Skip to main content

Latest

Blog

Almost Any Drug Offense Can Keep You from Becoming a Citizen or Getting a Green Card

Yasha Spector of drugpolicycases.com has joined us in the Speakeasy with a discussion of the intersection of immigration law and drug law. As Spector, who works in immigration law, explains in some detail:
[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.
Blog

Do Pharmaceutical Companies Support Marijuana Prohibition?

For most drug policy reformers, the answer is probably an exasperated "duh," but a fascinating piece at Huffington Post from NORML's Paul Armentano raises some very plausible doubts about the popular theory that the pharmaceutical industry is pushing pot prohibition to kill competition.

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 don’t 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.
In The Trenches

Dispatch from Vienna, Day Two: A Spy in the House

[Courtesy of ACLU] Intrigue and then remarkable progress marked the second day of the Vienna conference on drug policy. First, the intrigue. Throughout the first day, I kept noticing this one person who harrumphed, guffawed, and muttered every time someone spoke in ways critical of the drug policy status quo. By accent, she seemed to be from the United States. And she had a yellow badge, where everyone else had a red badge. Who was she? Why did she keep shuffling over to the U.S. groups like Drug Free America and other cheerleaders for U.S. hardline policy? She settled in right behind me, and gave instructions to her allies — tactics for blocking inclusion of harm reduction. She said "one of you needs to interject to stop the hand clapping in favor of their proposals." More and more, she seemed like some sort of puppet master. As the day concluded, she rushed up to the podium, accosted the chair, and, in the most agitated way, began lambasting the chair for various procedural points. I had to find out about the American woman with the yellow badge. At a social gathering later that evening, I described my observations to some of the NGO delegates who regularly attend these U.N. events. Turns out that the yellow-badge woman is June Sivilli, an employee of the U.S. drug czar’s office and a regular fixture at Vienna drug meetings. Until now, she has been able to speak as an official voice of the U.S. government — and the U.S. is always the most important voice on U.N. drug policy issues. Now that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are bringing the voices of ordinary people to the table for the first time ever, she was actively subverting the process, throwing every possible obstacle in the way of this quite benign process. I’d always heard that the U.S. government played a bully role in international drug policy. But it’s really ugly to see it in practice. Happily, the second morning of the conference came with no U.S. government saboteurs on the scene. Someone must have let Sivilli know that her contributions were not appropriate. As if by magic, the barrage of objections from yesterday largely evaporated. Some of the pro-status quo groups continued to raise some objections, but I realized that some of those folks have a genuine desire to make the world a better place and a desire to make the NGO consultation productive. The head of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America offered some reasonable compromises; the representative of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) supported my calls for human rights protections; even Calvina Fay (see yesterday’s post on her deplorable statements) became fairly agreeable. I shouldn’t overstate the kumbaya spirit of the day, though. A tempest erupted when a European HIV prevention group suggested that drug users should be consulted in making drug policy because they are the most affected. He asked us to imagine if an AIDS convention were drafted without mentioning people living with HIV. The NADCP representative then brought down the house with this: "I do not believe that people who are using drugs should be part of the process," followed by, "drugs are illegal, so it can’t be compared to the civil rights movement" and a comment that people could be heard only if "they submitted themselves to treatment" first. Deborah Small from Break the Chains offered an olive branch, saying that we all share the goal of helping people, so we should exclude no one. But the point of the whole exercise was brought home by the chair of the meeting, who said that some governments hesitate to consult NGOs because they are seen as unruly or undirected, so this kind of squabble would bring delight, showing that NGOs are categorically unfit to have a seat at the table. Thus, with Sivilli gone and with our minds focused on not looking like a room of unruly school children, we finally rolled up our sleeves. By mid-day, we began accelerating through a draft resolution, adding in human rights protections, recognizing the value of harm reduction, and insisting that "success" in the drug war must account for all the human and economic costs of incarceration and law enforcement, not just a tally sheet of tons of drugs interdicted. We even agreed that the U.N. drug bodies should re-evaluate whether incarceration is an effective drug policy. (One stalwart — a fellow whose organization’s goal is to bring drug testing to every school in the U.S. and across the globe — objected that this was an attack on law enforcement. None of the law enforcement organizations agreed.) Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of all this. It seems clear that ordinary people of the world are able to do a pretty good job describing a sane drug policy, so long as the U.S. drug czar stays out the way. The problem, though, is that this wonderful set of recommendations will matter only if national governments decide to listen. Once Sivilli resumes her customary seat at the table, she’ll surely oppose the recommendations. But will the other nations of the world have the wherewithal to chart their own course? Given that U.S. aid is often made conditional on toeing the U.S. drug policy line, it’s hard to be overly optimistic. And yet, we have no choice but to find hope that other nations will join us in charting a new course. At the end of today, I talked with Deodory John. He runs program in Tanzania for young people harmed by drug use. The program, Rafiki Family, is funded by local contributions. He is certain that prisons and police would do the kids in his program no good; they need education, jobs, peer counseling and treatment. And using harm reduction interventions, he’s working to combat the spread of HIV and AIDS. (If you want to join me in supporting his program, please send an email to John for more information.) I also met Tripti Tandon, from the Lawyers Collective’s HIV/AIDS Unit in India. She told me how India had enacted draconian drug laws under pressure from the U.S. to comply with its treaty obligations. The law makes even consumption of drugs a crime, and police routinely pick up poor people, force them to take drug tests, and then convict them based on the results. A positive for marijuana lands you in jail for six months; harder drugs for a year. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the U.S. helped design and build a remote maximum security prison, where death-row inmates are transported using CIA rendition techniques (hoods, shackles, beating), confessions are extracted under torture, and the majority of prisoners are accused solely of drug crimes. This travesty is exposed on page 45 of a March 2008 U.N. Human Rights Council report to the U.N. General Assembly. If the NGOs get our way here in Vienna, the U.N. drug bodies will start documenting the myriad human rights violations committed under the U.S.-led global war on drugs. At the ACLU, we work hard to replace the drug war with a humane, health-based approach. The millions of current, former, and would-be drug prisoners in the U.S. urgently need this change. This conference makes clear that things are as bad, and often worse, in other parts of the world, and I’m glad that our work may help atone for — maybe even correct — some of the devastation that U.S.-led drug policy has inflicted throughout all corners of the globe.
In The Trenches

Campaign Against Marijuana Planting: Another Record Failure in 2008?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   
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.

Event
In The Trenches

"From Prison to the Stage" at Kennedy Center

[Courtesy of Prisons Foundation] The year's most exciting stage presentation is now being rehearsed and finalized. Please mark your calendar for an evening of great theater featuring the work of prisoner and ex-prisoner playwrights: Sat. Aug 30, 8 pm, Millennium Stage of the Kennedy Center. Free admission. Presented as part of the Kennedy Center's Page to Stage Festival. See below for a listing of the five plays that will be performed. Also, pick up the next (August) edition of Washingtonian Magazine for more preview information. From Prison to the Stage: Six Felons, Five Plays Road 2 Redempshun by Shelton Land Laws Of The STREET by Lamont Carey This is Serious by Ramone Ringo Fernandez Stitch in Time by Lee Amiralt and Dennis Sobin The Monkey Trap by 1 Wise African aka Joseph Briggs Producer: Lloyd S. Rubin Directors: Jahi Foster-Bey and Anita Winston Music Director: Kevin Horrocks Stage Manager: Christopher Bryant
Blog

Police Refuse to Take Responsibility For Botched Drug Raid

We have already grown accustomed to disappointing explanations from law-enforcement after they kick in the doors of innocent people, terrorize families, tear apart their homes, and then insist that such things "almost never happen." It happens all the time, as we know, and the pattern is terribly, depressingly familiar.

Still, the latest botched drug raid, which took place outside Albany, NY on the eve of July 4th, prompted a reaction from police that is so callous and plainly dismissive that it managed to surprise even me. The point isn't that I don't believe some police officers think this way, but that I just wouldn't expect them to reveal it as shamelessly as this.

Here is what Troy Police Sergeant David Dean told Albany's News10 correspondent Anya Tucker after the raid:

Sgt. Dean: "We did not hit the wrong house, we hit the house that the search warrant directed us to hit."

Anya: "But was that information that led up to that right?"

Sgt. Dean: "My bosses are going through this whole investigative process to make sure that we were as thorough as possible."

Anya: "What was the level of threat that you assessed prior to coming into the home?"

Sgt. Dean: "That there were weapons in the house, or that the drugs were stored in that manor."

Anya: "In this house, you found no drugs?"

Sgt. Dean: "We are not publicly speaking on that issue at this point."

Anya: "Do you think this will hurt your credibility?"

Sgt. Dean: "The last thing we want to do is enter an innocent person's home - it doesn't get us anywhere, and it doesn't hamper the drug trade."

Let's just stop there for a second. That is why they don’t want to raid the innocent? Because "it doesn't get us anywhere, and it doesn't hamper the drug trade"!? Sgt. Dean either won't acknowledge, or doesn’t even believe, that law-abiding citizens have a right not to be treated this way. No duty could be more central to police work than the protection of innocent people and property, yet that fundamental concept takes a back seat, if any at all, to the concern that police weren't able to put anyone in prison that day. And it gets worse:

Anya: "Will you be going back to clean-up the damage to the house?"

Sgt. Dean: "We just have to enter lawfully with our search warrant, that is our only obligation."

Anya: "And you can leave it in any state that you left it?"

Sgt. Dean: "Yes. We had probable cause that led us to believe there was drug activity."

Regardless of what the policy is, does that even sound right when it comes out of your mouth? What sort of public servant goes on TV and says they can trash innocent people's homes with no recourse? If nothing else, I'd be afraid that talking about it this way might lead to these draconian police powers being taken away. Such candor reflects perfectly the paramilitary mentality through which such violent and utterly unnecessary police behavior is born and repeated endlessly.

These remarks should be Exhibit A at a hearing before the state legislature. If police don't feel at all responsible for the damage they cause when they are wrong, what incentive do they have to make sure they're right? This is just another painfully predictable result of raiding homes based on the testimony of some desperate informant with everything to gain and nothing to lose by making up names and addresses at random. That appears to be exactly what happened here, and if it's not, well, don’t hold your breath for an alternate explanation.

Maybe I don't say this enough, but I respect cops. I was a criminal justice major. I've studied under them, dined with them, toured D.C. in a squad car and answered calls with them. I've witnessed heroic policing at frighteningly close range and I'll be the first to concede that a good cop is worth anything we can afford to pay.

But the great thing about good cops is that they make you feel safe, and that's the opposite of what happened here. These officers are telling the public that they can destroy your home when you've broken no law, that they don’t have to fix it, and that they needn't even explain the circumstances that brought them crashing violently into your peaceful life. Why would anyone anywhere ever want cops like that?
Blog
In The Trenches

Marijuana decriminalization initiative qualifies for Massachusetts' ballot!

[Courtesy of Marijuana Policy Project] 

Dear friends:

The Massachusetts government has announced that it has certified a landmark marijuana decriminalization initiative for the November 4 ballot — which is the first time in history that an initiative to decriminalize marijuana possession will appear on any statewide ballot.*

When MPP polled Massachusetts voters in February 2007 on this question, we found that the initiative was supported by a 60% to 30% margin (with 10% undecided).

The initiative would reduce the penalties in Massachusetts so that the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana will be punishable only by a ticket and a $100 fine — similar to a speeding ticket — with no arrest, no jail or other penalties, no lawyer's fees, and no court appearances. Please visit http://www.sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/ to learn more about the initiative.

MPP has been working closely with the Massachusetts campaign operation, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP), to ensure the initiative's placement on the ballot. CSMP turned in more than 100,000 signatures last November and another 20,000 last month to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Your help is now needed to wage a strong campaign between now and Election Day to ensure that this groundbreaking initiative passes. Would you please visit www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org/donate.html to donate $10 or more today?

CSMP — led by campaign manager and long-time Massachusetts activist Whitney A. Taylor — is well-positioned to make history this November: In addition to completing both parts of the intensive signature drive, the campaign successfully lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature not to take any action that would harm the campaign, in addition to building a statewide coalition of opinion leaders who support the initiative and volunteers who will be working to pass the initiative.

Would you please visit www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org/donate.html to make your most generous donation to the campaign today? I want to thank you in advance for anything you can do to help.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

* Seven out of seven statewide initiatives to end various aspects of marijuana prohibition have failed over the course of our nation's history — in California (1972), Oregon (1986), Alaska (2000 and 2004), Nevada (2002 and 2006), and Colorado (2006). At a minimum, all seven initiatives would have removed all penalties for marijuana possession.  The Massachusetts initiative is polling much better than any of these seven initiatives because it seeks a more modest change — to treat marijuana possession like a speeding ticket, rather than imposing no penalty at all.