BLOG
Rep. John Hall dodge my question on Higher Education Act
I emailed Rep John Hall (D-NY) about his views on the drug provision of the Higher Education Act, and here is what he wrote back to me: Dear Mr. ___, Thank you for contacting me regarding drug convictions and federal financial aid. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue. It is important to me as a freshman member of Congress to know what my constituents think on a wide range of issues as I study them and consider my vote.
WITH DEMOCRATS LIKE THESE, WHY WORRY ABOUT REPUBLICANS?
HR 1955 recently passed the House of Representatives by a pretty emphatic 404-6 vote. This overwhelmingly approved act, entitled â the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,â was introduced by Jane Harman, a California Democrat who, like her more famous counterpart Nancy Pelosi, is not the kind of radical new-ager that you might think of when you think California Democrat. Jane is a big fan of the Rand Corporation, which calls itself âa non-profit institution that addresses the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.â
Drug Czar Makes Absurd Claim That the Drug War Reduces Teen Tobacco Use
If you haven't figured out yet that the Drug Czar will say anything, you should start reading some of the stuff he says. This week he attempted to take credit for reductions in alcohol and tobacco use among teens, claiming that the war on illegal drugs somehow causes kids not to smoke cigarettes. Before you know it, he'll be declaring that the drug war extinguishes forest fires, increases child literacy, and inspires people to spay or neuter their household pets.An ONDCP announcement this week heralding reductions in youth drug use contained this whopping claim:When we push back against illegal drug use, youth abuse of other substances decrease as well: *Use of alcohol, including binge drinking, and cigarette smoking have decreased by 15 and 33 percent, respectively This is just warped on so many levels, I must resort once again to a bullet point list to explain how ridiculous it is:1. These are legal, widely available drugs. The Drug Czar's claim that supply-reduction efforts have been effective against illicit substances cannot be applied to alcohol and tobacco. There may be age restrictions, but there ain't no crop substitution or aerial fumigation going on in North Carolina. 2. The Drug Czar's office doesn't work on tobacco and alcohol prevention. They've made no ads about these drugs or implemented any laws or policies in regards to them.3. There's no war on tobacco or alcohol. If reductions in the use of these drugs are achievable without harsh laws, that merely illustrates the futility of punitive drug war policies.4. Coinciding reductions in both licit and illicit drug use demonstrate a broader social trend, suggesting that specific drug war programs are not a catalyst in determining youth behavior.Really, nothing could better illustrate the absurdity of the Drug Czar's self-aggrandizing pronouncements than these simultaneous reductions in tobacco and alcohol use. Without any arrests, mandatory minimums, no-knock raids, and stark racial disparities, we've made more progress against alcohol and tobacco than against these pernicious illegal substances that supposedly can only be combated through a blind and violent civil war.As is often the case, the Drug Czar has handed us the truth in a nifty little box. He just mislabeled its contents.
Clinton Staffer Attacks Obama Over Past Drug Use
This is ugly. Billy Shaheen, co-chair of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign has gone after Barack Obama over his past drug use, arguing that the Senator's past could haunt him on the campaign trail:"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." [Washington Post]Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're so concerned about people attacking Obama over his past drug use, you could start by not attacking Obama over his past drug use. The whole thing smacks of desperation as Obama rises in the polls.Let's be real here. The last two presidents overcame allegations of drug use and found themselves in the White House. The only difference is that Obama has been particularly candid, and it really shouldn't even be necessary to point out that voters actually like honesty. He's told the truth when others lied. Explain to me how that will hurt him if others got away with using drugs and lying about it.From where I sit, the only person who should be embarrassed by any of this is Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has apparently resorted to the same pathetic smear tactics used on her husband 15 years ago. Give us a break.Update: Via DrugWarRant, the Clinton Campaign has wisely distanced itself from Shaheen's remarks, and he has even apologized for making them:Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, said, "These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way." ....In a statement later, Mr. Shaheen said, "I deeply regret the comments I made today, and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way."
Why Doesn't the DEA Just Crack Down on Medical Marijuana?
Ever wonder why the federal government doesn't just go ahead and raid every medical marijuana dispensary in California? The DEA seems to conduct only enough raids to create the perception of risk, while completely failing to prevent widespread medical access. In an online chat, someone asked the Drug Czar about this, and you know what he said? Nothing. He may be afraid to answer, but I'm not.First check out his lengthy response and note that it doesn't answer the main question:Patrick, from San Francisco, CA writes:Mr. Walters-- My son is a high school junior here in San Francisco, CA. A large percentage of high school students in San Francisco smoke pot on campus several times a day. Teachers and school administrators are powerless to stop it and simply look the other way, all due to state and local laws which make it almost impossible to control pot and thereby keep it out of the hands of kids. How serious is the federal government in its attempts to shut down the phony "medical marijuana" industry, which is really just an underhanded way to make it easy for people to use pot recreationally. Raiding pot clubs could be stepped up easily (with very few people), couldn't they? --PatrickJohn WaltersIâm glad you raised this concern, Patrick. Weâre hearing the same thing from many other communities dealing with the same issue.We believe that if there are elements of marijuana that can be applied to modern medicine, they should undergo the same FDA-approval process any other medicine goes through to make sure itâs safe and effective. In absence of that approval, the Federal position is clear: the smoked form of medical marijuana is against Federal law and we will continue to enforce the law.Last year, the FDA issued an advisory reinforcing the fact that no sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use. This statement adds to the already substantial list of national public health organizations that have already spoken out on this issue, including the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society â all of which do not support the smoked form of marijuana as medicine. So whoâs pushing for the smoked form of medical marijuana then?Funded by millions of dollars from those whose goal it is to legalize marijuana outright, marijuana lobbyists have been deployed to Capitol Hill and to States across the Nation to employ their favored tactic of using Americans' natural compassion for the sick to garner support for a far different agenda. These modern-day snake oil proponents cite testimonialsânot scienceâthat smoked marijuana helps patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, and other painful diseases âfeel better.â While smoking marijuana may allow patients to temporarily feel better, the medical community makes an important distinction between inebriation and the controlled delivery of pure pharmaceutical medication. If you want to learn more about this, we have information available that shows how medical marijuana laws increase drug-related crime and protect drug dealers. Hopefully you can help us educate more of our citizens about this fraud.So it's clear that the Drug Czar opposes medical marijuana, but what about the raids? Well, I can think of a few reasons why a full-blown attack on medical access in California would be highly problematic: 1. Simultaneously raiding California's several hundred dispensaries would provoke aggressive protests and widespread bad publicity. The ensuing press coverage would highlight marijuana's well-known medical applications.2. DEA's tactic of suppressing evidence in court that the marijuana is for medical use wouldnât work if they raided all the providers at once. Jurors would figure it out and vote to acquit, wasting federal law enforcement and prosecutorial resources.3. Black market violence would erupt immediately as criminals rush in to meet demand. This would prove to everyone that the medical marijuana industry actually made California safer.4. Anti-medical marijuana statements from Republican presidential hopefuls have already jeopardized their chance at winning California's 54 electoral votes. An aggressive DEA campaign at this time would ensure a democratic victory there. Bush's Drug Czar knows better than to help democrats win California. I suppose it's not very surprising that the Drug Czar declined to elaborate on this. He certainly wouldn't want to put ideas in anyone's head.The point here isn't that providing medical marijuana carries no legal risks. It clearly does. But it's important for everyone to understand how hollow most of the DEA's threats really are. DEA's ongoing efforts against medical marijuana providers in California are designed to create the appearance of chaos, which is then cited as evidence that the medical marijuana industry is inherently harmful. This is purely political.The Drug Czar's failure to answer this simple and common question reveals a great deal about his own reluctance to interfere with the will of California voters.
A Few Pardons Today -- Meanwhile the Pardon Attorney's Web Site Hasn't Been Updated Since the Clinton Administration
In addition to the good news about the crack sentencing reductions being retroactive, another piece of modest good news is that Pres. Bush granted some clemencies, including a few drug offenders. Via the Associated Press and CNN: Jackie Ray Clayborn, of Deer, Arkansas, sentenced in 1993 to five months in prison, two years of supervised release and $3,000 in fines on marijuana charges. John Fornaby, of Boynton Beach, Florida, convicted in 1991 of conspiring to distribute cocaine. He served three years in prison. Bush cut short the 1992 prison sentence of crack cocaine dealer Michael Dwayne Short of Hyattsville, Maryland, who will be released on February 8 after serving 15 years of his 19-year sentence. Let's include this one too, just to keep things in the holiday spirit (even though we don't oppose having reasonable regulations on legalized substances): William James Norman of Tallahassee, Florida, convicted in 1970 for possessing and running an unregistered distillery that did not carry the proper signage and illegally produced alcoholic drinks made from mash. He was sentenced to three years probation. Clemencies are a good thing, so I feel bad about using a negative-sounding headline. But it's important, because these few additional actions still leave George W. Bush far behind other presidential administrations in use of the pardon powers, even behind the pardon-parsimonious George Herbert Walker Bush. Interestingly -- and perhaps not coincidentally -- the US Pardon Attorney's office has not updated the sections of their web site listing clemency recipients and statistics since the end of the Clinton administration. They don't even include George W. Bush in the list of presidents. (I've saved copies of those two pages to prove it, in case they finally get around to updating those pages.) More importantly, we've heard from list members whose family members have clemency petitions in that not only have their loved ones not been released, they haven't even heard back from the office with any decision, not even a "no." If I remember correctly, FAMM has charged that the backlog in the office is literally in the thousands. Come on George, I've said it before, and I'm saying it again -- WE WANT PARDONS!!!!
U.S. Recommends Early Release for 19,500 Crack Offenders
The sentencing disparity that punishes offenders 100 times worse for crack than for powder cocaine has taken a double hit this week. First the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that judges may depart from unreasonable federal sentencing guidelines. Then, today, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to make the recently revised sentencing guidelines retroactive, meaning that incarcerated offenders may request early release.Today in an historic vote, the Commission unanimously agreed to allow prisoners serving crack cocaine sentences to seek sentence reductions that went into effect on November 1. Retroactivity will affect 19,500 federal prisoners, almost 2,520 of whom could be eligible for early release in the first year. Federal courts will administer the application of the retroactive guideline, which is not automatic. Courts may refuse to grant sentence reductions to individuals if they believe they could pose a public safety risk. "The Sentencing Commission made the tough but fair decision to remedy injustice, showing courage and leadership in applying the guideline retroactively. Clearly, justice should not turn on the date an individual is sentenced," said Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM. "Retroactivity of the crack guideline not only affects the lives of nearly 20,000 individuals in prison but that of thousands more - mothers, fathers, daughters and sons - who anxiously wait for them to return home," said Stewart. [FAMM]It took 20 years to even begin taking the teeth out of this vicious law, but it's clear we've now crossed a threshold. Once the curtain was pulled back and the utter racism and ignorance that defined federal cocaine sentencing was revealed for what it was, we witnessed leading politicians jumping on the bandwagon in favor of reform.So often, we're told by fair-weather supporters of this work that we're naïve; that the power structure forever feeds on the misery of the downtrodden; that the insatiable prison industrial complex and its carnivorous lobbyist minions will always call the shots and that we're pissing in the wind if we think the truths we speak will find traction amidst the marketplace of foul and corrupt ideas that dominate the political culture in our nation's capital. Indeed, this is a steep uphill battle. But in so many ways, we've moved beyond the initial stage of demonstrating the need for change. They know. Our mission now is to help those in power convert these observations into ideas, then into persuasive words, and finally into decisive actions. Politicians are not always blind to right and wrong, rather they hedge their bets and often fear the political consequences of true leadership above the social consequences of intransigence.These matters are far from resolved, but today brought hope to 19,500 non-violent drug offenders and their families. It is a victory for justice, a rebuke of the racist drug war doctrine, and, with patience and some luck, a humble sign of bigger things to come.
Ron Paul Blames Prostitution on the Drug War
When John Stossel interviews Ron Paul, you know it's gonna be good. Paul defends personal choice, rejecting the federal government's authority to regulate drug use. He even credits the drug war with causing prostitution by artificially inflating drug prices.You know what? He's right.
"You Don't Want This!"
It's funny because it's true. At least I think that's why it's funny. Anyway, I hope the whole movie is Tim Meadows getting stoned, acting super intense, and reverse peer pressuring people.
Is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher a Legalizer?
Does US Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) favor drug legalization? He didn't directly say so, and putting words into people's mouths is a good way to wind up being wrong a lot of the time. Still, the following remarks, pointed out to me (again) by DPA's Grant Smith, seem more than a little suggestive of exactly that. From the Congressional Record, page H14135: THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE END OF PROHIBITION The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, December 5, 1933, December 5, 2007. So, tomorrow we mark the 75th anniversary of something, and most people will just pass it by and not be aware that tomorrow marks the end of Americaâs great and noble experiment. It is the 75th anniversary of the end of the national prohibition of alcoholic beverages. With the repeal of prohibition in 1933, that was 75 years ago tomorrow, the United States ended a social planning policy that created organized crime in America, crowded our jails with nonviolent prisoners, corrupted our police, increased urban violence, and destroyed the lives of thousands of victims of unadulterated and poisoned substances, substances which if they were permitted would have been subject to normal market protections of fraud and quality standards. However, during prohibition, these substances which were consumed by the American people often poisoned them and caused them to lose their lives. Philosopher Santayana told us that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Have we in Washington learned the lesson of prohibition that ended 75 years ago? Why did America reject the prohibition of alcoholic beverages? Well, when government attempts to control the peaceful behavior of its citizens, it often sets in motion forces that are more dangerous than the social evil that they are trying to control. Todayâs war on drugs is perhaps an example. The war on drugs has resulted in a multimillion dollar network of violent organized crime. The war on drugs has created the deaths by drive-by shootings and turf wars among gangs in our cities. The war on drugs has overcrowded our prisons. More than half of Federal prison space is occupied by nonviolent drug users. The war on drugs has corrupted our police and crowded our courts. We apparently did not learn the lesson of the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Today, on the campaign trail we hear new calls for prohibitions on cigarettes, on fatty foods, and even more money should be spent, yes, on the war on drugs. But, as we mark the 75th anniversary of the repeal of prohibition, let us have the courage to learn from the mistakes of the past. Perhaps it would be better for us to focus our energies not on the supply side of drugs just as they were doing with the supply side of alcohol, but instead to focus our efforts on trying to help those people who are addicted to drugs; perhaps to try to help our young people, deter our young people from getting involved in drugs; perhaps to take a whole new approach on this, rather than this monstrous war on drugs that has done nothing but create havoc in our inner cities, making so many young people who have been arrested and their lives destroyed because they will never be able to get a decent job after one arrest being a teenager. So many people have been hurt by the war on drugs; yet we keep it because we want to supposedly help people. Well, I would suggest that this 75th anniversary of the repeal of prohibition, which was the greatest failure of American social planning in the history of our country, let us try to commit ourselves to help ensure that our young people are dissuaded and deterred from the use of narcotics. Let us work with those who are, indeed, addicted to narcotics and help them free themselves from this habit. But letâs end this notion that we can try to control the use of narcotics in our country by simply controlling the supply. Simply controlling the supply will not work. Weâve got to look at the demand side, try to treat people humanely, and use the limited resources that we have in a much more constructive way, rather than just creating more police who are committed to drugs and interdiction and all the rest of the major expenses, court expenses and others that go into a war on drugs rather than an attempt to help people who are susceptible to the use of drugs. I call the attention of my fellow colleagues to this the 75th anniversary of the repeal of the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Good for Dana Rohrabacher! By the way, if you don't already know, we put something out marking the anniversary of repeal too.
Some Good News from the Supreme Court on Crack Sentencing
Update: Lots of analysis today at the Sentencing Law and Policy blog There was some good news today from the US Supreme Court on the subject of crack cocaine sentencing. It seems like it should be helpful in other kinds of sentencing as well. The following update, forwarded from The Sentencing Project's listserv, sums it up. I'm pleasantly surprised that this passed by a 7-2 margin -- perhaps judges will feel a little freer to give lighter sentences as a result. SUPREME COURT RULES THAT JUDGES MAY CONSIDER HARSHNESS OF CRACK POLICY IN SENTENCING Decision Comes on Eve of U.S. Sentencing Commission Vote to Reduce Crack Sentences for Prisoners The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 today that a federal district judge's below-guideline sentencing decision based on the unfairness of the 100 to 1quantity disparity between powder and crack cocaine was permissible. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision in the case, Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330). "At a time of heightened public awareness regarding excessive penalties and disparate treatment within the justice system, today's ruling affirming judges' sentencing discretion is critical," said Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project. "Harsh mandatory sentences, particularly those for offenses involving crack cocaine, have created unjust racial disparity and excessive punishment for low-level offenses." The Court's decision in Kimbrough comes at a time of unprecedented interest in reforming the mandatory minimum sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress and hearings are expected early next year. Moreover, tomorrow, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is expected to vote on whether its recent sentencing guideline reduction for crack cocaine offenses will apply retroactively to people currently serving time in prison. Review today's decision in Kimbrough at: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/06-6330.pdf
{Picton Guilty
At 11:15 Sunday,Dec.9,2007. The jury in the trial of serial torture murder suspect:"Robert(Willie)Picton ended 10 days of deliberations,halted at one point because the judge erred in his charge to the
Who Your Friends Are
Since the drug bill announcement it's getting hard to tell who your friends are.The feds are sending 10 million dollars to Vancouver as our "share"of the drug war booty.The mayor has decided that the cash should go to his pet CAST program .This is a deeply flawed plan based on an interresting idea.The mayor wants to give prescription drugs to addicts.Sounds like a brilliant idea,right?Wrong.Sam(Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan)says who gets what and how it's dispensed.I don't know where Sam went to med.
2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference
If you're wondering why the blog has been kinda quiet this week, it's because the entire StoptheDrugwar.org staff is at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference. We're enjoying New Orleans with fellow reformers from around the country and beyond.As much as I'd love to blog the whole thing, I'm finding myself delightfully distracted by old friends, excellent panels, and the city itself. This place is like Amsterdam for alcoholics, and while I've managed to keep myself under control, I won't deny enjoying the privilege of being allowed/encouraged to drink beer in the street at night.Fortunately for you, Pete Guither is less indulgent than myself, and he's managing to blog the hell out of the conference over at DrugWarRant. He'll be at it for two more days, so check him out because I can't guarantee much content over here until the Drug War Chronicle comes out tomorrow.The biggest stir thus far has been an appearance by Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That's right folks, the World Drug Czar actually engaged the reform community and lived to tell about it. In addition to Pete's coverage, Jacob Sullum has a nice wrap up at reason.If the blogging bug bites me, I'll be back, otherwise see ya next week.
Ignorance and Credibility in the Drug War Reform Movement
I read a recent comment posted by a reader which really got me thinking about an issue that has been discussed here previously. Basically, this reader's comments about the War on Drugs seemed reasonable but when he started talking making comparisons to other political issues he betrayed himself an utter ignoramus (like on a G.W. Bush level). I have met other people of the same variety in real life -- i.e. was pleased when I found out that out similar drug reform sympathies as myself but then when I heard them talk more or about something else (or even sometimes their inability to explain their own views and/or why they are against the status quo). Basically, if they are talking about what is going on with the War on Drugs they sound somewhat smart and even decently well-read, but as soon as anything else comes up in the discussion I can't help but begin to worry about the deplorable state of public education in the U.S.
Poll: 99 Percent Wouldn't Use Hard Drugs If They Were Legalized
EDITORIAL ADVISORY -- December 5, 2007 If Heroin or Cocaine Were Legal, Would You Use Them? Zogby Poll Suggests Prohibition Doesn't Reduce Hard Drug Use Washington, DC -- Marking the 74th anniversary of the repeal of national Alcohol Prohibition, StoptheDrugWar.org today released polling results suggesting that drug prohibition's main supporting argument may be simply wrong. Drug policy reformers point to a wide range of demonstrated social harms created by the drug laws -- crime and violence, spread of infectious diseases, official corruption, easy funding for terrorist groups, to name a few -- while prohibitionists argue that use and addiction would explode if drugs were legalized. But is the prohibitionist assumption well-founded? Zogby polling data released today asked 1,028 likely voters, "If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you be likely to use them?" Ninety-ninety percent of respondents answered, "No." Only 0.6 percent said "Yes." The remaining 0.4 percent weren't sure. While some of the "no" respondents may have been overoptimistic about their future self-discipline -- current use rates under prohibition are slightly higher than that -- the survey nevertheless demonstrates that almost all Americans consider the use of certain drugs to be inadvisable, for reasons other than their legal status. It is therefore unclear that laws are needed to dissuade them from using "hard drugs" or that legalization would result in increased addiction rates. The social implosion predicted by some drug warriors seems especially unlikely. The results are similar to usage rates occurring under today's "drug war," as measured by the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health (formerly the National Household Survey). The 2006 NSDUH found 0.3 percent of the population had used heroin in the past month and 2.4 percent had used cocaine. Even for cocaine, the numbers are compatible, because Zogby surveyed persons aged 18 years and up, while NSDUH begins with age 12; and because of the poll's statistical margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. A comparison of drug use rates in countries with criminal penalties for drug use with the drug use rates of countries that have decriminalized personal use also suggests that policy may play only a secondary role in determining use rates. For example, in the Netherlands, where marijuana is sold openly in the famous "coffee shops," 12 percent of young adults age 15-24 reported using marijuana during 2005, as compared with 24 percent in neighboring France, where marijuana is an arrestable offense, according to data compiled by the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction.In the United States, where police make nearly 800,000 marijuana arrests each year, young adults age 18-25 in the 2004-2005 survey year reported past-year marijuana use at the rate of 27.9 percent. David Borden, StoptheDrugWar.org's executive director, commented when releasing the Zogby data: "Prohibition is sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year into the global criminal underground. That money fuels violence and disorder on the streets of our cities, while simultaneously helping to finance international terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, inflation-adjusted cocaine prices are a fifth of what they were 30 years ago, and any kid who wants to join the Mafia can sign up to deal it in his school. Addicts are harmed by the prohibition policy worst of all. It's time to stop shooting ourselves in the feet, and to control and regulate drugs through legalization." The full Zogby poll results are available online at: http://stopthedrugwar.org/legalization StoptheDrugWar.org (still known to many of our readers as DRCNet, the Drug Reform Coordination Network), is an international organization working for an end to drug prohibition worldwide and for reform of drug policy and the criminal justice system in the US. Visit http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle for the latest issue of our weekly, in-depth newsletter, Drug War Chronicle. â END â prohibition-era beer raid, Washington, DC (Library of Congress)
Marijuana for Free
The U.S. government has heard the will of the people and they don't care. It's time to fight back. Why should the residents of America or anywhere else care to follow their wishes? They ignore they ignore their own laws and stretch the power of the executive branch way beyond the poewr of the people! It's time to fight back.
Worried it is a Lost Cause
I have been getting the Runaround and I really don't want to accept what will be the probable outcome. I came upon this after noticing a link and Im putting it out there. I am posting in regards to what my research has concluded, an illegal raid in Orange County, CA that occured at my brothers house. The whole incident concluded with several people wrongfully going to prison, the house left in ruins, an eventual eviction and many items were taken by law enforcement (Orange PD) as apparently evidence. However as I arrived at the residence I found no records or paperwork of anything that happened and what was taken as evidence. There are so many things wrong with how this whole thing went down. I have tried to have the items returned, the detective sent one his way and would love someone to answer for this (Orange PD or Orange County Sheriff). I have atempted to bring this whole thing to some type of justice and I am waivering as I have tried to get this case looked at through every and any part of the system I know. Currently my brother wastes away in prison, his fiance is likely to go also, none of the 28 items have been returned and I fear they will never be returned as I ve notice Police now have there own Ebay type site where people can buy your stuff or maybe u can own property back.
Is Rudy Giuliani Shaping Hillary Clinton's Stance on Drug Laws?
Democratic presidential contenders are in universal agreement that it's time to abolish the racist and irrational sentencing disparity that punishes offenders 100 times worse for crack than for powder cocaine. But after the change is made, Hillary Clinton says that people who've already been imprisoned by this racist law should remain in jail. Why? A campaign advisor says it's because she's scared of what Giuliani will say.Clinton, who said she supports a federal recommendation for shorter sentences for some people caught with crack cocaine, opposed making those shorter sentences retroactive â which could eventually result in the early release of 20,000 people convicted on drug charges."In principle I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "Itâs something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well." [The Politico]Clinton pollster Mark Penn explains why her position has everything to do with her fear of Rudy Giuliani:"Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue," Penn said. "He's already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers."Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Giuliani said he "would not think we would want a major movement in letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail. It doesn't sound like a good thing to do."Ah, but it is. These are people who shouldn't be in jail. And Clinton knows it. Punishing people 100 times worse because their cocaine isn't in powder form is so transparently insane that we really can dispense with the hollow rhetoric about "letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail." The law is so twisted you donât even have to be a dealer to end up in jail for years.If Clinton is really this scared of Giuliani, where does it end? The campaign is far from over. Will she continue to shift around uncomfortably every time Giuliani challenges her policy positions? Newsflash: he's gonna talk trash about everything you do, Senator. Get used to it.We must now ask ourselves to what extent Hillary's other drug policy positions have been shaped by Rudiphobia. When she raised her hand in opposition to marijuana decrim, was that for real? Was there a little Giuliani in a devil suit whispering in her ear, threatening to tell the swing voters what a hippie she is? Will she backtrack on medical marijuana and needle exchange if Giuliani says he disapproves?We can spend eternity smashing minority communities with our drug war hammers at the behest of authoritarian demagogues like Rudy Giuliani. And if no one speaks up, that's exactly what will happen. So if Giuliani wants to publicly embrace racist drug war politics, let him. The antidote to the "soft on drugs" label is to stop looking over your shoulder and start speaking with conviction.