BLOG
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.
If I Was You, I'd Kill Myself
Sue is awaiting transportation to the Taycheedah Women's Prison in Wisconsin from the Eau Claire, Wi. county jail. She has been in the jail since her July arrest. She was arrested after an informer gave her money to buy drugs. At least that's what the informer says; Sue says he was paying her back money she had lent him since they had been such good friends. She never bought any drugs, however; she was arrested with nothing but the money, heading home. Apparently the agents were worried she would just keep their money. Or maybe they were in a hurry to get home. Apparently only they know.
Peeing for Profit
Peeing for Profit Who would ever think that pissing in a bottle would become such a huge enterprise, with several corporations getting in on the action? But thatâs what has happened. And we have the âwar on drugsâ to thank for this.
Marinol prescribing protocol
According to my psychiatrist, the DEA is coercing doctors into changing the way they prescribe Marinol. The change is in the number of refills granted to patients. Within the last six months doctors began issuing prescriptions with one refill. Before that they issued ones with up to three.
Marijuana is Better For Your Lungs Than Tobacco
This week, the Drug Czar announced once again that smoking a joint is as bad for your lungs as five cigarettes. We've been hearing this for years, and familiar as it may be, this popular talking point is just wrong. Research and common sense show that marijuana is actually far better for your lungs than tobacco. Allow me to explain.Put simply, the research used to claim that marijuana is worse for your lungs than tobacco clearly shows the exact opposite of that. One can simply read the results of the study to see that tobacco scored worse in most categories with regards to its effects on the lungs. The 5:1 ratio comes from the "airflow obstruction" category, in which marijuana did score worse. But that's just one of several categories. Furthermore, the study didn't even say marijuana was 5 times worse in that category. It said between 2.5 and 5 times worse, which dishonest reporters simply rounded up to 5 to get headlines. If we're talking about the lungs, the two biggest concerns are emphysema and lung cancer. Tobacco scores far worse in both categories: Emphysema was detected in only one of the cannabis smokers (1.3%), in 15 (16.3%) of the cigarette smokers, in 17 (18.9%) of the combination smokers, and in none of the non-smoking groups. [MedPageToday.com]With regards to lung cancer, the case for is even stronger. Conclusive evidence shows that marijuana does not cause lung cancer at all, and may even help prevent it.While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows.Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread. [Forbes]That's the research, now for the common sense. It should be easy to understand that tobacco users smoke more than marijuana users. That's just a fact, and it has everything to do with the relative harm of each. Even if marijuana were more harmful to the lungs, it still wouldn't matter at all, because hardly any marijuana users actually smoke enough to hurt their lungs. Most donât even smoke every day. They also quit more easily, thus consuming a vastly smaller quantity in their lifetime. The two cannot even be compared for this reason. One should never be surprised to find the anti-marijuana propaganda machine turning out wildly exaggerated scare stories about the dangers of pot. But this whole episode provides a startling depiction of how irresponsible and just plain wrong marijuana's critics always prove to be. So, to recap: marijuana is more likely to cause "airflow obstruction," while tobacco is more likely to cause emphysema and lung cancer. You tell me which one is 5 times worse.[Via DrugWarRant]
California Sent 1,000 Drug Offenders to Fight the Forest Fire
As the Malibu wildfire nears full containment, it is very worth noting that about 1,100 male and female nonviolent drug offenders normally warehoused in California prisons were called upon to risk life and limb fighting last monthâs massively devastating blazes. In fact, nearly one in eight of all firefighters who participated were drug offenders.After a few phone calls to the state corrections department I learned that about 3,000 inmates helped to fight the wildfires, along with 6,000 non-incarcerated firefighters. Almost 4 out of every 10 inmates involved (about 37%) were nonviolent drug offenders. Breck Wright, a non-incarcerated firefighter who has worked side by side these inmates on numerous occasions, told The Associated Press, "I think it would be very hard without them. It would really impact usâ¦They are very effective, hardworking and are well-trained. They know what they are doing."Boy, does this one merit examination â I mean, 1 out of every 3 firefighters relied upon were prisoners?! California is a "tough on crime," three-strikes-you're-out state, which from 1980 to 1999 experienced a 25-fold increase in the number of drug offenders sentenced to state prison. Sentencing in drug cases can be severe. For their effort, the prisoners receive $1 per hour and two days off their sentences for every day spent on the fire lines. An added benefit, of course, is the chance to break the monotony of prison life. California has at its disposal 4,502 prison inmates fully trained to fight fires, 1,655 of whom are drug offenders. Only inmates considered "minimal custody" are permitted to participate -- violent criminals, kidnappers, sex offenders, and arsonists are all banned. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Conservation Camp Program (CCP) began in 1946 -- before the "war on drugs" kicked off in earnest and became the driving force behind Californiaâs explosive prison growth. Saving state taxpayers more than an average of $80 million annually, the program provides three million person hours in firefighting and other emergencies, and seven million person hours in community service project work.If the news accounts are accurate, and I don't have a basis for disputing them, the prison firefighters sought to participate in this program and feel that they are getting something out of it, both during their prison terms and after they're released. Nevertheless, the question should be asked whether it is moral to send prisoners, people who by definition are being confined against their will, into a dangerous operation in which some of them could lose their lives. Yes, they went out willingly -- they served with pride -- but why do we have them in prison in the first place? Drug use and drug sales are consensual acts, and the people engaging in them should mostly be left alone. Some drug offenders no doubt got to where they were through living screwed up lives. But even they just need help, or positive opportunities available without going to prison, not incarceration. And why aren't there more opportunities for prisoners generally, and safe ones?If this group of people is worthy to send to risk their lives to save our lives, homes and businesses, aren't they worthy of freedom too? At a minimum they deserve better than the paltry amount of time off and chincy number of dollars that they're getting. Let's get serious -- how about pardons? After all, the non-incarcerated firefighters have stated how much they needed the prisoners' help. How many homes would have burnt down, communities been destroyed, lives lost, without them? The business owners in Socal who could have lost it all should offer as many jobs to ex-offenders as they can too.It's sort of hard to decide whether this program is ethical or not, given how unethical is the system we have as a whole. Maybe the prisoner firefighters have served California in another way too -- by highlighting through their courage the moral bankruptcy of prohibition and the war on drugs.
Update on Pain Physician Dr. William Mangino
In July and September I wrote here about the plight of Bill Mangino, a Pennsylvania physician who was decent enough to treat patients with the pain medications (opiates) that they needed, and was punished for these good deeds with a prosecution and now imprisonment -- all over a crime that never happened and for which no evidence exists happened. Yesterday I heard from Dr. James Stacks, a Mangino supporter and board member of the Pain Relief Network, with the news that Dr. Mangino had asked we post correspondence he sent to a judge prior to a hearing today that he hopes will get him a new trial and freedom in the meantime. The briefs were put together by Mangino himself, written by hand, but has been scanned for our edification online as well. Interested parties can read some commentary on it by Alex DeLuca here, or go straight to the briefs online here or here. A cutting quote that Dr. Mangino used as his signature line in the documents: Statutes must mean what they say... and say what they mean.
Needle Exchange Action May Be Imminent
Last spring at the National African American Drug Policy Coalition summit here in Washington, the question was asked of Donna Christian-Christensen (Congressional Delegate from Guam, the closest thing the territories have to US Representatives), a physician and chair of the Congressional Black Caucusâ Health Braintrust, what the prospects were for repealing the ban on use of federal AIDS grant funds to support needle exchange. Her answer was, "We're going to give it a good try." I took that to mean "it's not going to happen this time." The issue has made some progress however, at least as it affects us here in the District of Columbia, where a particularly infamous part of the annual appropriations bill prevents DC from spending even its own locally-collected tax funds on needle exchange appears to be on its way to getting repealed, thanks to positive action by a House subcommittee that drafted the new appropriations bill. I know better than to take it as a given that repeal will make it all the way through. But it is looking pretty good, and at the PreventionWorks! anniversary party this evening -- attended by new PW executive director Ken Vail -- AIDS Action lobbyist Bill McColl informed the crowd that it could hit the floor within a few days. Earlier this year we reported that Hillary Clinton was noncommittal about lifting the ban during a videotaped exchange at a private forum with prominent AIDS activists. The exchange was fascinating; after several pointed back-and-forths with Housing Works executive director Charles King, Sen. Clinton directly acknowledged that it was political concerns only that accounted for her position (though the kinds of concerns that can't necessarily be dismissed offhand). Sen. Obama, by contrast, had stated his support for lifting the ban. This week Clinton took the plunge and made strong pro-needle exchange promises in a campaign statement on AIDS funding. What would ultimately happen with this in a Clinton presidency, or any Democratic presidency, is probably hard to predict -- politics is still politics. But the fact that the Democratic candidates are lining up to support the issue has McColl feeling cautiously optimistic that the Democratic Congress won't drop the ball on the DC language at least. And it's encouraging for all of us about the long-term. The federal needle exchange restriction came to a boil during the Clinton administration, when the findings needed to lift the ban -- needle exchange doesn't increase drug use, but does reduce the spread of HIV -- were made by the administration, but not acted on. Some advocates believe that if Donna Shalala had been on a certain Air Force One flight, instead of Barry McCaffrey, that it would have happened. It took a change in Congress to even get the issue back onto the radar screen; more may be needed to actually get the law changed. Still, let's keep our fingers crossed for the DC ban to be lifted, maybe even by the end of the year. Assuming that happens: Let's Do Heroin! (That was sarcasm, in case anyone didn't realize.)
Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana
Ron Paul shows Giuliani, McCain, and Romney how to talk about medical marijuana without sounding like a monster. Hint: tell everyone you care about sick people. Voters love that stuff. Ron Paul, supposedly a fringe candidate, seems to understand formerly cherished conservative principles like "states rights" better than any other republican running.The success of Paul's campaign is yet another demonstration that smart and compassionate positions on drug policy are neither exclusively liberal nor politically suicidal.
Hillary Clinton Pledges Support for Needle Exchange
After hilariously claiming that she needed to see more evidence of its effectiveness, democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton seems to have found the answers she was looking for.* Her campaign has announced support for harm reduction, including needle exchange:She also supports using U.S. funding to support proven harm reduction efforts - including needle exchange - to help hard-to-reach populations, and will continue to support new evidence-based prevention methods as additional scientific research helps us understand how to best address this epidemic. [HillaryClinton.com]We've heard similar pledges from Obama and Edwards, and it's likely safe to assume other democratic candidates will toe the line on this one (possibly excluding drug war hall-of-famer Joe Biden).It's nice to see Washington politicians getting it right on needle exchange. Of course, this is really about whether or not we want huge numbers of people to die from AIDS in the name of drug war politics. We needn't fall to our knees in gratitude when someone understands such an obvious humanitarian concern. Rather, we should be demanding answers from any candidate who hasnât yet spoken out against the federal government's catastrophic ban on life-saving intervention programs.*By "hilarious," I meant that the mountain of evidence showing that needle exchange saves lives is so huge that I couldn't imagine Hillary Clinton actually had time to read it.
John Edwards Criticizes the War on Drugs
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards sounds like he's finally ready to discuss the drug war realistically:Grinnell, Ia. â America needs to reconsider its punitive approach to "the so-called war on drugs," presidential candidate John Edwards said here today."We're not going to build enough prisons to solve this problem," he told a crowd of about 800 at Grinnell College.The former North Carolina senator grinned when a young man sitting behind him on stage asked about drug policy. âOnly on college campuses," Edwards joked before answering.He said heâs especially concerned about mandatory minimum sentences for first-time drug offenders, which he said should be reconsidered. He added that too few drug offenders get treatment."You go to jail, you come out of jail, and a lot of people go right back to the environment that got them in trouble to begin with," he said. "â¦We need to get them the help that they need; if they need education, if they need job training, if they need drug rehabilitation." [Des Moines Register]This is a big improvement following Edwards's very recent remarks claiming that discussion of marijuana decriminalization "sends the wrong signal to young people."What happened? It really is kinda nutty to dismiss a puny little reform like marijuana decrim, only to then stand up weeks later and question the fundamentally punitive nature of the drug war on the whole. My guess is Edwards realized he wasn't scoring any points with that tired old "sends the wrong message" nonsense.The mere specter of our massive criminal justice system -- bloated with non-violent drug offenders -- sends the wrong message to everyone. It's good that Edwards finally worked up the nerve to say so.
Does Marijuana Make You Better at Sports?
The DEA and FBI are working overtime to bust steroid suppliers. Now, the Drug Czar's office has been boasting about the U.S. government's commitment to preventing cheating in sports. So why are they going after the NBA for being too lenient about marijuana use?Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns is very proud of the work that's being done to ensure fairness in sports:The nation's deputy drug czar said Tuesday that the indictment of slugger Barry Bonds in connection with a federal steroids investigation shows the world that the United States remains "the No. 1 country in the world when it comes to going after cheating in sports." [LA Times]Of course, like so many other aspects of the war on drugs, the war on steroids suddenly morphs into a war on marijuana:He was especially critical of the NBA's relatively liberal policy on marijuana use, which calls for a maximum five-game suspension for the third and subsequent offenses."If Americans knew that you can be a professional high-level athlete and smoke dope and those are the penalties, they would be offended," he said. "For professional athletes that smoke dope, there should be a message that says you don't get to play your sport."Why not? I don't understand, Mr. Burns. What does this have to do with cheating? Oh boy, does marijuana really make you better at basketball? I have never heard that before. I've heard that it cures cancer, increases fertility, and prevents Alzheimer's, but I did not know that it made you better at sports. That's so awesome. To be fair, however, I doubt the Deputy Drug Czar actually believes marijuana is a performance-enhancing drug. I think his concerns have more to do with the fact that widespread marijuana use among professional athletes undermines his office's non-stop campaign to convince Americans that using marijuana will weaken their bodies and ruin their futures.With that in mind, I would highly recommend to the folks at the Drug Czar's office that they immediately stop trying to drug test athletes for marijuana. After all, if you don't want the kids to find out that their favorite athletes smoke pot, you can begin by not drug testing those athletes or complaining publicly about their rampant marijuana use.
Republicans Try Marijuana at Higher Rate Than Democrats
Itâll come as a surprise to most, but Republicans try marijuana at a higher rate than Democrats. A Gallup poll found that 33% of Republicans have tried Americaâs favorite (and safest) illicit drug while a slightly lower 31% of Democrats have inhaled the celebrated herb.Thinking back, I remember when it was learned that House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and other Republicans had enjoyed marijuana in their pasts, and I recall the 2002 Republican congressional page scandal in which eleven pot smoker pages sponsored by Republican House members were dismissed subsequent to the discovery of marijuana in their Capitol Hill dormitory. I guess I should have put two and two together.Politically speaking, the obvious question is âWhy doesnât this translate into more Republican support for marijuana decriminalization or legalization?â Only 21% of Republicans want the herb legalized while 37% of Democrats do. Do Republicans experience different effects? Do they feel guilty after imbibing? Maybe we just need more Republicans to bring their views on marijuana laws out of the closet. Take Gary Johnson for instance. The former Republican governor of New Mexico supported the legalization of marijuana in a very public way when he was in office, in fact, he was eager to make it part of his legacy. He also wanted people to understand that he didnât just âexperimentâ with the weed: âIn running for office during my first term, I offered up the fact that I smoked marijuana. And the media was very quick to say, âOh, so you experimented with marijuanaââ¦No, I smoked marijuana. This is something that I did. I did it along with a lot of other people. But me and my buddies, you knowâ¦we enjoyed what we were doing,â said Johnson in 1999.Of course, thereâs another high-profile Republican not shying away from telling people marijuana should be legal -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) who has served in Congress for almost 20 years. And, heck, he just recently set the GOPâs one-day fundraising record of $4.3 million. Hmmm, it sure doesnât seem like his supporters are afraid of his marijuana legalization spiel.George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, also wants marijuana legalized. Almost 20 years ago, he coined an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to tell people â...We need at least to consider and examine forms of controlled legalization of drugs.â Another of Reaganâs most trusted aides, Lyn Nofziger, who also worked for Nixon and shares responsibility for unleashing the Reagan drug war on America, joined Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) at a 2002 Capitol Hill press conference to support a federal medical marijuana bill and to push President Bush and other Republicans to get onboard. âI've become an advocate of medical marijuanaâ¦It is truly compassionate. I sincerely hope the administration can get behind this bill,â he said. And then there are some of the Republican Partyâs luminaries. Highly respected and influential ultra-conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Milton Friedman have called for marijuana legalization at least since Nixon famously visited Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai in 1972. I suppose the appropriate question is âWhen will the Republicans decide to take the high road to China on this one?âNote: It is interesting and important to realize that all of the conservatives whose viewpoints on drug policy were discussed above, save Nofziger, go much further than only wanting marijuana to be legal. In fact, they have either explicitly called for all drugs to be legalized or have strongly alluded to the idea they should be.
John McCain's Awful Response to a Cop Who Wants to End the Drug War
When NH police officer and LEAP speaker Bradley Jardis confronted John McCain last week, demanding an explanation for the ongoing failure of the drug war, McCain's response was just unbelievable:McCain acknowledges that too many first time offenders are serving time, but he otherwise delivers a defense of the drug war that is as banal and incoherent as any such discussion could ever be. I won't bother to categorically refute the mountainous absurdities contained herein. Instead, I've transcribed McCain's marvelous distinction between drugs and alcohol, which should be etched in stone as a timeless embodiment of the rank idiocy that defines the modern war on drugs:Look, I've heard the comparison between drugs and alcohol. I think most experts would say that in moderation, one or two drinks of alcohol does not have an effect on one's judgment, mental acuity, or their physical abilities. I think most experts would say that the first ingestion of drugs leads to mind-altering and other experiences, other effects, and can lead over time to serious, serious problems. This is what John McCain chose to lead with. This, for McCain, was the strong central point that explains why the drug war is necessary. And it is just so transparently stupid and wrong.* When the curtain is pulled back, perfect cluelessness is revealed to be the single unifying principle that binds the drug war philosophy together. That is why McCain nearly falls to pieces when confronted by someone with real firsthand experience waging the war he so clumsily defends. Most drug war supporters are not qualified to discuss this topic even briefly. If you ask them a smart question about the drug war, their answer will come out something like this:*Update: It's been suggested to me that it is actually necessary to explain that alcohol is a drug. Maybe it is, so here goes: It's a drug. It produces a powerful intoxicated state commonly referred to as "drunkenness," in which one's judgment can become impaired along with the ability to operate heavy machinery.John McCain ought to know that alcohol is a drug. I think he just wasn't prepared for the question and said the first thing that popped into his head. It is typical for defenders of the drug war to begin their argument by issuing wildly false generalizations.[Thanks, Micah]
Here we go again
Well,the news is out and it's every bit as depressing as I expected.Under the headline:"Ottawa cracks down on illegal drugs",our government announced THIS:1.a one year mandatory minimum sentence for d