Skip to main content

Latest

Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle
Chronicle
Blog
Blog
Blog

Happy to be here!

Hello everybody, I just want to let everyone know it is nice knowing there are other people out there who share the same views about drug reform that I do.
Blog

The Assassination of Mexico's Top Cop Proves That the Drug War is Failing

Anyone who thinks aggressive law-enforcement is going to solve the drug problem needs to look at what's happening in Mexico:

MEXICO CITY — Gunmen assassinated the acting chief of Mexico’s federal police early on Thursday morning in the most brazen attack so far in the year-and-a-half-old struggle between the government and organized crime gangs.

The Mexican police have been under constant attack since President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2007 and started an offensive against drug cartels that had corrupted the municipal police forces and local officials in several towns along the border with the United States and on both coasts. [NY Times]

Unbelievably, George Bush and the Drug Czar are trying to give Mexico a $1.4 billion aid package to fight the cartels, even as the futility of this battle becomes more apparent every day. It is precisely the process of trying to eradicate massive drug markets that creates such brutal and perpetual violence. Thus, giving Mexico more money for the drug war is just exactly what we must not do.

This excellent clip featuring the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady explains why the U.S. is responsible for the violence in Mexico and why the only solution is to deal with our own drug problem here at home.


O'Grady acknowledges that prohibition isn't working, and though she doesn’t say it outright, I think it's pretty clear that she knows what must be done. More of this type of talk at the Wall Street Journal is exactly what we need as the Drug Czar lobbies for funding to support even more drug war violence south of the border.
In The Trenches

Press Release: South Carolina Supreme Court Reverses 20-Year Homicide Conviction of Regina McKnight

[Courtesy of National Advocates for Pregnant Woman & Drug Policy Alliance] For Immediate Release: May 12, 2008 For More Info: Lynn Paltrow 917-921-7421 or Tony Newman 646-335-5384 South Carolina Supreme Court Reverses 20-Year Homicide Conviction of Regina McKnight Decision Recognizes Research Linking Cocaine to Stillbirths Based on "Outdated" and Inaccurate Medical Information COLUMBIA, SC – Today, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Regina McKnight did not have a fair trial when she was convicted in 2001, becoming the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted of homicide by child abuse as a result of suffering an unintentional stillbirth. McKnight was arrested in 1999, several months after she experienced a stillbirth at Conway Hospital. McKnight’s conviction was based on the jury’s acceptance of the scientifically unsupported claim that her cocaine use caused the stillbirth. McKnight had no prior arrest history and even prosecutors agreed that she had no intention of harming the fetus or losing the pregnancy. Nevertheless, upon conviction she was given a twenty-year sentence, suspended to twelve years in prison with no chance for parole. She was projected to be released in 2010. The medical community has strongly opposed McKnight’s prosecution and conviction. From the beginning, leading South Carolina and national medical, public health, and child welfare organizations and experts have opposed the prosecution and conviction. These organizations—represented by National Advocates for Pregnant Women and the Drug Policy Alliance, with South Carolina counsel Susan Dunn included the South Carolina Medical Association, the South Carolina Nurses Association, the South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, and the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families—argued in an amicus (friend of the court) brief that women do not lose their rights to a fair trial upon becoming pregnant and challenged the state’s evidence that cocaine use or anything else that McKnight did or did not do caused the stillbirth. In 2002 counsel for Ms. McKnight challenged the constitutionality of using homicide statutes to prosecute women who experience stillbirths. On appeal, a bare majority of the State Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the new interpretation of the state's homicide law. The Court held that a pregnant woman who unintentionally heightens the risk of a stillbirth could be found guilty of “extreme indifference to human life” homicide. Under this decision a conviction for homicide is permitted on any evidence that a pregnant woman engaged in activity “public[ly] know[n]” to be “potentially fatal” to a fetus. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision. Today’s ruling focused on the question of whether Ms. McKnight received a fair trial and concluded that Ms. McKnight's counsel was "ineffective in her preparation of McKnight's defense through expert testimony and cross-examination." The decision also indicated that the medical and scientific basis for her prosecution and that of other women in the state is based on outdated and inaccurate medical information. “Significantly, the opinion acknowledges that current research simply does not support the assumption that prenatal exposure to cocaine results in harm to the fetus, and the opinion makes clear that it is certainly 'no more harmful to a fetus than nicotine use, poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, or other conditions commonly associated with the urban poor.'” said Susan K. Dunn, counsel for amicus. “This decision puts prosecutors across the state on notice that they must actually prove that an illegal drug has risked or caused harm—not simply rely on prejudice and medical misinformation.” This ruling addressed a petition filed on behalf of McKnight seeking a judicial review to determine whether the person is imprisoned lawfully or should be released from custody. The petition must show that the court ordered the imprisonment based on a legal or factual error. In McKnight, the factual error was accepting a causal link between McKnight’s cocaine use and her stillbirth. The legal errors were not calling medical expert as witnesses who could refute that link, failing to investigate the medical evidence the state's witnesses relied on and that was based on outdated scientific studies, and failing to challenge the court's confusing and contradictory explanations to the jury of what "intent" Ms. McKnight had to have. “Ms. McKnight is one of more than 500 women in South Carolina who experience stillbirths each year, and in many of those cases, medicine just can’t determine the cause,” said Brandi Parrish, coordinator of the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families. “It is a tragedy that Ms. McKnight has been in prison for nearly eight years for a crime she did not commit. Families in South Carolina are not helped by treating stillbirths as crimes and wasting hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to imprison innocent mothers.” The medical and public health groups also raised concerns about the consequences of South Carolina’s policy of arresting pregnant women who experience drug problems. In their brief, they cited the fact that threatening pregnant women with jail time deters them from seeking prenatal care and other vital services, as has been the case in South Carolina since the Whitner ruling in 1997 that originally permitted prosecution of pregnant women under state child endangerment charges. Ms. McKnight is represented on the petition by C. Rauch Wise of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina Foundation, Inc., and Matthew Hersh and Julie Carpenter of the law firm Jenner & Block for the DKT Liberty Project.
In The Trenches

Press Release: Religious Leaders Urge Minnesota House, Governor to Pass Medical Marijuana Bill

Gretchen Steele 

For Immediate Release: May 12, 2008

Religious Leaders Urge Minnesota House, Governor to Pass Medical Marijuana Bill
Fifty Clergypersons from Nine Denominations Take Action for Compassion


Contact:  Charles Thomas, IDPI executive director, 301-938-1577

    Fifty religious leaders throughout the state are urging the Minnesota House to pass a bill to allow seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

    Denominations with official positions supporting medical marijuana include the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Union for Reform Judaism, Episcopal Church, and United Church of Christ.  In addition to clergy from these denominations, medical marijuana supporters in Minnesota include clergy from Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran, and Baptist congregations.

    Clergy from these nine denominations endorsed the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative’s statement of principle reading, “Licensed medical doctors should not be punished for recommending the medical use of marijuana to seriously ill patients, and seriously ill patients should not be subject to criminal sanctions for using marijuana if the patient’s physician has told the patient that such use is likely to be beneficial.”

    This is precisely what S.F. 345, Minnesota’s medical marijuana bill, would accomplish.  Similar laws have been enacted in 12 other states.  Patients in Minnesota suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnesses who find marijuana to be helpful currently face a terrible choice: Either continue to suffer needlessly or risk arrest and jail. Although the Senate has already passed the bill, and polls show an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans in favor of it, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has threatened to veto is as long as members of the law enforcement community oppose it.

    “Medical marijuana is an issue of mercy and compassion,” said the Rev. Mark Stenberg from Mercy Seat Lutheran Church in Minneapolis.  “It's immoral to punish people for making an earnest attempt at healing.  As people of faith, we are called to stand up for humans who are suffering needlessly.”

    A letter featuring the statement signed by fifty Minnesota religious leaders was sent to all members of the state House.  Many of the clergypersons followed up by making phone calls to their representatives.

    “The moral choice on this issue is clear,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of IDPI, which is coordinating the religious lobbying efforts in Minnesota.  “We pray that the House, the law enforcement community, and Governor Pawlenty will heed this call for compassion.”

-------------------------------

Blog
Blog

3 dead 2 wounded

It's been quite the weekend in Metro Vancouver.There was a killing and a wounding on Thursday outside a strip club in the downtown core .Police say it was a gang shooting.On Friday a man driving in Bu
Blog

Police Entice Woman to Snitch, Get Her Killed, Blame Her for Her Death

NORML reports on the death of Rachel Hoffman, another disgusting and preventable death caused by the war on drugs and the reckless police tactics it has inspired.

Hoffman was caught selling marijuana and ecstasy in Florida. After threatening her with prison time, the police then gave Hoffman the option of becoming an informant–without first consulting with her lawyer. They set up a deal with her connection. What happened in between isn’t yet clear. But they found her body late last week.

Proving once again that the most dangerous thing about illicit drugs like ecstasy and marijuana isn’t the drugs themselves. It’s what the government does to you after you’re caught with them. [The Agitator]


Watch this video, in which Tallahassee Police Chief Jones blames Rachel for her own death and then says, "we are aggressively seeking justice for Rachael and her family."

If Chief Jones wants justice he should start by fixing the protocols he claims his officers adhered to. They sent Rachel in to purchase an uncharacteristic amount of drugs, along with a gun, just to ramp up the charges even higher. Their insatiable lust for big busts and big headlines gave them away and got their informant killed. There's nothing complicated about this. No nuances to debate. It's horrible policing brought on by a horrible war, which produced another horrible outcome.

Note: If you get arrested, speak with a lawyer immediately and do not fall for the common tricks police use to recruit snitches. They may tell you that this is your only chance to make a deal. They may exaggerate how much trouble you're already in, so as to leverage your cooperation. Frequently, people arrested for drugs endanger their own lives by becoming informants, when a lawyer could have gotten them off altogether. The drug war feeds on these coercive tactics, creating crimes that would never have occurred, and ruining one life after the next. Don't fall for it.

Blog

Stop Saying Medical Marijuana is Politically Risky and Just Look at the Polls

Karen Brooks at the Dallas Morning News blog badly misses the point in regards to Barack Obama's support for medical marijuana:

Just got a notice from the happy folks over at the Marijuana Policy Project that Sen. Barack Obama "stands with us" on access to medical marijuana.

I'm not sure this helps his campaign, although the growing number of states (a dozen, at least) that have approved the use and prescription of medical marijuana may mean that he'll get support on the issue. Here in Texas, the decriminalization legislation - way stronger stuff than what the Medical Pot People are pushing - comes from both sides of the aisle.

So I guess what I'm saying here is, uhm, who knows if this will help or hurt him.

Well, allow me to relieve you of your uncertainty. Polling consistently shows overwhelming public support for medical marijuana. Do you know what medical marijuana's record is with voters? It's 10-1 at the state level, losing only in South Dakota, which ain't really Obama territory anyway. Supporting medical marijuana is among the safest policy positions one can take in 2008, and there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary. I look forward to a point when it's no longer necessary to illustrate this.

Secondly, Brooks buy into the myth that federal interference somehow makes medical marijuana laws ineffective:

Anyway, these laws and ordinances quickly go up in smoke when the feds - who just can't stand the idea of anyone smoking pot and getting away with it - decide to bust down doors and haul away the cancer patients and their docs anyway.

While I appreciate the implied sympathy for patients and doctors, this hyperbolic assessment of the force of federal law vastly overstates the impact of the DEA's campaign against medical marijuana. Despite federal interference, medical marijuana is more available to patients than ever before. The number of dispensaries that have been raided is dwarfed by the number that are open right now, at this exact moment. The idea that medical marijuana laws have been crippled by federal law enforcement is just as fictitious as can be.

My point here is not to excuse the ongoing raids and other atrocities that do still occur. Rather, it must be understood that the Drug Czar badly wants the public to believe that these laws don’t work because he knows we're going to keep passing them in new states and we're 10-1 so far. The only reason DEA even bothers to keep conducting these ugly and unpopular medical marijuana raids is so that the media will falsely report that these laws just "go up in smoke" as Brooks now suggests. That argument is then used against new medical marijuana initiatives to imply that there's no point in passing them, even though existing laws protecting patients have generally been very effective at preventing sick people from getting arrested.

Both of the above points are common misconceptions, and I don’t fault Brooks for indulging them. Still, it is vital that the discussion of medical marijuana continue on a sound factual basis as we proceed towards a showdown between Obama and McCain on this issue.

So, to recap, I submit the following two propositions:

1. Medical marijuana is overwhelmingly supported by the American public.

2. Federal efforts to shut down medical marijuana distribution in states were it is legal have failed utterly.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)