Decriminalization

RSS Feed for this category

Support for reduced penalties for marijuana offenses, poll shows (Arkansas News Bureau)

Localização: 
United States
URL: 
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/11/21/News/338587.html

Italy signals major overhaul of drugs laws (EuroNews, France)

Localização: 
United States
URL: 
http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=390711&lng=1

Eureka Springs : Victory energizes ‘pot’ law backers (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)

Localização: 
United States
URL: 
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/172626/

Election 2006: Massachusetts Voters in Four More Districts Continue the Clamor for Marijuana Law Reform

Since 2000, marijuana reform activists associated with MassCann, the Bay State NORML affiliate, and the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts have sponsored advisory marijuana reform questions in state representative and senate districts and have won every one. The trend continued this year, with reform questions in four more districts being approved by voters.

According to DPFMA board member John Leonard, a question asking whether representatives in the 1st and 12th Plymouth Representative Districts should be instructed to support marijuana decriminalization passed in both, with margins of 61% and 60% respectively. In the 3rd Middlesex Senate District and the 7th Norfolk Representative District, voters were asked to vote on questions asking whether to instruct their representatives to support medical marijuana legislation. Those questions won with 67% in Middlesex and 64% in Norfolk.

According to MassCann, more than 420,000 Massachusetts residents in 110 communities had voted to urge their legislators to embrace either decriminalization or medical marijuana before Election Day. We can now add another 63,000 pro-reform votes and four more communities to the tally.

In a debate last month, newly elected Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick said he's "very comfortable" with the idea of marijuana legalization but would veto a decriminalization bill if it came to his desk because "I just don't think it ought to be our priority." Hopefully the legislature will give him the opportunity to change his mind.

Let's Not Forget Massachusetts

In our list of drug policy-related ballot issues last Friday, we neglected to mention Massachusetts. Voters in one district there will be voting on whether to instruct their representative to favor marijuana decriminalization, while voters in two other districts will be voting on whether to instruct their representatives to support medical marijuana. These local questions continue a process that began with the 2000 elections and have so far resulted in more than 420,000 Bay State residents voting to support marijuana law reform. Here is the info on the Massachusetts races: Plymouth, Massachusetts: In the 1st and 12th Plymouth Representative Districts, voters will be voting to tell their representatives to support decriminalization: “Shall the state legislator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would make the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a fine of no more than $100.00 and not subject to any criminal penalties?” Middlesex and Norfolk, Massachusetts: Voters in the 7th Norfolk Representative District and the 3rd Middlesex Senate District will be voting on whether to tell their representatives to support medical marijuana: “Shall the state legislator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use?”
Localização: 
MA
United States

Is Willie Nelson mature enough to smoke marijuana?

(Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, joins us as a regular blogger in the Speakeasy.) “It's a good thing I had a bag of marijuana instead of a bag of spinach or I'd be dead by now,” Willie Nelson said recently. I almost fell out of my rocking chair, laughing. No sooner did the government report that the fastest growing population of drug users are aged 50 to 59 years, but 73-year old Willie Nelson was criminally charged with possessing marijuana, as well as four other men, aged 50 to 75 years old. Those are pretty mature ages. In January 2004 and again August 2005, Art Garfunkel, now 63 years old, was charged with marijuana possession in New York. Good grief. Look, we all agree that we have to keep drugs away from kids. That’s why drugs are illegal, of course, to keep kids from getting their hands on drugs. Seriously. Kids are just too immature to let have drugs, we all agree on that. But as I got my rocking rhythm back again, I wondered, “Can you ever be mature enough to use marijuana?” What kinds of things have minimum maturity requirements? A teenager can enlist in the United States military at age 17, with a parent’s consent (10 U.S.C. sec. 510). The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution recognizes that you have sufficient maturity to vote for federal offices at age 18 (ratified in 1971). We know that Congress has told the states to make it a law that a person has to be at least 21 years old to purchase alcohol. And in family values loving America – where building strong families is one of our highest values, and being responsible for the care and nurture of little children – you can get married in most states if you are 16 years old if you have your parents consent. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm In freedom loving Mississippi, a girl can be 15 years old and get married without her parents consent. A girl age 12 can get married in Kansas or Massachusetts with parental consent. It seems that as a society, we recognize a high degree of maturity by the time you turn 21. But we recognize circumstances that require super-maturity – which highly risky circumstances apply. Our “Founding Fathers,” the framers of the Constitution, gave some thought to the maturity they believed was necessary in those to whom we would entrust the governing of America. What might require the highest degree of maturity? Deciding to declare war – that’s pretty darn dangerous. Or serving as Commander in Chief. A person cannot serve in the House of Representatives until he or she is 25 years old, and must be at least 30 years old to serve in the U.S. Senate (Article I of the Constitution, sections 2 and 3). So to vote to declare war (Article I, section 8, clause 11), you must be at least 25 years old. To be President of the United States (which includes being Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy and Militia), with all the power that risks everyone’s health and safety, you must be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and have resided in the U.S. for 14 years (Article II, section 1, clause 5). Those are the only qualifications in the Constitution. Think about it. The framers of the Constitution recognized that once you have turned 35, you can be entrusted with the most serious and responsible job in the nation. You are mature enough! So now let’s think of folks fifteen years older than that. They aren’t impressionable youth. They know what mortality is. Many of them have raised families. They have seen and struggled with the immaturity of their children. Most of them have close friends and family who have died recently. They now attend funerals about as frequently as weddings. Heck, many of them now regularly read the obituary pages. Certainly most people who are 50 years old can be considered mature enough to smoke marijuana and do it responsibly. We can still punish the handful of oddballs who drive while impaired or use marijuana it in the surgical suite or airplane cockpit. Of course many prohibitionists will argue that if we legalize marijuana for 50 year olds youngsters – probably in their 40's – will get it illegally. Well that would be pretty serious, wouldn’t it? But surely, would any one over 50 in their right mind would share pot with immature “kids” under 35? No way. For gosh sakes, isn’t 73-year old Willie Nelson mature enough to smoke pot and to not have to worry about the police? When do you finally get to be recognized as a grown up in America?
Localização: 
United States

Report from the National New Democratic Party Convention in Quebec

Report from DANA LARSEN President, eNDProhibition The unofficial anti-prohibition wing of Canada's NDP. http://www.endprohibition.ca MY EXPERIENCES AT THE NDP CONVENTION I came to the federal NDP Convention in Quebec, to promote our organization, eNDProhibition, NDP against the drug war. We had a group of 8 delegates who came to the convention specifically to support eNDProhibition, work our two tables and promote our marijuana and drug policy resolutions. Preparing for the convention had been frustrating. I had intended on buying a full-page ad in the convention guide, but no-one ever responded to the ad purchase form I Xpressposted to their office, nor the many phone messages and emails I left over a six-week period. However, they did get back to me about the two tables for us to promote our group, and when we got to the convention we did indeed have the promised space reserved for us. The display tables were in a smaller room away from the main convention hall, and when it turned out that we needed more electrical outlets the fellow came promptly and installed them very quickly and professionally. RESOLUTIONS AND DEBATES A key to any convention is the priority given to the resolutions. Every convention receives hundreds of resolutions, and there will only be time to actually debate and confirm the party's official support for a very small fraction of the total. So if you have a resolution you want passed, you want it to be within the top 5 in its category. This was the first federal convention to use a new method for dealing with resolutions, the "Saskatchewan Method" as it originated in that province. I think that previous conventions used the same method currently employed by the NDP in BC and some other provinces. That method is to have a committee sort through all the resolutions and then put them into a priority list. The list can be appealed but the committee has the final say in priorities. The new method at this convention was for a central committee to sort all resolutions into one of six categories, and then prioritize them within each category. Near the start of the convention, delegates can pick one of six simulatenous meetings, where they can vote on reorganizing the order of resolutions, and also amending them. There were two resolutions which our group was promoting, one calling for the NDP to introduce legislation calling for non-punitive marijuana policies, the other calling for expansion of the safe injection site program into any communities that wanted one. Our marijuana resolution had been passed by four riding associations, and three other different marijuana resolutions were passed by other groups. One of those was written by Libby Davies, and was a good resolution but not quite as strident as the others. All of the marijuana resolutions were clustered near the bottom of their category, except for the one written by Davies, which was placed at a reasonable 13. Not high enough to likely get debated, but good for a list of 95 resolutions. The safe injection site resolution had been placed in a different category, and given a priority in the 30s. I was surprised as it is a current issue and seems to have broad public support. We decided to focus our efforts on Libby Davies' pot resolution, hoping to amend it to make it a little stronger, and bump it up the list. But despite our best efforts we didn't succeed. Our motion to bump it up to number 5 was spoken against by MP Charlie Angus, who just said it shouldn't be a priority at this time. The motion to prioritize it to #5 was defeated by roughly 65%. We tried some other maneouvers to get something on harm reduction into an omnibus justice bill already at #5, but time for debate on that item ended just as I was about to speak. Although I wanted to get our resolution a higher priority, and I was annoyed by Charlie Angus' comment about it not being an important issue, something else happened during the meeting that was much worse, and which seemed like an organized subversion of the process. BLOCK VOTING Our policy section included other justice and human rights issues, including some resolutions on LGBT equality, and some opposing the changes to the age of consent law which have been proposed by the Conservatives. I figured that opposing change to the age of consent laws was a no-brainer and would pass easily. But when this item came up for debate and amendment, I looked behind me and saw a big crowd of people standing in the back of the room. A motion was made to "table" the resolution, which means sending it back to another committe for further analysis. This is one way of killing a resolution and also avoiding public debate on it. The motion to table carried, and then the big voting block left the room. Many people in the room were verbally and visibily pissed about this. These folks had apparently organized themselves and had entered a few debate rooms at key momments, to vote as a block on key issues. Delegates were supposed to pick one of the six rooms and stick to that section, but apparently these folks liked to bend the rules. An LGBT equality resolution came up next, and I tried to get them to slip in the conclusion of another resolution opposing change to the age of consent laws, but my amendment was ruled out of order. Svend Robinson spoke and got at least an amendment calling for the age of consent to be the same for both hetero and homosexual acts. So anyways, these sorts of shenanigans didn't impress me, although I did learn from them what it takes to get a resolution through, and how to block any you don't like. However, much of this maneouvering was academic anyways, as when it came time for the entire convention to debate the various policy sections which had been prioritized the day before, not much time was allowed and only the top 3-4 resolutions in each section got debated. So even if we had gotten our marijuana resolution bumped to #5 it still wouldn't have made the floor for debate. SAFE INJECTION SITE RESOLUTION PASSES We did get one resolution passed. Libby Davies pushed for a resolution supporting the safe injection site to get into the "emergency resolutions" section which get debated on the last day of convention. This resolution was listed as #6 of six resolutions, but we managed to speed through the other five and we got our resolution passed. So now the federal NDP has an official policy calling for Vancouver's safe injection site program to be continued, and for other safe injection sites to be created in any other communities that want one. RUNNING FOR PREZ John Shavluk, delegate for Delta North, is a passionate member of our group and he was disappointed that our resolution didn't get to the floor. He decided to run for a pair of positions in the party so he could take the opportunity to draw attention to the importance of our issue. Shavluk ran for BC Provincial Council rep, and also President of the NDP. In both cases he was running against a single opponent who had broad support. I only caught one of his two speeches, but he did a good job and used his three minutes to explain that marijuana and prohibition were important issues which the NDP should support. He didn't win either post of course, but he did a nice job and I think delegates respected his position. MEETING AND GREETING In terms of meeting people, handing out our information, networking and building grassroots support, the convention was a success. We gave out about 800 buttons, hundreds of copies of our newsletter, a big stack of LEAP DVDs, dozens of copies of Drug War Facts, and a batch of BC Civil Liberties Association flyers. We also met some enthusiastic people who agreed to start eNDProhibition chapters in their provinces. In the next issue of the End Prohibition News we'll be listing contact info for our Directors in seven provinces: BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. I spoke briefly with both Stephen Lewis and Jack Layton. Lewis agreed to let me interview him for a future issue of End Prohibition News, and Layton told our group that he had supported our cause since 1973, and to keep up the good work. We missed the big party on Saturday night, jetlag and early mornings caught up with most of our crew. But on Friday night we had a great time smoking up everyone in the outdoor backroom of the NDP party bar. We blazed three massive bombers and endless bowls of BC hash, until a waiter finally asked if we could move the toking outside. So all in all I'm glad that we were at the convention, and although our marijuana resolution joined the other 98% of resolutions which didn't get debated, we did garner a great deal of support for our cause. We met many like-minded people across Canada who share our goals, and we learned a great deal about how the convention process works, and what tactics would work best in the future. Over the next few months, I will be attending more NDP conventions across Canada on behalf of eNDProhibition. I will be at the Ontario Young New Democrat convention in October, the Saskatchewan NDP convention in November, the Ontario NDP convention in January, and I think the Manitoba NDP has a convention scheduled for March. At all these events I will be working with others to educate NDP delegates on the importance of these issues, and to pass resolutions against the drug war. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DANA LARSEN President, eNDProhibition The unofficial anti-prohibition wing of Canada's NDP. http://www.endprohibition.ca
Localização: 
Quebec, QC
Canada

Europe: Scottish Police Move Toward Warnings for Simple Marijuana Possession

Police in two Scottish police districts have begun a pilot program where people caught in possession of small amounts of marijuana are given warnings instead of being arrested and prosecuted. Police reported already issuing 23 warnings in the West Lothian area. The other district where the program is underway is Fife, where some 40 warnings had already been issued.

The newspaper The Scotsman quoted a spokesman for the Lothian and Borders police as saying, "West Lothian is the only division where they use adult warnings. There is a pilot project agreed with procurators fiscal."

After Scottish police were criticized by some anti-drug campaigners for "sending the wrong message," the Association of Chief Police Officers, the grouping of Britain's top cops, moved to assure the nervous that police weren't going soft. "The police service in Scotland continues to take a robust stance on anybody caught in possession of drugs. The projects in place in Fife and Lothian and Borders are in agreement with local procurators fiscal and in the spirit of the criminal justice reform process," the group said.

The pilot program comes on the heels of a decision by all Scottish police forces to move to warnings instead of arrests for a variety of minor offenses -- such as public urination or low-level disturbing the peace -- for first-time offenders. The moves are part of an effort to reduce the burden of a heavy caseload on courts and prosecutors.

But Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell is grumbling. While telling reporters he would not dictate to police or prosecutors, he added that he was "very keen" that people with pot be prosecuted. "Cannabis is illegal and nobody in Scotland should ever get the impression otherwise," he said.

Europe: British Public Supports More Rational Drug Policies, Survey Says

A survey of British attitudes toward drug policy has found that a majority of people are ready to decriminalize marijuana or make it an offense equivalent to a parking fine. But the poll also found that a solid majority draws a distinction between "soft" drugs like marijuana and "hard" drugs like cocaine and heroin. Most people do not want to see any lessening of restrictions on the use or sale of hard drugs.

The survey's release this week comes with Britain in the midst of a battle over redefining its largely drug war-style drug policies. Just two weeks ago, a parliamentary committee studying drug policy released a report calling Britain's drug classification scheme unscientific. Marijuana policy continues to bedevil the British, as does rising cocaine use and high levels of use of other drugs. The government is also discussing drug policy now because in two years it must evaluate its current 10-year strategy.

Marijuana is currently a Class C drug -- the least serious drug category -- and possession offenders are typical ticketed, while marijuana sales remains a serious crime punishable by up to seven years in prison. Only 38% wanted both possession and sales to remain criminal offenses, while 30% wanted lesser criminal penalties for possession only, 13% wanted simple possession totally decriminalized, and another 15% wanted to see both sales and possession treated as not a crime. In other words, 58% of respondents favored marijuana policies more lenient than current policies.

Attitudes were much tougher toward "hard" drugs, with 73% of respondents favoring the status quo. Only 17% favored lesser criminal penalties for simple possession and only 6% favored entirely decriminalizing possession. The poll didn’t even ask whether anyone would favor legalizing the hard drug trade.

Respondents also broadly agreed that a new drug classification scheme, perhaps containing a Class D for drugs like alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, would be a good thing by a margin of 56% to 30%. When it comes to comparing the harms of various drugs -- licit and illicit -- respondents ranked heroin as worst, followed closely by cocaine, solvents, ecstasy, and tobacco in descending order. Marijuana was rated as less harmful than any drugs except prescribed tranquilizers and coffee.

The British citizenry also displayed an awareness of the notion of harm reduction, with a whopping 89% agreeing that: "Whether we like it or not, there will always be people who use drugs and the aims should be to reduce the harm they cause themselves and others."

If this survey is any indicator, it looks like the British public is ready for some more rational drug policies. The question is: Is the British political class ready?

Editorial: Legalize the Drug Trade to Cut Off Terrorism Funding

David Borden, Executive Director

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/borden12.jpg
David Borden
A conflict that doesn't make the US radar screen as often as it merits is the civil war between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers. The Tigers are a nasty group that among other abuses uses children as soldiers. (I don't know enough about Sri Lanka's government to venture an opinion on its own human rights record -- a quick web search did not turn up anything quite so obvious or outrageous, though I'm slow to trust any government overmuch.) I'm not too familiar with the causes of the conflict or the issues that are driving it. Regardless, the Tigers are bad news. Naturally, media outlets located closer to the conflict cover it much more prominently.

An article in the Asia Times last weekend reported in detail on the buildup of arms on both sides and predicted intense resumed fighting. The drug trade came up:

The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly charged that the Tigers' ships transported illegal drugs from Myanmar, though no concrete evidence of this has been presented. However, the Tigers do seem to have close links to organized criminal groups in Russia, Lithuania and Bulgaria, as well as foreign terrorist groups.

Whatever their source, the Tamil Tigers appear to have ample funds to acquire weapons from anywhere and everywhere. Modern assault rifles, machine-guns, anti-tank weapons (rocket-propelled grenades), mortars and even man-pack SA-7 surface-to-air missiles from Russia, China and Europe.

Without concrete evidence, one should never fully trust any government's accusations of drug trafficking made against its opponents -- not only because the government has an incentive to make its opponents look as awful as possible, but also because there are drug-fighters within the government who want the money and crave the attention, and because it is a tactic governments use to try and get the international community and the US in particular more involved with their fights.

That said, it could certainly be true -- John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute, a Canadian think-tank concerned with organized violence and political instability, discussed the issue of terrorist groups using the drug trade to finance their activities in an interview with this newsletter in October 2001 -- it is a substantial factor for many such organizations, and something that tends to keep them around as mere criminal organizations once the political and ideological conflicts have faded.

An arguably more reliable information source than many governments on the issue -- the Orthodox Anarchist blog, published from Jerusalem -- has made a similar observation about the hashish trade in Israel, which is extensively if not primarily supplied by Hezbollah, according to sources quoted. Author Dan Sieradski wrote last month that, "with a heavy heart, I am officially boycotting hashish effective immediately," confessed to having unintentionally helped to fund Hezbollah rockets through his consumption of it, and urged "all my Israel-based readers to cease their consumption of hashish immediately, for the sake of Israel and for the sake of the Lebanese living under the yoke of Iran and Syria's oppression by proxy."

Sieradski went on to recommend, as "an imperfect solution," that the foreign trade be replaced with a domestically-supplied market through decriminalizing the growing of a small number of marijuana plants in the home. So while Sieradski has proferred this confession for himself and friends for their small part of the illicit drug trade with all its evils, he has also implicitly pointed out the blame that governments deserve for creating all of it through drug prohibition. On that idea, outright legalization would be closer to a perfect solution.

Not a perfect one, of course -- there is no perfect policy toward the permanent human issues and shortcomings that exist in relation to the use of mind-altering substances. But it is a better solution than any other. I can't say to what extent the illegal drug trade is helping Hezbollah, but clearly drug prohibition is a major contributor to violence, be it global, localized, political or economic. It is only because of prohibition that the world's underground economy is of such a size that it can help terrorist groups so very much, enough to literally cause civil wars to escalate in places like Sri Lanka or Colombia.

In a time for which political violence has become the defining issue, to continue to support it through ill-conceived laws when viable alternatives exist is senseless. It is time for some clear thinking on this issue from our leaders.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, Vaping, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Pill Testing, Safer Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psilocybin / Magic Mushrooms, Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School