las drogas, los problemas criminales asociados con el comercio en drogas desaparecían - nada de tráfico armado de drogas en las escuelas, nada de guerras por territorio o mercados a cielo abierto.

Y aunque el daño del consumo de drogas no desaparezca cuando la prohibición se termine, el puro nivel de destructividad que está asociado actualmente con la adicción en particular también caería considerablemente, ya que los usuarios no estarían más sujetos a las impurezas aleatorias y a las fluctuaciones en la pureza, que actualmente llevan a intoxicaciones y sobredosis; y los precios altos que las drogas callejeras tienen también caerían, permitiendo que muchos, si no la mayoría, de los adictos que son llevados ahora a comportamientos extremados como el robo y la prostitución consigan su dinero para comprar drogas para por lo menos sufragar el vicio a través de medios legales de sustento. Intensificar la política fracasada de la prohibición no logrará esto.

Mientras tanto, por lo menos vamos a mantener la calma con estas ideas desatinadas como registros de infractores de drogas. La estigmatización continua de personas que ya han sido castigadas debe ser motivo suficiente. Pero si no es, la lógica increíblemente débil por detrás de esta idea debe serlo. ¿Queremos realmente ayudar a nuestros hijos a encontrar traficantes de drogas? Yo no quiero.

Dear Drug War Chronicle reader:

Many drug reform enthusiasts read two weeks ago on our new blog about a new video documentary, Waiting to Inhale: Marijuana, Medicine and the Law, and an exciting debate here in Washington between two of my colleagues and a representative of the US drug czar's office that followed the movie's screening. I am pleased to announce that DRCNet is making this film available to you as our latest membership premium -- donate $30 or more to DRCNet and you can receive a copy of Waiting to Inhale as our thanks for your support.

Your donation will help DRCNet as we pull together what we think will be an incredible two-year plan to substantially advance drug policy reform and the cause of ending prohibition globally and in the US. Please make a generous donation today to help the cause! I know you will feel the money was well spent after you see what DRCNet has in store. Our online donation form lets you donate by credit card, by PayPal, or to print out a form to send with your check or money order by mail. Please note that contributions to the Drug Reform Coordination Network, our lobbying entity, are not tax-deductible. Tax-deductible donations can be made to DRCNet Foundation, our educational wing. (Choosing a gift like Waiting to Inhale will reduce the portion of your donation that you can deduct by the retail cost of the item.) Both groups receive member mail at: DRCNet, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036.

Thank you for your support. If you haven't already checked out our new web site, I hope you'll take a moment to do so -- it really is looking pretty good, if I may say so myself. :) Take care, and hope to hear from you.

Sincerely,

David Borden
Executive Director

At least five California different medical marijuana dispensaries have been raided in the last ten days, bringing the total so far this year to more than 30, according to medical marijuana supporters. But that means nearly 200 existing dispensaries have not been raided, suggesting that what is occurring is more like a low-level battle of attrition than an all-out assault by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its allies among recalcitrant state and local law enforcement and elected officials.

Here is the latest casualty list:

photo courtesy ASA

The following day, DEA and local law enforcement agents raided the North Valley Discount Caregivers dispensary in Grenada Hills and seized all the medicinal cannabis at the site. The two operators were arrested on state marijuana charges.

That same day, Stanislaus County Sheriff's deputies raided the 2816 Collective in a rural area near Modesto using a state search warrant. Police seized about two pounds of dried marijuana and patient files. The collective had closed the day before because of the Modesto raid. With both California Healthcare in Modesto and the 2816 Collective gone, the entire region is now destitute of dispensaries, leaving hundreds of patients in the lurch.

On Tuesday, the DEA raided at least eight locations in the San Francisco Bay area, seizing more than 12,000 plants, $125,000 cash, and a fancy sports car. Despite somewhat hysterical initial reports in the local media, all the raids were connected with the New Remedies dispensary in San Francisco, which involved the same people involved in Compassionate Caregivers, which was raided by the DEA in Los Angeles in May 2005, when the feds found more than $300,000 in cash, sparking the investigation that culminated in the Monday raids.

On Wednesday, DEA and local law enforcement officers raided the Palm Springs Caregivers dispensary in Riverside County, seizing medicinal cannabis, but not making any arrests at the time. The raid came one day after the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted to ban dispensaries in unincorporated county areas, which does not include Palm Springs, and one month after Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask issued a white paper arguing that dispensaries are illegal under both state and federal law.

The raids triggered the Emergency Response Project of the medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access, which brought out protestors last Friday at DEA headquarters in Los Angeles, as well as Modesto, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco and Santa Ana. Demonstrators also greeted the Tuesday raids in San Francisco, and more actions are set for today.

"With our emergency response program, every time there is a federal raid -- and we can usually find that out in a matter of hours -- we activate our local response, as we did in San Francisco this week," said ASA's Caren Woodson. "But now, we're activating the national emergency response for Friday. It's a call-in day. We are urging everyone to call in to DEA administrator Karen Tandy and let her know how they feel about these raids. Karen Tandy has a lot of discretion, and she needs to exercise it."

While ASA is leading the immediate battle, it is not alone among movement groups in trying to figure out just what is going on. According to the DEA, it's nothing special, just enforcing the federal marijuana laws. "The two cases in which our office was involved, Modesto last week and here in the Bay area this week, were both the culmination of long-term investigations," said San Francisco DEA public information officer Casey McEnry. "In Modesto, the Modesto police began investigating and then passed it on to us, and with New Remedies, we had served warrants on them as Compassionate Caregivers in LA in May 2005, and we learned in December 2005 that they had changed their name and set up shop in Oakland," she told Drug War Chronicle.

"We can't read the DEA's mind, but there is no sign of an all-out offensive," said Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "These guys in San Francisco were already in the crosshairs -- they were victims of their own success -- but there are certainly plenty of other places operating openly. If the DEA wanted to, it could go after them with little effort, but it seems like a decision has been made not to do that."

photo courtesy ASA

While that may be bluster given the agency's limited resources, it is worrisome for dispensaries and their supporters. "These state-certified legal cannabis dispensaries look to the DEA like drug distribution havens," said Woodson. "If a dispensary is serving 150 people a day, the operator looks like a drug kingpin to them. They're like sitting ducks, they're listed in the phone book. And now some of these people are facing very severe sentences, some of up to life in prison.

It isn't just the DEA. "We have sporadic local police involvement in raids, mostly in counties where local government is not supportive, like Modesto or Riverside County, which is where Palm Springs is," said Mirken. "That tells us it is really important that local governments understand Proposition 215 and hear from their constituents that access to medicinal cannabis is important."

"They're picking locations where local decision-makers don't have a friendly attitude," said ASA's Woodson.

"These raids are really a drop in the bucket when you have 200 dispensaries out there," said Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML, "but we don't want to see them spread. I fear this is going to be a battlefield for awhile here until we come up with a regime that allows for better systems of dispensaries and production. The lack of a legal production system causes a lot of problems, and everybody in the dispensary business is operating in the black or grey market and vulnerable to legal uncertainties."

While medical marijuana dispensaries remain numerous in Los Angeles and the Bay area, the raids are having a very real impact on availability in some areas of the state. "In San Diego, a few months ago there were a dozen dispensaries in operation, but after the raids, they're gone and access to medical cannabis is largely gone," said Woodson. "There are only a handful of delivery services now, and they can't handle the demand. It's a similar situation in Modesto -- there aren't any dispensaries in the area now."

"I think it's going to continue for the short term, until something happens politically to change the dynamic," said Mirken. "That might not be until there is regime change in Washington, and maybe not even then, depending on how smart the Democrats are. It doesn't seem like anything is going to change drastically in California in the near term. Most people in the state government some local governments at least pay lip service to supporting Proposition 215, but we haven't seen much strong action from state officials with the clout to try to stop the raids. I really don't see anything moving on the state level," he said.

ASA's Woodson wasn't quite ready to give up on state government. "Here in California, we need to see more state officials standing up and denouncing these raids," she said. "The state legislature as a whole needs to take this issue on and create guidelines or craft prohibitions directing state and local law enforcement not to participate in these medical marijuana raids. The legislature is not doing its job if it is not properly protecting patients."

Another thing the legislature could do is restate and expand on its support for Proposition 215. "They should re-codify it and take a stand against the federal raids," said Woodson. "And they should demand our federal delegation pay more attention to this issue. All Diane Feinstein can talk about is meth; she and Barbara Boxer haven't raised a finger to help on medical marijuana. We would also like to see more law enforcement officers trained on the medical cannabis issue."

"California will do nothing statewide until federal law changes," predicted Gieringer. "I see this pattern of sporadic raids continuing until there is a change in the federal law. Two or three years ago, I would have said we were in mortal danger, but in fact, we've had nothing but an increase in the number of dispensaries even after we lost two Supreme Court decisions. Somehow I have a hard time believing that this is going to be reversed, especially given what happened in LA. Two years ago, there weren't any clubs in LA, now there are a hundred. It looks to me like the nation's second largest city is firmly infected with dispensaries. When it was just the Bay area, I was concerned the feds could shut it down, but they blew their chance. Now all they can do is bust someone every once in awhile and try to tarnish the image of the dispensaries, but they are here to stay."

The US Supreme Court Tuesday heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases that question whether immigrants who are legal US residents should face mandatory deportation for small-time offenses such as drug possession. Thousands of immigrants face such wrenching punishment, and according to the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, more than a million and a half people have been deported since the introduction of mandatory deportation for "aggravated felonies" under the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act that is being challenged in these cases.

US Supreme Court

Many of those deported under the immigration law were in fact found guilty of serious crimes, but many others were not. In one case covered by the Drug War Chronicle, Joao Herbert, who was adopted by American parents from a Brazilian orphanage as a young child but who never applied for US citizenship, was arrested as a teenager for selling a small bag of marijuana. He was sentenced to probation, but federal authorities sought successfully to deport him under the 1996 law. Sent to a land he never knew, he scraped by for a few years as an English teacher before being gunned down by Brazilian police in 2004.

In the cases before the court Tuesday, Lopez v. Gonzales and Toledo-Flores v. US, the offenses for which the US seeks to deport immigrants are even more trivial than in Herbert's case. Jose Antonio Lopez was a Sioux Falls, SD, grocery store and taco stand owner who legally emigrated from Mexico in 1985. The married father of two children, who are US citizens, pleaded guilty to telling someone how to obtain cocaine. Such an offense is a misdemeanor under federal law, but was a felony under South Dakota law. Federal immigration officials classified his offense as an "aggravated felony" under the immigration law and deported him to Mexico.

Reymundo Toledo-Flores was arrested for cocaine possession in Texas, where it is a misdemeanor, but when he was caught trying to reenter the country he was hit with a two-year prison sentence because immigration authorities considered his Texas bust an "aggravated felony" under the immigration law. He is appealing the sentence.

"The problem here is that state law and federal law are at odds in determining the gravity of the offense," Justice David Souter said during oral arguments Tuesday. "Isn't that very strange that Congress would have wanted a reading of the statute that would turn its definition of a misdemeanor crime into an aggravated felony for purposes of the immigration laws?" he asked.

Bush administration attorneys argued that immigration officials correctly classified both cases. "The statutory definition of 'aggravated felony' encompasses large categories of criminal conduct under state law, without requiring a federal-law parallel," the US solicitor general wrote in a brief to the court.

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler told the court Tuesday that the immigration law "looks to state law." If a drug offense is a felony under state law, it is a deportable felony under the federal law, he argued.

But three former Immigration and Naturalization Service general counsel disagreed in a friend of the court brief they submitted. "There is no clear indication that Congress intended the definition of aggravated felony to apply to drug offenses that are... misdemeanors under the federal law," they wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts was thinking along similar lines. "It must give you pause," he told Kneedler, "that your analysis of a term 'drug-trafficking' offense... leads to the conclusion that simple possession equates with drug trafficking."

"Immigrants shouldn't be kicked out of the country for doing what the president of the United States did," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "It is clear that the type of drug offenses we are talking about here are not the type of offenses Congress intended when it passed that law," he told Drug War Chronicle. "It also seems like this raises equal protection issues because it looks like whether you get deported or not depends on which state you were convicted in. In those states where drug possession is a felony, you get kicked out; in those where it isn't, you don't."

Immigrant rights and civil liberties groups joined in calling on the court to reject the federal government's broad interpretation of the law, and even the Center for Immigration Studies, which generally hews to a hard line on immigration enforcement, was not overly enthusiastic about deporting small-time drug offenders. "If the state legislature has decided this is a serious crime and someone who commits it will get deported, it's not like that person didn't know it was illegal," said Dr. Steven Camarota, director of research for the group. "I don't see a problem with making those people go. In some cases, however, people plead guilty to a crime not realizing they would be subject to deportation, and that raises a fairness issue," he told Drug War Chronicle. "The whole criminal justice system is supposed to temper justice with mercy, but with immigration we've created so many exceptions and waivers that sometimes it's good to come down hard."

For Camarota, the whole debate over deporting immigrants for small-time drug offenses is "small potatoes" compared to the real immigration issues facing the country. "We are talking about a few thousand people when there are 37 million immigrants in the country," he pointed out. "There is nothing wrong with the way in which the government is approaching this, but it does seem like an awful lot of debate over something so small. We should be putting resources into general enforcement of immigration laws."

"The 1996 law is really destructive," said Arnaldo Garcia of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. "On any given week, you have 20,000 or so legal permanent residents who committed small offenses sitting in jail under deportation proceedings. That includes things like a 20-year-old who had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, and it includes things like people getting arrested with small amounts of marijuana on them," he told the Chronicle. "The federal government is trying to institutionalize a double standard. Legal residents have equal rights under our court system, but after they have completed their sentences, they are then subjected to an unfair punishment -- banishment for life. This is a big crack in the foundation of equal treatment under the law."

There is little legal permanent residents can do, said Garcia. "What you can do is make sure you know the law," he said. "If you get arrested, you need to get the advice of an immigration attorney to know the consequences of the charge and whether it's a deportable offense. Some judges will work with you -- doing things like sentencing you to 364 days instead of 366, the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony -- but the INS just wants to deport your ass. I've seen people going in for their citizenship tests and immigration is waiting for them because they got busted as a teenager."

The ultimate protection from deportation under the immigration law is to become a US citizen. "That's easier said than done," said Garcia. "There is a huge backlog. I'm working with one family that submitted a reunification petition in 1994. Their case is just coming up now."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) quietly signed a bill Saturday that will allow nonviolent offenders to get off parole early if they complete an intensive drug treatment program. Under the new law, parolees who wish to participate will be sent directly to a five-month residential treatment program. Upon graduation, they will get off parole.

The new law will take effect in January. Only nonviolent offenders will be eligible, and they must have completed at least six months of drug treatment while in prison.

Post-release parole has proven onerous for many offenders. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 47% of parolees are returned to prison as parole violators. These are people who committed administrative infractions -- failing to notify the parole officer of a new address or new job, coming up positive on a drug test -- not new criminal offenses. An additional 15% of parolees are returned to prison on new criminal charges. There are currently more than 116,000 people on parole in California.

Sponsored by state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), the bill won the support of a variety of groups, including the powerful prison guards union. "Parolees who demonstrate that level of commitment to treatment deserve recognition for their effort, union spokesman Lance Corcoran told the Los Angeles Times Wednesday. "It's a concept worth supporting," he said. "The only question is how they are going to come up with enough drug treatment beds for everybody who qualifies.

Sen. Speier told the Times she sponsored the measure because about three-quarters of the state's 172,000 inmates have drug or alcohol issues. "If we can help them conquer their addictions and get them off this treadmill of returning to prison, we'll save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars," Speier said.

Now the question is where the money is going to come from. The state will save $4,340 per year for each ex-convict it doesn't have to supervise. The bill signed this week does not earmark any funds for expanded treatment, but Speier suggested the savings on parole costs could pay for new beds.

We have them at every stage of the criminal justice process this week, from arrest to guilty plea to sentencing. For a pair of greedy, wheeling-dealing cops in St. Louis and Miami, the ride through the criminal justice funhouse is just getting started. A former St. Paul cop has just copped a plea, and now former cops in Connecticut and Hawaii are heading to prison. Let's get to it:

Miami-Dade Police Department patch (or item # 180033018469 on ebay)

In St. Louis, a suburban Hillsdale, Missouri, police officer was indicted in an elaborate cocaine distribution conspiracy, the office of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri announced in a press release last Friday. Hillsdale Police Sgt. Christopher Cornell conspired with a tow truck company operator to rip off drug dealers and resell their cocaine, the feds charged. The tow operator would set up drug runners to deliver cocaine in Hillsdale and notify Cornell, who would stop and jail them for minor violations, leaving their cars at the roadside. The towing company would then tow the cars, steal the drugs, and resell them. US Attorney Catherine Hanaway estimated that the scheme had brought in $2.4 million in profits. The indictment seeks the forfeiture of Cornell's property, including a Mercedes Benz and other cars.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, a retired St. Paul police officer pleaded guilty last Friday to possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported. Clemmie Howard Tucker, a 23-year veteran who retired in 1998, was busted trying to pick up 22 pounds of cocaine and 12 pounds of meth at the Greyhound Bus Depot in neighboring Minneapolis. Police put the value of the seized drugs at $4 million. Although Tucker was tearful and contrite during his plea, it doesn't matter: He faces a mandatory minimum 10-year prison sentence. Pending cocaine charges will probably be dropped at sentencing, Tucker's lawyer said.

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a former Bridgeport police officer was sentenced to 45 months in prison for peddling oxycodone, the active ingredient in the popular pain reliever OxyContin. Former Officer Jeffrey Streck, 40, a 10-year veteran, pleaded guilty in January to conspiring to possess oxydone with the intent to distribute after being arrested by the FBI in 2005. According to the Associated Press, Streck was arrested as part of a three-month investigation into large-scale cocaine and marijuana trafficking and had arranged an Oxycontin buy.

In Honolulu, a Honolulu police officer who pleaded guilty to selling more than $5,000 worth of methamphetamine to an undercover informant was sentenced to five years and five months in prison on September 28, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported. Robert Henry Sylva, 50, had faced three counts of distributing meth during 2004, but copped to one count in a December plea agreement. Although Sylva faced an federal advisory guideline sentencing range of 7 to 12 years, US District Judge David Ezra cut him some slack at federal prosecutors' request after they said he had cooperated with investigators after being busted.

A decade ago, voters in Arizona approved a groundbreaking initiative, Proposition 200, "The Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996", which barred judges from sending first- or second-time drug possession offenders to prison. Instead, drug possessors are placed on probation and sometimes sent to drug court. But now, the Arizona legislature, concerned with the demon drug du jour, wants to treat those convicted of methamphetamine possession differently -- to be sent to jail or prison instead of getting probation and drug court.

Arizona State Prison Complex - Safford

"Meth is highly addictive and destructive," wrote Maricopa County (Phoenix) Attorney Andrew Thomas in a ballot argument for the measure. "There is a strong connection between meth abuse and identity theft. Phoenix has the second highest rate of methamphetamine abuse of all the nation's cities, as evidenced by drug tests done on arrestees... This proposition will change the law so that people arrested for possession of meth can be sentenced to jail or prison after their first conviction for drug possession. Currently, meth users can be incarcerated only after their second or third conviction for drug possession, or if they refuse to participate in treatment. Time in jail is often the only thing that offers meth addicts a secure, drug-free environment and an opportunity to reflect on their situation."

Proposition 301 singles out meth offenders for special treatment, and it does so on the basis of inaccurate ballot language -- language that survived a court challenge not on the merits, but because the challenge came too late. In the Arizona Legislative Council's analysis of the initiative, which is part of the ballot, the council informs voters that: "This change in the law will allow judges to use a jail term as a condition of probation to force methamphetamine users to comply with court mandated drug treatment and rehabilitation."

That language is misleading at best. While under current law, judges may not sentence people to jail or prison for first- or second-time drug possession offenses, they can put them on probation and send them to jail for violating it, as in, for instance, not complying with court-ordered drug treatment programs.

"Their spin is that this thing is simply a tool to force people to stay in treatment," said Caroline Isaacs of Meth Free Arizona -- "No" on 303. "That is completely contradictory to the bill's actual language," she told the Tucson Weekly last week. "Everybody is rightfully concerned about the extent of meth use in our community. But Proposition 301 would take us in exactly the wrong direction, in terms of dealing with our meth problem. To say the solution is to not provide treatment to people is absolutely backwards."

It is not just activists like Isaacs who oppose the measure. Pima County Superior Court Judge Barbara Sattler, who presides over the county's drug court program, told the Weekly "there is a lot of misconception concerning Proposition 301... It is true that first- and second-time offenders who possess small amounts of drugs (be it meth, cocaine, heroin, etc.) cannot be initially sent to prison or jail. However, if they violate treatment orders or get arrested for other felonies or drug offenses, they can be sent to jail or prison. Second-time offenders can get jail time up front as a condition of probation (although again they can not go to prison up front). Violating a treatment order means failing to drug test, testing positive for drugs or failing to attend treatment, whether that is going to counseling or failing to live in a halfway house catering to drug offenders," Judge Sattler wrote. "You can also go to jail or prison if you reject probation or refuse drug treatment."

A win for Proposition 301 would be a disaster, wrote Judge Sattler. "Incarcerating people keeps them off the streets, but when they come out, if they have not had treatment, they will begin using again. If this prop is passed, it will cost the taxpayers lots of money and clog prison with nonviolent addicts. While there is some drug treatment, in jail or prison, it is minimal and available only to a small percentage of prisoners.

"I think the bill is very short-sighted in targeting meth only," she continued. "While meth is certainly a horrible, highly addictive drug, addicts can be treated. Drug courts and other programs have had success. In the past, other drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine were the 'meth' of their time. The solution is not to target one drug. In a few years, there will be a new drug that takes the place of meth."

Visite http://stopthedrugwar.org todos os dias e você verá uma listagem dos próximos eventos na coluna direita da página com o número de dias restantes até a próxima série de eventos vindouros e um link para os demais;
• Confira a nossa nova seção do calendário eletrônico em para vê-los por mês, semana ou uma gama de perspectivas diferentes;
• Solicitamos e convidamos você a enviar as suas listagens de eventos diretamente à nossa página. Note que o nosso sistema novo permite que você publique não apenas uma descrição breve como nós fazemos atualmente, mas também o texto inteiro do seu anúncio.

O Calendário do Reformador publica eventos grandes e pequenos de interesse para os reformadores das políticas de drogas ao redor do mundo. Seja uma grande conferência internacional, uma manifestação que reúna pessoas de toda a região ou um fórum na universidade local, queremos saber para que possamos informar os demais também.

Porém, precisamos da sua ajuda para mantermos o calendário atualizado, então, por favor, entre em contato conosco e não suponha que já estamos informados sobre o evento ou que vamos saber dele por outra pessoa, porque isso nem sempre acontece.

Ansiamos por informá-lo de mais matérias novas de nossa nova página assim que estejam disponíveis.