Latest
If Police Don't Find Anything During a Drug Raid, Should They Have To Fix the Damage?
Initially, it struck me as a no-brainer; here we have police trading leniency for information, then raiding homes based on the word of informants with a monumental incentive to lie. Officers should do the necessary footwork to verify such information, or else bear the cost. It's really the least we can do for the innocent victims of the drug war's rock-bottom evidentiary standards. If police don't want to help innocent people, then what are they for?
But ezrdyn, a commenter on this DrugWarRant post, responded with a chilling counterpoint: if police must clean up after unsuccessful drug raids, we're giving them an incentive to make sure, by any necessary means, that drugs are found no matter what. It's a terrible catch-22 that the same policies that might encourage police to be careful when planning a raid also encourage planting evidence against innocent people to avoid responsibility when they damage property and come up with nothing.
The real solution then is to reform our informant policies themselves, prohibiting police from raiding homes based on coerced testimony from criminal defendants. That is the common denominator, the unifying trait shared by so many of the worst botched drug raid disasters. Police will do anything to conceal their sources and shield from meaningful scrutiny the inherently corrupt process by which these decisions are made to begin with. That is the thread that must be pulled if we are to unravel and expose the questionable conditions under which these catastrophes continue to occur.
"Clearly there's no LSD, and how long does it take to test a chocolate-chip cookie for marijuana?"
They said the basket smelled like pot and the cookies initially tested positive for LSD. Now it's become clear the cookies were just, well, regular cookies, but not before throwing the young man in jail on $75,000 bond and creating a media circus.
Lesson learned: don't feed the cops. Everything smells like drugs to them.
Drug Truth w/John Stossel 07/10/08
Almost Any Drug Offense Can Keep You from Becoming a Citizen or Getting a Green Card
[P]retty much every drug offense is sufficient to permanently bar getting a green card or obtaining U.S. citizenship.There are exceptions that the government can make in limited circumstances, but they are limited, and many more cases carry the likelihood of automatic deportation -- no judicial exceptions. Plea bargaining might help one avoid a prison sentence, but it doesn't help with the immigration problems. There was a little good news in this area courtesy the Supreme Court in 2006. But there is still little to be done in most cases, and people are being deported who for all intents and purposes have never lived in any other country than here.
Do Pharmaceutical Companies Support Marijuana Prohibition?
I highly recommend reading the whole thing before forming an opinion, but here are the basic points as I understand them:
1. Pharmaceutical companies are vigorously pursuing patents on various marijuana components and derivatives for a great variety of potential medical applications. Given the rigorous and heavily politicized FDA approval process they'll ultimately need to pass, there's no sense in indulging anti-marijuana hysteria within the government bureaucracy.
2. These products will ultimately be marketed to a populace that has been spoon-fed mindless anti-pot propaganda for decades. Since the origins of the coming generation of marijuana-based medicines will be widely known, their manufacturers have an interest in marijuana being trusted, rather than feared, within the marketplace.
3. Pharmaceutical companies understand that marijuana can never live up to its reputation as a panacea that can replace modern medicine. This is true because most people don't smoke it, and most people donât want their medicines grown on a tree. Conditions in places where medical marijuana is currently widely available demonstrate this.
4. Government bureaucrats, police and prison lobbies, and voters who've succumbed to drug war propaganda are the real forces behind marijuana prohibition.
Paul also observes the important role marijuana reform efforts have played in fostering a climate in which marijuana-based medicines have become recognized as viable. Only by breaking down bit by bit the barrier of hysteria surrounding marijuana have we been able to set a tone in which medical marijuana research can be discussed rationally in the public domain. There are exceptions, of course, but now that the science and the will of the voters can speak for themselves, corporate profiteers associate marijuana with dollar signs, not reefer madness.
It has also been proposed by some in the reform movement that pharmaceuticalized marijuana may lead to a crack down on the medical use of herbal marijuana, as corporate profiteers pressure police to purge their most obvious competitor. I reject that notion for a couple reasons: 1) the marketing of new marijuana-based medicines will have a trickle-down effect of politically legitimizing pre-existing medical marijuana activity. 2) We can't afford to bust 'em now, we won't be able to afford to bust 'em then. 3) The risk of jury nullification when bringing medical marijuana cases to trial is substantial and will remain so.
Finally, though Paul doesn't address this, many people have cited instances of pharmaceutical companies supporting organizations like Partnership For a Drug Free America as evidence of their complicity in the war on marijuana. I've attempted to research this in the past and couldn't find anything worth our time. The story died on my desk. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies fund so-called "anti-drug" advocacy, I now believe it has nothing to do with marijuana, but rather with a desire to proactively cover their asses for the destructive effects of the legal drugs they themselves manufacture and market.
So, I believe Paul's analysis should probably replace much of the conventional wisdom that currently exists on this issue. Unless other evidence emerges, or other experts of Paul Armentano's caliber (few exist), emerge to convincingly challenge his assertions, the burden of proof placed on those blaming Big Pharma for marijuana prohibition has been raised several notches today. If this helps us to refocus our advocacy towards other more demonstrable, palatable, and persuasive arguments for reform, that would be a good thing.
Dispatch from Vienna, Day Two: A Spy in the House
Campaign Against Marijuana Planting: Another Record Failure in 2008?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEÂ Â Â
JULY 9, 2008
Campaign Against Marijuana Planting: Another Record Failure in 2008?
CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications ............... 415-668-6403 or 202-215-4205
SAN FRANCISCO -- With both the state and federal budgets awash in debt, reform advocates are urging California to rethink its annual Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP) as the annual CAMP season prepares to launch.
   "Record-setting busts each year have done nothing to reduce the marijuana supply or keep marijuana out of the hands of kids, but they have succeeded brilliantly in driving the growers to more dangerous locations, putting national parks and residential communities at risk," said Bruce Mirken, the Marijuana Policy Project's San Francisco-based director of communications.
   Last year, Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that CAMP -- funded by federal, state and local dollars -- had seized an all-time record 2.9 million marijuana plants, nearly tripling 2004 seizures and a 2,200 percent increase since 1997. With no apparent effect on marijuana availability, the U.S. Justice Department's National Drug Threat Assessment 2008 cited such outdoor raids as a force pushing growers into indoor sites in residential neighborhoods. The report, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs25/25921/25921p.pdf, stated, "Federal, state, and local law enforcement reporting indicates that vigorous outdoor cannabis eradication efforts have caused major marijuana producers, particularly Caucasian groups, to relocate indoors, even in leading outdoor grow states such as California and Tennessee." Citing suburban homes as one type of site used for such operations, the Justice Department predicted, "DTOs [drug trafficking organizations] and criminal groups ... will adapt to the increasing law enforcement pressure and improved detection capabilities associated with outdoor grow sites and will most likely shift operations indoors ... [T]he groups will produce higher-potency marijuana year-round, allowing for an exponential increase in profits derived."
   Last year, the Marijuana Policy Project wrote to Brown asking him to supply evidence that CAMP had reduced the marijuana supply, environmental damage from illicit marijuana growing or teen access to marijuana. Brown did not reply.
   "If you want marijuana to be more potent and produced in the most dangerous way possible, CAMP is a roaring success," Mirken said. "If you want to solve these problems, it's time to put aside the fantasy of 'eradication' and regulate California's marijuana industry like we regulate our wine industry."
   With more than 25,000 members and 180,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.
United States Sentencing Commission's Symposium on Crime and Punishment: Alternatives to Incarceration
"From Prison to the Stage" at Kennedy Center
Pagination
- First page
- Previous page
- …
- 847
- 848
- 849
- 850
- 851
- …
- Next page
- Last page