BLOG
Mitt Romney Recommends Lying to the Kids About Drugs
Mitt Romney thinks it's just awful that Barack Obama has been honest about past experience with alcohol and illegal drugs:"It's just not a good idea for people running for President of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, 'well I can do that too and become President of the United States,'" Romney told an Iowa audience today. "I think that was a huge error by Barack Obamaâ¦it is just the wrong way for people who want to be the leader of the free world." [FOXNews]But, um, you can do drugs and become the President. This has been proven time and again as of late and it's actually a terrible idea to suggest otherwise. Young people need to know that they can make mistakes and still be successful. Heck, young people should even know that drug use is often not a mistake if done responsibly at the appropriate age. The problem with convincing them that drug use ruins your future is that they might believe you and just give up. Really, there is nothing more harmful and destructive than attempting to educate children about drugs by lying about your own experiences. Young people need someone to talk to. They need to know that you understand, and the best way to create that environment is by being honest. If you do understand, don't pretend not to. That's insane.The truth here is that Barack Obama's experience with drug use is typical. He experimented, aged out of it, and went on to pursue a rewarding career. There's nothing miraculous or shocking about his failure to become a walking after-school special. Most people don't.But if Barack Obama has been unlucky enough to get arrested, I doubt we'd even know his name. Indeed, drug use won't disqualify you from a high profile career, but the drug war will crush your dreams every time.If we want to send children the right message about drugs, let's stop threatening to arrest and ruin them for things so many of us did without consequence.[Thanks, Tom]
Harper Government goes south
It seems I've wiped my computer.Just a note to say that our neocon government has announced mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.I'm hoping the website still has my other blogs but if they went
Harper Government loses it's mind,Again
I never really thought that even THIS bunch of neocons would have the nerve to introduce legislation to begin mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes in Canada.Today they announced the most dracon
Mark Souder Can't Stop Accusing People of Being Drug Legalizers
Remember when Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) went crazy and started accusing all his enemies of being communist spies? I don't because I wasn't alive yet, but I hear it was hilarious. McCarthy was eventually discredited and spent the remainder of his days in a drunken stupor.Today his spirit lives on in the body of Congressman Mark Souder (R-Ind.), whose virulent compulsion to expose "drug legalizers" is equally troublesome and distracting. I discussed Souder last week, but the story of his festering paranoia just grows more compelling all the time. As I reported last week, Souder recently attacked a large coalition of mainstream public health, education, legal, and policy organizations because they opposed his law denying financial aid to students with drug convictions. The incident provoked amusement and unfavorable coverage from the Washington press, due to the absurdity of accusing groups like the National Education Association and the United Methodist Church of trying to legalize drugs. Today, The Politico published the following letter from Souder questioning the integrity of their coverage of the incident:POLITICO = IDEOLOGICAL PRISM?Out of fairness, it is incumbent on your newspaper to disclose when a potential conflict of interest occurs with one of your reporters.IN the Nov. 13 article "Drugs and Money," Ryan Grim stated that the facts in a "Dear Colleague" letter I wrote were incorrect. Your readers ought to know that Grim was previously employed by the Marijuana Policy Project, a drug legalization group. Grim is hardly an objective reporter.Given his past employment, I fail to see why you would assign him a story on an issue that he had advocated for as recently as 2005.You newspaper's mission statement includes the following: "There is a difference between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism." It's time to ask yourself whether you're meeting that objective.Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.)Editor's note: Politico reporter Ryan Grim's previous work for the Marijuana Policy Project is disclosed in his professional biography at Politico.com.In short, The Politico published an article about how Mark Souder loves accusing people of supporting drug legalization, so he sent them a letter accusing their staff of supporting drug legalization. There is just nothing else he could have done to better illustrate the validity of their claim that calling people "drug legalizers" is something he loves to do. Even in a case like this, in which his letter would inevitably be perceived as hilariously ironic, Souder still could not stop himself from writing and sending it.Even more revealing is the fact that Souder's letter makes no attempt to challenge the facts of the story. It seems that the prior affiliations of The Politico's Ryan Grim are the only noteworthy point Souder could think of in response to story covered in three major Capitol Hill newspapers. So if Souder doesn't dispute the facts of the story, and Ryan Grim's employment history was already detailed on The Politico's website, why did Souder bother writing this letter in the first place?Easy. Because Mark Souder loves writing letters accusing people of supporting drug legalization.
As We Mark the Anniversary of the Killing of Kathryn Johnston, Poll Commissioned by DRCNet (StoptheDrugWar.org) Finds Little Support for SWAT-Style Drug Raids in Most Cases
(Visit http://stopthedrugwar.org/policeraids for further information on our poll and positions on this issue as well as links to further information.) A year ago this week, 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston was gunned down by Atlanta narcotics officers when she opened fire on them as they kicked down her door in a "no-knock" drug raid. The killing has had immense reverberations in the Atlanta area, especially since it opened a window on corrupt and questionable police practices in the drug squad. The officers involved told a judge they had an informant who had bought crack cocaine at Johnston's home. That was a lie. They shot at the elderly woman protecting her home 39 times after she managed to squeeze off one shot from an old pistol. They handcuffed her as she lay dying. They planted marijuana in her basement after the fact. They tried, also after the fact, to get one of their informants to say he had supplied the information, but that informant instead went to the FBI. Two of the officers involved in the killing were ordered to prison this week on involuntary manslaughter and civil rights violations. A third has an April trial date. The Johnston killing has also rocked the Atlanta Police Department. The police chief disbanded the entire drug squad for months, tightened up the rules for seeking search warrants, especially "no-knock" warrants, and instituted new policies forcing narcotics officers to rotate out on a regular basis. A year-long FBI investigation into the department continues. While the Johnston killing rocked the Atlanta area, it also brought the issue of aggressive drug war police tactics to the forefront. Each year, SWAT teams across the country conduct some 40,000 raids, many of them directed at drug offenders. The tactic, where heavily armed police in military-style attire break down doors, toss flash-bang grenades, and generally behave as if they are searching for insurgents in Baghdad, has become routine, and is the stuff of various TV reality shows. But, somewhat surprisingly, it isn't popular. According to a poll question of 1,028 likely voters commissioned by StoptheDrugWar.org (DRCNet), and conducted by Zogby International in October, a solid majority of respondents said such tactics were not justified for routine drug raids. Here is the exact question asked: "Last year 92-year old Kathryn Johnston was killed by Atlanta police serving a drug search warrant at an incorrect address supplied by an informant. Reports show that police use SWAT teams to conduct raids as often as 40,000 times per year, often for low-level drug enforcement. Do you agree or disagree that police doing routine drug investigations in non-emergency situations should make use of aggressive entry tactics such as battering down doors, setting off flash-bang grenades, or conducting searches in the middle of the night?" Nearly two-thirds -- 65.8% -- said police should not routinely use such tactics. With minor variations, that sentiment held across all geographic, demographic, religious, ideological, and partisan lines. Opposition to the routine use of SWAT tactics for drug law enforcement ranged from 70.7% in the West to 60.5% in the East. Residents of large cities (60.7%), small cities (71.2%), the suburbs (66.7%), and rural areas (65.0%), all opposed the routine use of SWAT tactics. Among Democrats, 75.1% opposed the raids; among independents the figure was 65.5%. Even in the Republican ranks, a majority -- 56% -- opposed the raids. Across ideological lines, 85.3% of self-identified progressives opposed the raids, as did 80.8% of liberals, 62.9% of moderates, and 68.9% of libertarians. Even people describing themselves as conservative or very conservative narrowly opposed the routine use of SWAT tactics, with 51.5% of the former and 52.5% of the latter saying no. This polling data will be the basis for a Drug War Chronicle article on Friday. We will dig a little deeper into the data, as well as the larger issue of SWAT raids for the Chronicle article. In the meantime, we have some very interesting numbers to chew on, and some public policy consequences to ponder. Our poll also received coverage on FoxNews.com this morning.
Goodbye To a Drug Warrior; Australian Prime Minister John Howard Set to Lose Power in Saturday's Elections
The Australian Labor Party and its leader, Kevin Rudd, appear poised to drive drug warrior Prime Minister John Howard and his Liberal/National Party coalition from office in elections coming this Saturday. Labor needs to pick up 16 seeks to take over, and according to recent polls, it should do so. Those same polls show Rudd and Labor defeating Howard and the coalitionby a margin of 54% to 46% in the popular vote. Howard could even lose his own district, something that hasnât happened to a sitting Australian prime minister since 1929. It couldnât happen to a nicer guy. Howard is a rigid foe of drug reform who in this most recent campaign has debased the discourse by reducing it to the level of "drugs are evil" and who over the weekend vowed to have the federal government take control of welfare payments for people who are drug offenders (look for a news brief on that on Friday). Although Howard was forced to accept the existence of the safe injection site at Kings Cross in Sydney, he is a fervent anti-harm reductionist. Here's just a short, and doubtless incomplete, catalog of his sins: He tried to narrow the drug policy debate by purging the federal drug advisory panel of harm reduction advocates, he opposed heroin prescription trials in Western Australia, the following year, he threatened to prosecute under federal law anyone using a safe injection site if any other states tried to open one, he tried to pressure states to roll back marijuana decriminalization laws, and last year, his government announced plans to ban bongs. Drug policy is not playing a major role in the campaign, although Howard has tried to make it one in recent days. If, as appears increasingly certain, he actually goes down to defeat on Saturday, it will be because of his support of the Iraq war, his disdain for environmental concerns, and, last but not least, because, after 11 years of Howard rule, Australians are ready for a new face. An added bonus in the election could be the rise of the Green Party to role of power broker in the Senate. Under Australia's system of proportional representation, the Greens could end up holding the balance of power in the Senate. While the Greens have retreated somewhat in their drug policy platform in the last couple of years, it is still light years ahead of either Labor or Howard's coalition.
Awesome: Marijuana Compound Might Cure Breast Cancer
While police and cement-skulled Washington bureaucrats are busy trying to eradicate this infinitely useful plant, scientists around the world are constantly uncovering new evidence of marijuana's medical potential. The latest news is that the marijuana-derived compound CBD may stop the spread of breast cancer: A compound found in cannabis may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body, according to a new study by scientists at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. The researchers are hopeful that the compound called CBD, which is found in cannabis sativa, could be a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy."Right now we have a limited range of options in treating aggressive forms of cancer," said lead researcher Dr. Sean D. McAllister, a cancer researcher at CPMCRI, in a news release. "Those treatments, such as chemotherapy, can be effective but they can also be extremely toxic and difficult for patients. This compound offers the hope of a non-toxic therapy that could achieve the same results without any of the painful side effects." [FOX News]Ok, how cool is that? Breast cancer is one of the most loathsome diseases known to humankind, and the cure just might be contained within the world's easiest-to-grow plant. It is just delightfully ironic that while the drug war political machine continues to turn out anti-pot propaganda at alarming rates, scientists are touting it as a potential "non-toxic" alternative to various common medical procedures. I really can't think of anything more ridiculous than the fact that we are still debating the relative toxicity of marijuana in a nation that prescribes adderall to 8-year-olds and imports GHB laced children's toys from China.I have a feeling that marijuana could cure every disease on earth and there would still be idiots passionately demanding that we banish it from the planet:Drug Czar: Marijuana is more dangerous than ever.Marijuana: I can cure cancer.Drug Czar: I'd like to see some conclusive research on that.Marijuana: I doubt that you really would.Drug Czar: This is just propaganda from the well-funded pro-drug lobby.Marijuana: FOX News?Drug Czar (exasperated): Oh, yeah? Well today's marijuana is worse than cancer.Marijuana (gazing upwards): Forgive him, Fatherâ¦It was put here for a reason. Several reasons, it seems. Let's start figuring out what they are and stop looking for evil where there is none.
People are Licking Toads Again
The harder you try to keep people sober, the sooner they will run off in search of new and bizarre ways get super wasted. For one thing, certain kinds of toads have drugs in them and you can get wicked high just by licking one. A 21-year-old man has been accused of using a toad to get high.Clay County sheriff's deputies said David Theiss, of Kansas City, possessed a Colorado River toad with the intention of using it as a hallucinogenic.Experts said it's possible to lick the toad's venom glands to achieve psychedelic effects. [KMBC.com]So what's the penalty for toad possession, anyway? And how the hell do they know what you're gonna use it for? In the interest of public safety, I've compiled these handy harm reduction tips for toad-tasting troublemakers:1. Licking Colorado River toads produces psychedelic effects. Licking poison dart frogs produces instant death.2. If police ask what your toads are for, don't say "Oh, I was gonna lick 'em and get f*cked up, officer."3. Frogs with long tails and no legs are snakes. Don't lick snakes.4. If your toad turns into a prince, stop licking it. You've had enough.5. Don't blog while frogging.This awesome YouTube video says that hallucinogenic frog venom is only illegal if you extract it, and then goes on to explain exactly how to do that. So now I'm wondering how this young man got arrested to begin with. Was he wandering the street covered in toads mumbling prophecies of a terrible plague?Whatever else is true, I doubt the drug war will prove effective in curbing frog venom consumption. But I'd give anything to see Mark Souder standing before Congress demanding action against these subversive amphibians stupifying our society with their psychedelic secretions.
Pain contracts
I have recently been transferred to a pain clinic to get my opioids. In order to relieve the pain I suffer with daily, I have had to give up the one pain reliever that works. I now can only use the pills they give me, not the plant that grows naturally & does far less to damage my body than the pills do.
Top Drug War Advocate Publicly Humiliates Himself
On Nov. 1, Congressman Mark Souder (R-Ind.) sent a letter to his colleagues in Congress accusing hundreds of mainstream public health and education organizations of supporting "drug legalization." Now 16 of these organizations are calling on Souder to retract his statement and agree to a sit-down meeting so they can explain what they are actually trying to do. Is Mark Souder insane? Why would he attack mainstream public charities? I'll explain. In 1998, Mark Souder authored the Aid Elimination Penalty of the Higher Education Act, a law that denies financial aid to students with drug convictions. Since then, a massive coalition of public health, education, legal, and policy organizations has formed to oppose the law. Their arguments include:1. College education is proven to reduce drug use. Therefore, forcing students out of college obviously and undeniably increases drug use overall.2. The penalty only affects good students. If youâre getting bad grades you canât get aid anyway.3. Students arrested for drugs get punished in court. Itâs not like theyâre getting away with anything.4. Taking away opportunities from students sends a message that we don't want them to succeed in life. Students must be encouraged, not pushed down.5. The penalty disproportionately affects minorities due to disparities in drug arrests and convictions.6. The penalty only targets low-income students. These are the very people the HEA is supposed to help.7. Judges already have the authority to revoke financial aid if they think that's a good idea.Rather than attempting to understand these persuasive arguments, Mark Souder simply attacked and disparaged his critics, calling them a "small but determined coalition of drug-legalization groups." He attempted to mislead his colleagues in Congress about the agenda of his opponents. And he did it because he's embarrassed that so many reputable organizations have condemned his terrible ideas.It is no surprise that drug reform groups oppose the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty. StoptheDrugWar.org is one of them. But to attribute drug legalization sympathies to groups like the National Education Association and the United Methodist Church just makes Souder look like an idiot. His bizarre attacks have now earned him some unfavorable media attention at The Hill and The Politico. Beyond that, he's alienated all of the top organizations working on education and addiction issues; groups he'll have to work with so long as he continues to saunter around ignorantly fighting the drug problem.It just tells you everything you need to know about Mark Souder to see him spit on organizations that work to educate America's youth and help people recovering from addiction. And it tells you everything you need to know about the drug war's political leaders that Mark Souder is highly regarded among them.
Lamar Alexander Acknowledges the Futility of the Drug War
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Republican from Tennessee, obliquely acknowledged the futility of the drug war in comments made supporting a bill to combat illegal logging of which he is a cosponsor, on Tuesday of last week: The Senator from Oregon [Ron Wyden (D)] made a point that is maybe the central point here when he compared our efforts to stop illegal logging to our efforts to stop the bringing of illegal drugs into the United States. We all know the tremendous amount of effort we go to, for example, to keep cocaine out of the United States. We send millions of dollars to Colombia and to other countries and we try to stop that. But the real problem we have is we are a big, rich country, and there is a big demand for cocaine here. So no matter what we do in the other countries, the cocaine still keeps coming in, and the same with other illegal drugs. Here we have a chance to make a much bigger difference than we can with illegal drugs. We still are creating the demand problem. This is a country that accounts for 25 percent of all the wealth in the world. It is a country that perhaps buys a huge volume of illegal timber from around the world. Well, we can stop that. This is not a drug addiction, this is a business practice, and it is a practice we can stop according to the laws of this country. When we stop it, we will make an enormous difference for our country and for the other countries. So what is the next logical step in this line of reasoning? Visit the Thomas web site and find page S13967 in the Congressional Record to see it in print. Thanks to DPA's Grant Smith for the tip.
Hemp On the Menu in Bismarck, North Dakota
Bismarck's Bistro restaurant is known for its fine, grass-fed North Dakota beef and fine wines, but the menu last night included a tasty garden salad with hemp oil dressing. Hemp isn't usually on the menu--at least so far--but the folks at the Bistro added it in honor of the plaintiffs in a case that is being heard at the federal courthouse here this morning. In a little less than an hour, North Dakota farmers Wayne Hauge and Roger Munson, who is also a state senator, and their attorneys, will be in federal court to argue motions in their case against the DEA for refusing to act on their applications to grow hemp. The farmers have the support of the state government, which, in the face of DEA intransigence, has acted to get the DEA out of the way, as well as the hemp industry, some of whose representatives were at the dinner table at the Bistro last night. The attorneys told me last night the most likely outcome of today's hearings is that the judge will not rule immediately, but take the motions under consideration with a ruling to come shortly. The government will ask for a dismissal, but the hemp attorneys think that's unlikely. The hearing will last until about noon, then there will be a post-hearing press availability, which I will attend before heading back to central South Dakota. Yesterday, on the way up here, my gas mileage sucked as I fought bitter winds out of the northwest. Local TV news reported gusts of 74 mph yesterday. The wind is still blowing, but at least this afternoon it'll be at my back as I scoot across the lonely prairies. Look for a feature article on the hemp hearing on Friday.
Marijuana Evolves Faster Than Human Beings
Explaining the failure of marijuana prohibition is easy. Sociology, economics, history, and psychology can all help to explain why a safe and popular drug cannot be removed from the market by force. Still, there is another important reason why marijuana is here to stay: it evolves at an incredibly rapid pace, becoming stronger and more profitable every day.The vigorous growth and adaptability of the marijuana plant has long frustrated efforts by law-enforcement to thwart its production. Specific strains are easily cross-bred, producing offspring that emphasize certain qualities, thus growers in Oregon can develop a strain that grows well in Oregon's climate with minimal effort. Hybridization not only improves potency, but can also shorten flowering time and increase yield, thereby enabling growers to produce more in less time. We're witnessing a situation in which the biological vigor of the plant itself has far outpaced law-enforcement efforts that were never effective to begin with. Indoor-grown strains can advance through 3-4 generations in a year's time, with the best specimens from each batch selected for cloning or crossbreeding. Each successive generation carries on the best traits of the former, which explains why growers can now accomplish in a basement what used to require an acre or more in the woods.The great irony of all this is that drug warriors still think increased marijuana potency is an argument for their side. In reality, nothing could better illustrate the failure of their efforts to reduce the drug's production. Harsh marijuana laws have incentivized growers to produce a stronger product, which carries the same penalties by weight, while commanding higher prices on the street. As the bitter debate over marijuana legalization rages on, the plants will grow ever faster, bigger, and stronger. Marijuana is one of nature's most remarkable creations, and it is unbelievable that so many people still haven't figured out that this plant is here to help us. From healthy foods to a promising cancer cure, we should be grateful that cannabis sativa grows and evolves as vigorously as it does. With every forward step in marijuana's evolution, the war against this resilient plant becomes less and less effective.Note: Thanks to court-qualified cannabis expert Chris Conrad for answering growing questions, and to pot-paparazzi Steve Bloom for turning me on to the government's awesome 2008 cultivation assessment, which got me thinking about this.
SENDING THE WRONG SIGNAL TO YOUNG PEOPLE
note: this commentary was originally broadcast on WRFN-LP, Nashville Tennessee, on the Green Hour radio show. Other stories from the show can be found at my main blog, Deep Green Perspective. Our truth in strange places award this month goes to Senator Christopher Dodd, of Connecticut, one of the long-shot contenders for the 2008 Democratic nomination, who said in the course of the Oct. 30 debate, in defense of his call for decriminalization of marijuana, âWeâre locking up too many people in our system here today. Weâve got mandatory minimum sentences, they are filling our jails with people that donât belong there. âMy idea is to decriminalize this, reduce that problem here. Weâve gone from 800,000 to 2 million people in our penal institutions in this country. Weâve got to get a lot smarter about this issue than we are. And as president, Iâd try and achieve that. â
Feds Predict Major Drop in Marijuana Prices
Unless you measure success by the number of people arrested, the failure of the war on marijuana is becoming more obvious than ever before. A new Department of Justice report, Drug Threat Assessment 2008, reveals that increased indoor cultivation is flooding the U.S. market with high quality marijuana. As a result, marijuana users may soon be getting more bud for their buck:In the section, "Predictive Estimates," the report concludes:⢠Increased cannabis cultivation may result in reduced marijuana prices.The recent increases in cannabis cultivation and marijuana production within the United States coincide with the continued flow of marijuana from foreign sources, which may lead to market saturation [in] major markets. This saturation could reduce the price of the drug significantly. [CelebStoner.com]That's good news for marijuana enthusiasts and bad news for anyone invested in trying to eradicate America's #1 cash crop. Ironically, drug warriors have often cited increased potency as evidence that marijuana is becoming more harmful. This is all nonsense, because users adjust their dose to achieve the desired effect, just as an alcohol user might drink a 12 ounce beer, but not 12 ounces of vodka (not to mention the lack of evidence that marijuana is harmful even in large doses). Nevertheless, the real story here is that marijuana eradication efforts are failing to affect price and supply. What then is the point of spending billions in an unsuccessful attempt to eradicate this plant? What desirable outcomes are being achieved in exchange for the innocent lives disrupted or lost in the course of this fruitless crusade? Reasonable people can disagree about marijuana use, but who among us cannot think of better things for police to do than this? Anyone who ever thought we might someday purge this plant from our borders can now be relieved of that foolish notion. Opponents of marijuana and its users must now take stock of the situation and ask whether the indefinite continuation of this endless cat and mouse game is desirable. It is amusing, perhaps, to the marijuana fans among us to hear that the price of a ¼ bag could go down soon. But remember how much our nation has sacrificed in a hopeless effort to prevent this from happening. Remember how many of our friends and neighbors have been yanked off the streets, forced out of school or work, even lost custody of their children, all because of the stupid idea that we could successfully wage war on marijuana.I don't begrudge any of you your cheap bags of good bud, but don't get too comfortable. The war on marijuana may have failed, but it still sucks.
Eighty-Year-Old US-Mexico Drug Program is Far Over Budget
A DRCNet member who blogs at the Daily Kos, among other places, sent me a fascinating article he found recently in the New York Times web archive about the US-Mexico drug war. According to the article, titled "US to Join Mexico in Fight on Drugs" and published in May 1925: The drug treaty which will be formulated in El Paso by the Commissioners of the United States and representatives of the Mexican Government Is expected to achieve two results -- elimination of the constant stream of drugs which Is pouring into the United States through Mexico and helping to clean out from the border towns several groups of American and foreigners who 'have made large sums of Money through the drug traffic. Eight two and a half years later, President Bush has proposed spending another $1.5 billion on the drug war south of our border. But according to the US General Accountibility office: According to the US interagency counternarcotics community, hundreds of tons of illicit drugs flow from Mexico into the United States each year, and seizures in Mexico and along the US border have been relatively small." Can we agree at a minimum that this project is far over budget?
One in Three Hit Songs Contain Drug References
When the kids aren't sniffing poo and gobbling Aqua Dots, they're listening to drug-laced rap anthems and probably thinking about getting wasted:Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who studied the lyrics of hundreds of popular songs, found that one in three mention alcohol or drug use.â¦Most lyrical references to substance use were associated with partying, sex, violence and, or humor. The use of drugs and alcohol was motivated by peer pressure, sex, and, or money. Only four songs explicitly had anti-use messages. [Reuters]I was initially surprised by the 1 in 3 result. It sounds like a lot, hence the scare story from Reuters. But if you think about what makes a song popular, it makes perfect sense. Popular music has to resonate with the "cool" kids, and you can't win them over by singing about puppy dogs and the pleasures of sobriety. Ultimately, drugs are just part of our popular culture and that isn't going to change. What can change is the drug war mentality that glorifies some of the worst aspects of our society. Chart-topping rap music, for example, has turned drug-dealing thugs into folk heroes. The music doesn't inspire this activity, rather it documents it, providing listeners with a window into a world that is unfamiliar to most.Rap stars and rockers will always brag about misbehaving, and awestruck youth will always gaze curiously at this dramatic spectacle. But tabloid headlines and sensational lyrics aside, many of our celebrities are hardworking people who've learned to use drugs responsibly. Maybe they're not such bad role models after all.
Popular Children's Toy Revealed to Contain Club Drugs
Instead of debating whether or not marijuana decriminalization sends the wrong message to children, maybe we should spend more time ensuring that kid's toys aren't made of club drugs:NEW YORK (CNN) -- U.S. safety officials have recalled about 4.2 million Chinese-made Aqua Dots bead toys that contain a chemical that has caused some children to vomit and become comatose after swallowing them.Scientists have found the popular toy's coating contains a chemical that, once metabolized, converts into the toxic "date rape" drug GHB, or gamma-hydroxy butyrate⦠[CNN]Well, if the DEA can prosecute convenience store clerks for unknowingly selling supplies that could be used to make meth, surely they will go after Walmart for accidentally selling GHB to small children. Right? Better yet, perhaps ONDCP will now claim that this problem could have been headed off sooner by drug testing 1st graders.
Denver Voters Make Marijuana the Lowest Law-Enforcement Priority
It's always exciting to see the drug war lose at the ballot box. In 2005, the citizens of Denver, CO voted to legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Rather than respecting the will of the people they serve, Denver police continued performing marijuana arrests, relying on state laws that remain unchanged.Yesterday, Denver voters spoke out against the war on marijuana users once again, making marijuana enforcement the city's lowest law-enforcement priority. The measure, which passed with a solid 55% 57% of the vote, reads as follows:The Denver Police Department and the City Attorneyâs Office shall make the investigation, arrest and prosecution of marijuana offenses, where the marijuana was intended for adult personal use, the Cityâs lowest law enforcement priority.Congratulations to our friends at SAFER who've now successfully mobilized the citizens of Denver to challenge marijuana prohibition in their city not once but twice. The measure won't end marijuana arrests in Denver, but it demonstrates that Denver voters truly are committed to reigning in police who still believe they're serving the community by arresting people for America's pettiest crime. It shows that 2005's victorious legalization vote was not an anomaly. And it sticks a finger in the eye of the Denver City Council, which insanely claimed the measure sent the wrong message, while simultaneously courting Coors Brewing Company to sponsor city facilities. So long as protecting and serving remains the top law-enforcement priority, arresting marijuana users must be the lowest. That is, until the glorious day when busting people for marijuana ceases to be a law-enforcement priority at all.
Study: College Educated People are More Likely to Support Marijuana Legalization
Supporters of marijuana policy reform have long been viciously mischaracterized and stereotyped by our opposition. We are called druggies and losers. Our views are dismissed as unserious and irresponsible, fueled perhaps by excessive consumption of the drugs we want legalized. But according to Gallup Poll data, we are more likely to be college educated:Americans with some college education -- from those who have attended at least one college course to those who have postgraduate degrees -- are somewhat more likely than those without a college degree to say marijuana should be legal in the country. Thirty-seven percent of adults with a college education support legalization, compared with 31% of those with no college education.This makes perfect sense if one understands that opposition to the war on marijuana users emerges from a thousand perspectives: economics, public health, human rights, civil liberties, and on and on. Of course, one needn't attend college to recognize the absurdity of this massive war against otherwise law-abiding Americans, but it is important to dispel the notion that marijuana reformers are foolish or naïve. We are not. And we have degrees to prove it.By contrast, there are many ways in which a lack of education may contribute to a belief that it is wise to criminalize vast portions of the population and attempt to uproot America's #1 cash crop. But let's not forget that the architects of the war on marijuana users are, themselves, very cunning and deliberate in their actions. They've been effective in stigmatizing their opposition as hacks and weirdos, while fostering a false belief among politicians that reform is political suicide. The future of marijuana policy reform lies in breaking free from the stereotypes imposed on us by our oppressors and revealing our movement as the compassionate, intellectual brain trust that it has blossomed into. This may be inevitable, but in the meantime, let's all try to use proper spelling and punctuation in our blog comments (like the smart, serious people this Gallup Poll reveals us to be).