I have been a little under the weather the last few days, and so have not gotten the blogging online that I've intended to. I will be posting stuff later in the weekend or early next week, but in the meanwhile here are some "teasers": 1) I testified in Annapolis Tuesday, in support of HB 283, a bill by Maryland State Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, before the House Ways and Means Committee, that would require the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) to provide college aid to any would-be students who qualify for it under the state's own standards -- e.g., if they've lost federal aid because of a drug conviction, a law to which the state does not have an analogue -- MHEC has to process their applications for state aid anyway, even if it means a little extra work to do so. (Currently MHEC simply using the federal FAFSA system, and so students with drug convictions fall through the cracks, as they do in 34 other states. This is the second year in a row Gutierrez has offered this legislation; I also testified last year; also testifying this year were SSDP's Kris Krane and UMD SSDP's Anastacia Cosner. MHEC this year as last year submitted written informational testimony on the bill, neither supporting nor opposing it. There are reasons to believe they would prefer it not pass, and that they hope to get around having to implement it if it does. Furthermore, they made some real screw-ups leading up to the hearing, and have kind of stepped in it; more on that later. Del. Gutierrez talked about our report (link previous paragraph) in her own testimony and urged legislators to read it, which was cool. We don't have a lot of time to rally support for this, maybe only another week; if you live in Maryland and can help (in ways large or small) please write to me. More about this soon, including copies of our testimony, links to UMD news coverage and more. 2) Our sign-on letter to Congress calling for repeal of the aforementioned federal law, and asking members of the US House of Representatives to cosponsor the Barney Frank repeal bill was delivered this week -- 170 organizational signatories! The total number of groups on record calling for full repeal is now up to about 335, if I counted correctly. Links and more info coming soon. 3) I got to pose a question about the opium trade in Afghanistan and eradication programs to CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen at a forum at the New America Foundation this week (right across the street from our office, actually). His response was both positive (from our perspective) and interesting. I'll be posting a transcript of the exchange with some comments in a separate post. 4) The Lou Dobbs segment on the marijuana legalization movement was not the ultimately slam of us, nor were the remaining segments in his drug war sequence. Nor, however, does the series qualify as quality journalism, and some of it I found kind of offensive. More on this soon. By the way, my take-off on Dobbs' drug war editorial has gotten nearly 3,800 reads so far. A special thanks to all of you who showed an interest, especially those who forwarded it around on sites like stumbleupon.com. - Dave

Phil took a day off from his reporting to visit the famous Inca ruins of Machu Picchu, but coca seems to be everywhere... stunted coca plant in garden, Machu Picchu (click this post's title link or the "read full post" link for more pictures -- not coca or drug policy, but breathtaking)

I haven't yet watched the Lou Dobbs piece on the marijuana legalization movement, but it is has already been made available for viewing on YouTube, here. I am very interested to read comments -- hopefully posted here to the blog -- from those of you who have seen it. There is an online poll running on CNN from the Lou Dobbs Tonight home page. If it's still going when you read this blog post, please go there and vote. At latest count Dobbs was losing big-time -- 79-21%! So there. Read my takeoff on Dobbs' drug war editorial if you haven't already, in this week's Chronicle or here.

So my takeoff on a Lou Dobbs drug war editorial has apparently been making the rounds on the web site stumbleupon.com, and has already gotten 2,700 reads even though it only went up yesterday. Thank you to whoever it was who got that action started. Apparently Dobbs is continuing his drug war reporting -- if you can call it "reporting" -- Monday night at 6:00pm with a look at the "deep-pocketed lobby that wants to legalize pot in this country." Of course Dobbs goes on to talk about "marijuana's backers" -- as if there is some equivalence between people who believe in drug policy reform (e.g. legalization, or freedom as it can also be called) and those who promote or might profit from the personal choices of people who might use the plant. Earth to to Lou Dobbs: it's not the same to be pro-legalization or pro-reform as it is to be pro-marijuana or pro-drug. Never having used illegal drugs and never having recommended them to anyone I feel offended by that. We will post some observations about the show on Monday, along with contact information for writing in with your opinions. Keep your typing fingers warmed up!

Pictures from Phil, Ayacucho province and Cusco -- more of them (and good writing) can be found in Phil's Drug War Chronicle scene article here. Many more to come... cocalero Percy Ore in his fields, near the town of San Francisco, Ayacucho province coca waiting by the side of the road to go to market (Click the "read full post" link if you're not seeing the rest of the pictures.)

bulletin from the city of Lafayette: http://www.cityoflafayette.com/News.asp?NewsID=1466 City Withdraws Ordinance Ordinance No. 06, 2007, which amended Section 75-41 and 75-42 of Lafayette's Municipal Code regarding the maximum penalties for possession of cannabis (marijuana), has been withdrawn. City staff and City Council have determined that more information and analysis are needed on this matter, and it will be the subject of a Council Workshop Meeting on April 3. If and when the ordinance is brought forward after the workshop City Council's process for voting on the ordinance will start from the beginning, with votes required at two separate Council Meetings. The April 3 City Council Workshop will be held at City Hall, Council Chambers, 1290 South Public Road, at 5:30 PM. The workshop meeting is open to the public and will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 8. also, a press release from SAFER about it:

Phil called me this afternoon from a small town called San Francisco, off in the wilds of the Peruvian state Ayacucho -- the heart of coca country. He promised a bunch of pictures, including some of coca fields, when he got back tonight to the city of Ayacucho itself -- all three Internet cafes in San Francisco were offline, so he couldn't send them or post to the blog from there. Among other things, Phil told me that the roads are really bad there, and together with it being a real mountain region he can see why it is difficult to transport most crops out of there to larger markets. Phil was expecting to get back to Ayacucho around 7:00pm, but debris left by a landslide had to be cleared off of the road, and they were delayed for three hours. The hotel doesn't have Internet or even phone lines in the rooms to try a dial-up, and he was left with a little over an hour with which to post some Chronicle articles for me to proof, and with much of the Chronicle writing job in front of him. So no blogging from Phil tonight, unfortunately. But check back tomorrow morning, when Phil will recount the tale of his trip over the top of the Andes and down into the edge of the Amazonian jungle to visit with coca growers...

One of the stories we've reported on in Drug War Chronicle is the request of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst that one of its professors, Lyle Craker, be granted the necessary licenses to allow him to legally grow research grade marijuana for research on marijuana as a medicine. The DEA always says "there's no research supporting medical marijuana" and "it needs to go through the FDA like any other drug." Actually there is research supporting medical marijuana, quite a bit of it in fact. But the specific research that needs to be done to get marijuana through the remainder of the FDA process can only be done if the DEA allows researchers the legal right to have the marijuana around to do the research. And DEA usually says no. Not surprisingly, DEA has obstructed Craker's efforts, which led to litigation This week DEA administrative law judge Mary Ellen Bittner ruled that DEA should issue the licenses and allow UMass to proceed with its plans. The ruling is not binding, and DEA officials have the power to simply decide otherwise if they so choose. This is what happened in 1988 after Judge Francis Young issued an historic and oft-cited pro-medical marijuana ruling. We'll see what happens this time. Visit the web site of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies for more information and extensive background on this issue.

Tony Serra, a prominent defense attorney whose name comes up frequently in drug law reform, writes a revealing critique of the criminal justice system, based on his experiences in federal prison camp in Lompoc, California for tax resistance -- in the '70s and again for a few more months this year. The text of his letter, which was originally published in California Lawyer, was published online at the BreaktheChains.info web site. Serra writes that while the camp environment, which is low security, on its surface is far more humane than an all-out prison -- "In 1976 inmates, as a generality, felt graced and privileged by their placement in the Camp" -- things have changed for the worse:

Not one prisoner whom I have talked to-and I have talked to hundreds-believes he has been treated fairly by the judicial system. Many young men, who in a past generation would have received probation, have had their youth taken from them-10, 15, 20 years of incarceration, with no parole, no conjugals, no furloughs, no real job training or education. They are harsh and bitter. Their attitude is contagious in prison subculture. Prisoners nowadays uniformly hate the U.S. government. And we sit around and ask why recidivism is on the rise!

Read the full letter here.

A Reuters article this afternoon reported that Mexico's new president, Felipe Calderon, is sending over 3,000 troops to Tijuana in a crackdown aimed at stemming the ongoing violence that has wracked the border city in recent years. The first 500 arrived today and are investigating charges of corruption in the local police force:

As two helicopters circled overhead, dozens of troops with assault rifles and riot shields converged on a police headquarters to inspect weapons, a first step in probing alleged drug gang links and corruption inside the local force.

The move comes only three weeks since Calderon sent 7,000 troops to his own home state of Michoacan. 2,000 people were killed in drug trade violence in Mexico last year. One of the guests at DRCNet's 2003 conference in Mexico, "Out from the Shadows, Ending Drug Prohibition in the 21st Century" ("Saliendo de las Sombras: Terminando de le Prohibición de las Drogas en el Siglo XXI" en Español) was Gregorio Urias German, a Mexican congressman from Sinaloa, another part of the country that has suffered in the drug wars. Urias blames drug prohibition for this violence, but he fears that "If we can't even discuss the alternatives, if we can't even admit the drug war is a failure, then we will never solve the problem." He said that existing forums, such as the UN and the Organization of American States, are not fruitful places for discussion, "because only the repressive policies of the United States are discussed at these forums." While it is not the job of media outlets like Reuters to take a position favoring legalization in their news reporting, they will be doing a better job when they start to include leaders like Urias in their articles who hold that point of view. This Google News link will pull up a list of hundreds of appearances of this news story that are currently active in the mainstream media (many though not all the Reuters story or another by the AP). We encourage you to follow the links and submit some letters to the editor. Post them back here along with the letter-writing info for others.

An Associated Press article today reports that the homicide rate in the US is going up again:

After many years of decline, the number of murders climbed in 2006 in New York and many other U.S. cities, including Rocky Mount, reaching their highest levels in a decade in some places. (Rocky Mount is a North Carolina community whose local paper drew on the AP story to produce this article. Among the reasons given: gangs, drugs, the easy availability of illegal guns, a disturbing tendency among young people to pull guns when they do not get the respect they demand and, in Houston at least, an influx of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

While drug warriors like former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani credited the "broken windows" theory of policing and tough sentences in general for the crime drop, criminologists pointed instead to a range of factors -- a decrease in the number of youth in the population figured prominently. (With my elementary school -- Roosevelt -- having been converted into a condominium -- The Roosevelt -- because of demographics, I was aware that fewer kids were growing up for awhile.) A corollary is that with youth numbers expected to go up again, crime would eventually go up again too. And now it has (yes, in New York too). The AP story did not go into the role of drug prohibition in all of this. Basically, it is prohibition of drugs that causes the vast majority of the drug-related violence -- pharmacologically-induced violence, acts committed because of being under the influence of drugs -- makes up only a small portion of the total. Drug-related violence is first and foremost the violence of the drug trade -- gangs and other sellers fighting it out over turf. The illegal drug trade exists solely because the drugs are illegal. The second most important cause of drug-related violence is economic crimes committed to get the money needed to buy drugs. This would mostly go away if drugs were legal because the price of the drugs would drop to normal market levels and addicts would not need to commit crimes to afford them. It's impossible to have a serious discussion of the causes of violence without discussing -- without even mentioning -- the consequences of prohibition. This must be stated over and over and over until the people leading the discussion take note. Click here to submit a letter to the editor to the Telegram, and here for info on their letter standards. Please make a post here with a link or letter to the editor information for any other papers where you see the AP story or articles based on it.

This editorial was published as part of our 12/29/06 "Mini-Bulletin." The entire bulletin can be read online here. One of the news items today -- not in drug policy -- was the filing of an ethics complaint by the North Carolina Bar Association against Mike Nifong, the now high-profile prosecutor in the case involving three Duke University lacrosse players who originally faced rape charges and are still charged with kidnapping and sexual assault. The complaint comes on the heels of a letter sent by a member of Congress from the state, asking the US Attorney General to investigate Nifong. No, I'm not about to express a wish related to this case. I'm not familiar enough with it to express what I would consider an informed opinion, and I wouldn't post such an opinion here in this drug policy newsletter if I did. But I do know something about prosecutorial misconduct in general. For example, that a 2003 report by the Center for Public Integrity, "Harmful Error," found that it is widespread but almost never punished. According to CPI, prosecutorial misconduct falls mainly in several categories:

• courtroom misconduct;
• mishandling of physical evidence;
• failing to disclose exculpatory evidence;
• threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
• using false or misleading evidence;
• harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant's counsel;
• improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.

(There's much more detail about these, of course, on the web site.) Another thing I know about prosecutorial misconduct is that the most common victim of it is black or brown, and poor, is not enrolled at a prestigious university, and doesn't have the best lawyers that money can buy. Media outlets, certainly national ones, almost never focus on their cases. Often they receive the arguably sound advice that innocent or guilty they should really not fight the charges, or the outcome will be much worse. And the Bar Association won't do anything about their cases, because there are just too many. Misconduct in the criminal justice system is by no means limited to the ranks of prosecutors. Police are also serious, perennial offenders. For example, a recent case in Hartford, Connecticut involved a retired police officer who was convicted recently of falsifying an arrest warrant. His colleagues came to his defense, arguing that this was common practice in the department. The judge gave him a special form of probation that will allow him to get his record expunged upon completion of it. The trial has myriad implications. First, there is confirmation by actual police officers, under oath, that police officers constantly break the law in order to make arrests. Second, the officers obviously felt comfortable enough with that fact to state it publicly, before a judge. Third, the judge was okay enough with this to give the officer a sentence that is a little more than a slap on the wrist, but not all that much more. How is police and prosecutorial misconduct to be stemmed if it is tolerated? And if it isn't, how can we in the public have faith in the outcome of any criminal case? One of my many wishes for the New Year is that fewer police and prosecutors commit misconduct, and that more complaints are filed against those who do.

According to the Associated Press, President Bush issued 16 pardons yesterday, including one sentence commutation. Six of them including the commutation were for drug offenses. (For those of you who are not familiar with this, a pardon can simply mean that an old offense is wiped off of one's record -- feels good, may help with employment and other matters, but the individual was already finished with any incarceration that was part of the sentence.) A commutation is when someone actually gets out early or finishes parole or probation early. According to the AP:

Bush also granted a commutation of sentence to Phillip Anthony Emmert of Washington, Iowa, whose case involved conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced Dec. 23, 1992, to 262 months’ imprisonment (reduced on Feb. 21, 1996) and five years’ supervised release. Bush directed that Emmert’s sentence expire on this coming Jan. 20, but left the supervised release intact.

Please contact the White House to let them know that: 1) We're glad he's releasing Phillip Emmert; 2) One commutation is nowhere near good enough. The president should release more nonviolent drug offenders this year! Just a few of the more well known ones: Weldon Angelos, Clarence Aaron, Lawrence & Lamont Garrison.

A featured post today on the Huffington Post blog by Josh Sugarmann ask Crime is Back -- How Long Can We Avoid Talking About It? The author, referring to an article in yesterday's Washington Post predicts that crime will make it to back to the front burner in the nation's political agenda. One of the causes is the rise, after a lengthy drop in the number of young males in the population. The Plank, a blog published by The New Republic magazine, also predicts today that crime will figure more prominently in 2008 than in other recent political campaign seasons. That scares me. When crime becomes a political issue, reason and creativity tend to go out the window in favor of tough talk and slogans. The heinous mandatory minimums -- the laws that got Weldon Angelos 55 years, to pick just one case -- were the result of politicos focusing on crime. I seriously doubt that Sugarmann favors that kind of sentencing, aligned as he is with the liberal left. That said, the collective "we" have been avoiding talking one of the most important causes of crime, perhaps the most important, since long before the recent years' crime drop even began: drug prohibition. So long as drugs are illegal, young males (and others) will get recruited by the illicit drug trade, will possess guns as a part of that, and will carry the guns wherever they go. Sometimes they'll use them. Whether crime rises or drops, the violence rate in our society and around the world is dramatically greater than it would be if drugs were legal. All the money that people spend on illicit drugs, hundreds of billions of dollars per year, are going into the criminal underground because of the drug laws. How could that not have a serious increasing effect on violent crime? How much longer can we avoid talking about that? Having mentioned the Huffington Post and the New Republic, I'll point that out that Post published Arianna Huffington is herself a longtime opponent of the drug war, as is New Republic Senior Editor Andrew Sullivan. Whatever else should be done about crime, prohibition must get addressed. A conversation about violence that omits the issue of the drug laws is incomplete.

UPDATE ON VOTE RESULTS HERE Earlier this year, DRCNet reported on a push by the drug czar and drug warriors in Congress to pass a reckless bill to research the use of mycoherbicides -- toxic, fungal plant killers -- as a means of attacking illicit drug crops. Even government agencies are unenthusiastic about this one -- our article cited the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture, the State Department, the CIA and even the DEA as agencies that have rejected the idea as dangerous for health and the environment as well as likely to meet with resistant strains of poppy and coca against which it would be ineffective.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics annual report on use of the criminal justice system has come out, and there is landmark grim news: There are now seven million people under criminal justice control -- in prison or jail, on probation, or or parole -- in the United States. I am having trouble finding a link to the report -- maybe it's not posted yet -- but Phil will be covering this in Drug War Chronicle tonight. So check back for more details on the bad news...

Now it seems that one of the officers involved in the deadly "drug raid" in Atlanta last week previously lied about an incident in which he caused a head-on car crash. Yet the Atlanta police kept him on the force, and his "credibility" was good enough to get a no-knock warrant to break down someone's door. Also, the confidential informant is no longer confidential, somehow. But why? Read Radley Balko's analysis in The Agitator.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2006 PRESS CONTACT: Luciano Colonna, 801-635-7736 SALT LAKE CITY CONFERENCE CONFRONTS THE METH CRISIS: National Conference brings all sides together to address the realities of methamphetamine use in America

After reading that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is supporting Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader (Frank is one of the best members of Congress as far as our issue is concerned -- he has spoken at several of our events), I decided to take a look at how their records look on drug policy. According to Cannabis Culture magazine's "USA 2006 Stoner Voters Guide," John Murtha scored a "failure" grade, opposing medical marijuana by voting against the Hinchey amendment, supporting aerial coca eradication in Colombia (spraying of poisons) and other evils. He did vote against increasing funds for the Byrne grant program to the task forces. Hoyer, by contrast, scored an A -- the only Hoyer vote Cannabis Culture didn't like was for authorizing continuation of the drug czar's office. According to the Drug Policy Alliance voter guide, Hoyer, while not leading any drug policy reform efforts, nevertheless scored 100% correct on issues of recent concern, compared with a 33% showing by Murtha. If I'm not mistaken, Murtha did vote in favor of the Hinchey medical marijuana amendment two years ago, but switched to anti- last year and again this year. Perhaps then there is hope for him. But in the meanwhile, as far as drug policy reform is concerned, Hoyer has a far better record. (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.)

As of late last night but with only 36 out of 137 precincts reporting, Roger Goodman was leading with 55.7 percent in his race for state representative in Washington State -- despite his opponent quoting from DRCNet's interview in Drug War Chronicle with Roger published a few years ago in an attack mailing a short time before the election. For those of you who don't know who Roger is, he heads the King County Bar Association Drug Policy Project in Seattle, and the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers, a close ally of ours. Roger emceed our Perry Fund reception in Seattle in June of last year.