BLOG
Mitt Romney's Horrible Encounter With a Medical Marijuana Patient
I thought it couldn't get any worse than McCain and Giuliani, but I was so wrong. Republican front-runners are literally competing to see who cares the least about medical marijuana patients. And the winner is…Mitt Romney. Romney may be toeing the party line, but I don't doubt his handlers have had a word or two with him about not insulting people in wheelchairs on CNN. I mean, really, could he have handled this any worse? Let's set one thing straight here: if you oppose medical marijuana, you support arresting patients. It is just that simple. If you leave patients under the jurisdiction of the DEA, you know what's going to happen. Mitt Romney's unqualified, "I'm not in favor of medical marijuana," is an endorsement of every atrocity – past, present and future – that patients inevitably suffer at the hands of the heavily armed cavalry that so clumsily and callously insists on its right to police their private medical decisions. Stay tuned, folks. Rumor has it Fred Thompson plans on drop-kicking a paraplegic down a flight of stairs.
The 3 R's
The honorable David WU (D-OR) Member of Congress 110th U.S. Congress Office of National Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Agency Does anybody in this country have any common sense when it comes to this issue? These are not Rambling Rantings of Rhetoric but an essay on the Reality of Regulation for Revenue; just as The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, as well as Australia and Canada are now realizing and recognizing the full ramifications of the failure of prohibition.
Mass Incarceration of the Mentally Ill
I have a rather long post up on Senator Jim Webb's recent senate hearings: Senator Jim Webb On Mass Incarceration
What Will It Take?
I have a lot of theories about what it will take to end this infernal Drug War which has been misdirecting resources for way too long. Most of my ideas about change leading to justice and liberty revolve around non-violent means, but it would be ignorant and short-sighted not to consider some more rigorous form of counter-attack, especially when dealing with Fascists. Once I settle into this blog, I will share those ideas which may be useful in ending this oppression as soon as possible with the least number of casualties on both sides of the issue.
McCain and Giuliani Say Terrible Things to a Medical Marijuana Patient
Via MPP, battle lines are being drawn on the campaign trail over medical marijuana. Linda Macia of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana suffers from nerve damage, fibromyalgia, reflex sympathetic dystrophy and degenerative arthritis. She's allergic to other medications and has only found relief through medical marijuana. You'd think that anyone hoping to become president would show some compassion for this unfortunate woman, but alasâ¦Notice how McCain turns his back to her the moment she utters the phrase "medical marijuana." Words could not better describe his position. McCain goes on to claim he's seen no documentation of medical marijuana's effectiveness, even though Granite Staters' Stuart Cooper had personally presented him with sound scientific evidence.Will she have better luck with Rudy Giuliani? Let's seeâ¦Ouch. Giuliani struggles when she explains that she's allergic to the "other medications" he recommends. He also claims not to have lobbied on behalf of OxyContin, which I guess depends on your definition of "lobbying." Sometimes we don't get the answers we want. That's what happens when you look to the drug war for answers. But at least we're asking the right questions, and asking them often. Perhaps next time we should ask if they've seen the polling on medical marijuana. Maybe that will get their attention.PS: Also watch McCain insult a New Hampshire student who asks him about medical marijuana, then apologize to him.
Franklin Pierce University Forced by Local Police to Help Bust its Own Students
Drug war lunacy has taken hold in Rindge, NH and it isn't pretty. A new policy of notifying local police about suspected drug use on campus has disrupted the school's educational mission and provoked widespread alarm among students. After discovering a marijuana grinder during a routine maintenance check, campus security called police to investigate. Police then locked students out of their residence for 26 hours while obtaining a search warrant. This video made by Franklin Pierce SSDP members shows how several students were denied access to all of their possessions, including their school work, for a full day so that one of them could be investigated for drug paraphernalia:If this sounds like a typical college campus misconduct case, it's not. Sources familiar with the situation have informed me that Rindge Police threatened campus security themselves with arrest if they didn't start sacrificing students to the local drug war. It's like saying, "We know people smoke pot on campus. Help us bust them, or we'll bust you."It's hard to understand what could motivate this type of law-enforcement. Small-town police departments with less to occupy their time are frequently prone to drug war excesses. College town culture clashes are nothing new either. But the sheer audacity of all this is stunning, and it raises important questions about whether this police department understands its proper role in the community. Beyond that, it highlights how quickly the war on drugs can become a war on education itself. Throughout the nation, students bear the stigma of presumed drug involvement and are targeted, not just by law-enforcement, but by federal law that removes young people from school for petty offenses. The behavior of police at Franklin Pierce University is symptomatic of the corrupted drug war mentality that we must investigate and destroy our young people if necessary in order to discourage drug use. This is not a war which seeks to protect and uplift America's youth. It is many things, but it is so clearly not that.
Drug War to Figure Prominently in Sen. Webb's Incarceration Hearing Tomorrow -- Available by Webcast
The state of Virginia has not traditionally been in the vanguard of criminal justice reform -- maybe the other way around -- but it does have some political figures who are enlightened on such issues. Rep. Bobby Scott of Richmond is one who has played a leading role in fighting this good fight for many years. Now, Virginia has Sen. Jim Webb. Last March we reported on remarks he had made on ABC about how mass incarceration is tearing the country apart and those are the kinds of issues he wants to work on. He's coming through. Tomorrow is Webb's first public hearing on the issue, "Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?" At the time of this writing, it is the top news link and prominently displayed on Webb's Senate home page. Follow the links from there and you'll find a lot of the things we've been saying for years, about incarceration in general and the drug war in particular. We've heard that at least one of the speakers is going to call for an end to the drug war. The venue where this is taking place is the Joint Economic Committee, comprised of members of both the Senate and House. New York's Chuck Schumer is the top Democrat on the committee, an influential figure in criminal justice policy. It's hard to tell in advance, but this feels like it could be a significant turning point, even if like most hearings it is likely to be a quiet one. Click here from 10:00am onward tomorrow morning to watch it live, or afterward for a video archive.
John McCain is Sick of Being Asked About Medical Marijuana
SSDP activist Jon Perri just nailed John McCain over his opposition to medical marijuana. McCain is noticably frustrated about being forced to repeatedly explain his lack of compassion for patients. He belittles Perri, only to subsequently apologize for doing so.Note how McCain emphasizes his opposition to medical marijuana, but still claims he would not arrest patients. That's sort of the point of the question, Senator.Cheers to Jon Perri for asking the question smartly and maintaining his composure despite McCain's interruptions. At this pace, one wonders if the Senator will have a complete meltdown the next time this question is asked of him.
Obama Comes Out Against Mandatory Minimums
It's about time. We've been concerned about Obama's perspective on drug policy, but it looks like he's coming around:Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) outlined his civil rights platform Friday, saying that if elected president, he would target racial disparities in the U.S. justice system through a host of measures, including relaxing drug sentencing laws.â¦"We have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives - a decision that's made not by a judge in a courtroom, but all to often by politicians in Washington and state capitals around the country," Obama said. [AHN]Obama also pledged to address the crack/powder sentencing disparity, which he's sounded reluctant to do previously.How could anyone disagree with him? Sentencing reform has become standard fair for the democratic candidates, and I've yet to hear the republicans dispute it. Maybe, just maybe, this one issue can escape the icy death grip of partisan politics. Maybe we can all just agree to stop treating petty drug offenders like murderers and rapists. Can we give this a try? Please?
Does Partnership for a Drug Free America Oppose Random Student Drug Testing?
As the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) parades around the nation promoting random student drug testing in schools, one of its biggest allies has remained conspicuously silent on this controversial issue. The Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA) has been the loudest "anti-drug" voice in America ever since its famous 1987 "This is your brain on drugs" ad and currently produces ad spots for ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Yet despite extensive cooperation between the two organizations, PDFA appears not to have bought into ONDCP's hype surrounding random student drug testing. PDFA Parental Advisory Board Member Judith Kirkwood has vocally condemned the practice in the press and on her blog, calling it ineffective and invasive. Meanwhile, the PDFA website, which provides extensive "anti-drug" resources for families, only recommends drug testing at the discretion of parents, with suspicion of drug use, and under medical supervision. For clarification, we contacted PDFA to verify the organization's stance on student drug testing. Surprisingly, their media contact was initially unprepared to address the issue. We eventually heard back from PDFA Deputy Director of Public Affairs Josie Feliz, who acknowledged that "We stay away from that a little bit. It's an individual decision for parents to make." Finally, when pressed, she said, "We don't have policy one way or the other on this."Of course, saying drug testing is "an individual decision for parents to make," certainly sounds like a policy statement, and one which contrasts sharply with that of ONDCP. The Drug Czar has aggressively touted random student drug testing as a central tool in the effort to reduce drug use among youth. Indeed, his goal is without a doubt to collect urine from as many students as possible with minimal supervision and no individualized suspicion of drug use.We can only guess why it might be that PDFA does not advocate random student drug testing, but possibilities abound:*Tests frequently return inaccurate results. *Numerous studies show testing does not reduce drug use.*Testing treats innocent students as drug suspects.*Testing encourages use of less-detectible/more dangerous drugs.*Tests are easily obscured by cheating. *Testing requirements discourage participation in extra-curricular activities.*Testing requires school administrators to look at students' genitals while they urinate.*Testing takes money away from programs that actually work.*Testing distracts students and teachers from educational priorities. Whatever their concerns may be, PDFA's unwillingness to promote random student drug testing is the correct position to take. It is unlikely that they would part ways with their colleagues at ONDCP -- undoubtedly a politically uncomfortable situation for them -- if they were not convinced that random student drug testing is the wrong answer in the fight to reduce youth drug abuse. All of this is symbolic of the growing consensus among physicians, addiction specialists, educators, parents, and students that these programs are severely misguided.
Record Marijuana Seizures Mean There's More Pot, Not Less
The Drug Czar's blog once again demonstrates a remarkable misunderstanding of how drug enforcement works. Or they're just pretending not to understand:Pot Seizures Way Up in OregonMore bad news for Mexican drug cartels:"Harvest season this year has law enforcement scrambling to deal with the largest crop of marijuana in Oregon history.From counties long known for illegal foliage to those where marijuana is rare, narcotics agents say they are tracking and hacking an unprecedented number of plants in remote and rugged rural areas.By mid-September, they had seized about 220,000 plants statewide, nearly a 100 percent jump from last year's haul of about 120,000 plants. Almost all of the crops, DEA officials say, are grown by Mexican drug cartels expanding their California operations." [Oregonian]Government anti-drug officials, of all people, should understand that high seizures mean there's just lots of marijuana to be found. The article even says it's "the largest crop of marijuana in Oregon history." This isn't bad news for Mexican drug cartels, it's bad news for the 20-year-old federally-funded marijuana eradication effort that hasn't accomplished anything. The problem is just getting worse.What could be more dishonest than pretending that a record crop is good news for marijuana eradication? That is just like saying that record forest fires are good news because we're putting out more fires than ever before. As usual, the DEA eagerly claims that "almost all of the crops" are grown by Mexican drug cartels, as though white people in Oregon want nothing to do with marijuana cultivation. Um, have you seen those people? Seriously, I've met lots of white people from Oregon, and I swear half of them were just waiting for me to stop talking so they could go water their pot plants in the woods.And, as I've explained previously, no one ever gets caught planting pot in the woods anyway, so how could police possibly know who's doing it? They have no clue, and it's precisely because no one ever gets caught growing pot in the woods that more and more people are planting more and more pot in the woods. How long must all of this go on before the Drug Czar's office stops citing it as evidence of the effectiveness of marijuana eradication?
Drug-free smokers wanted
I was walking through the halls of my school today and saw an flier seeking participants in a survey. It reads "Smokers Wanted. Quiting not neccesary." Upon closer inspection I saw a small line that read "Participants must be drug-free."
Opportunity for Activism
I see a great opportunity to educate people during the release of Denzel Washington's new move American Gangster. When it is released on Nov. 2nd, I am going to hand out LEAP promotional DVDs. I am hoping their are others interested in doing so.
Straight racist the drug war is, simple and plain
This is an article I wrote for the Nubian Message, the African American newspaper on my campus. It will run this Wednesday, October 3rd. All thoughts and comments are welcome! Drug War Hysteria: A Roadblock to Equality of Opportunity
The Drug War Costs Each Taxpayer $530 a Year
Big numbers are hard to fathom for most people, and the confusion they create helps to undermine peopleâs understanding of the impact that the failed Drug War has on oneâs or a hard-working familyâs bottom line. Your share of this century-long war is costing you dearly.Have you ever thought about the fact that the feds and states combined have spent over 1 trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) on the failed policy of drug prohibition, and that we spend about $69 billion a year on the Drug War while not taxing the $100+ billion Americans spend on drugs annually? With about 130 million taxpayers in the US, that breaks down to a cost of $530 a year per taxpayer. Then there's the tens of billions in additional tax proceeds weâre not collecting that could be funding, well, geeez, I donât know...health coverage for millions of uninsured children, safer borders and streets, Social Security, better schools, etc. Yes, thatâs right, you could be paying less in taxes at the same time that current or desired programs are more robustly funded. Drug prohibition is a textbook double whammy. Check out Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws by Jon Gettman â it will show you the US is missing out on $30 billion in taxes just on marijuana alone. We sure could fend off some budget crises with that kind of money. In California, producers and distributors of marijuana are trying to help, they just recently offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at least $1 billion a year in new tax revenue. What would you rather spend your money on -- your mortgage, your childrenâs education, a new car? Had you had that money to buy Google stock, I bet youâd be quite happy. Over the last ten years, Iâd have paid more than $5,000 of my federal student financial aid loans, and improved my credit ranking in the process. Plus, the extra taxes from drugs would have helped insure my retirement future and made my community stronger at the same time.While we are faced with almost $9 trillion in national debt (each personâs share is about $30,000), massive trade deficits, a US dollar falling all over the globe, spending billions a month in Iraq, housing market woes, a pending Social Security crisis, high gas prices, etc., the Drug War keeps sucking our wallets even dryer. Next time you are asked to pay higher taxes, a little short on money, or realize youâre not as far along in saving for your retirement as you wish, go ahead and thank your politicians who favor drug prohibition over your present and future financial solvency.
Video of Ron Paul Debate Comments Opposing Drug War
Last week we posted some Mike Gravel footage on about drug legalization, and promised to do likewise for Ron Paul if recent links were sent. Fresh from the Republican candidates debate on PBS, Dr. Paul speaks, via YouTube (and Drug WarRant): Interestingly, he discusses the racial disparity in drug enforcement, not such a popular angle with Republican audiences generally, despite the overwhelmingly evidence about it. Good for him. Now, any Dennis Kucinich anti-drug war footage out there?
Harvard Scientists Build Very Cool Bong
At last, a solution to the problem of not being able to get high during a brain scan:Smoking during a brain scan is not easy. Why would you want to? Because functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allows researchers to observe activity in the brain, and doing so while smoking tobacco or pot could enhance our understanding of addiction and how to treat it.â¦Displaying skills that would put MacGyver to shame, Frederick constructed a makeshift water pipe inside of a picnic cooler, then ran 2.4 meters of tubing to a plastic facemask that rests inside of the scanner. Since the mask is made from materials that are not magnetic, it will not interfere with the imaging. [Wired]In college, my friend Derek conducted some remarkably similar research. Lacking an MRI scanner, he simply conducted informal interviews to see how the device affected participants.To be sure that the contraption can get people high, Lindsey and her associates asked nine volunteers to inhale smoke from a marijuana cigarette with exactly 3.51 percent THC, then checked to see how much of the drug made it into their blood. Using the mask, the subjects got almost as high as if they had puffed on a joint directly. The researchers suggested using stronger weed to achieve more realistic effects.These people are geniuses. Next they need to build a device to administer nachos during a brain scan. Hypothesis: Scott Morgan will experience feelings of contentment.
Why Do Police Really Oppose Marijuana Legalization? Part II
Yesterday's post failed to address the prevalence of police officers who privately oppose the drug war, but silently uphold it even though they know it's wrong. My argument is quite incomplete without addressing this important phenomenon.LEAP director Jack Cole has told me that police constantly admit to him in confidence that they agree with LEAP's arguments. Former Seattle Police Chief and LEAP speaker Norm Stamper has also stated that several high-ranking police officials have privately commended his efforts to end the drug war. How then do we explain the behavior of police who carry out a war they don't believe in? Are they just following orders and collecting their paychecks? Are they fearful that speaking out will compromise their status within a profession they otherwise enjoy? Do they believe the laws are here to stay, so someone has to enforce them? Are some just waiting for their pension to kick in before joining LEAP?I'm sure all of these factors contribute here, but I suspect that many officers have a more nuanced view of drug enforcement. I once asked a highly-regarded police sergeant what he thought of a controversial teenage curfew law aimed at curbing crime in D.C. "It's a useful tool," he replied, meaning that it gave him the authority to take action against suspicious youths in the absence of other evidence. If he can't prove they're out tagging cars, he can at least stop them and send them home. Drug laws, particularly marijuana, perform a similar function by granting police the discretion to forgive or destroy individual suspects based solely on their demeanor and the contents of their pockets. Police can ignore the smell of marijuana when dealing with a polite citizen, or fabricate it entirely when they believe someone's hiding something. A law that criminalizes vast portions of the population, justifying detentions, searches and arrests, is a "useful tool" indeed. Officers needn't believe they're winning the war on drugs to find value in the vast authority it bestows upon them.Wielding inflated drug war powers with the best of intentions may help some officers justify their participation in something they otherwise find distasteful. Of course, none of this justifies the massive collateral damage that occurs in the process, but it might help explain how conscientious people could engage in behavior that shocks the conscience.
Why Do Police Really Oppose Marijuana Legalization?
The superb efforts of our friends at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition notwithstanding, police generally oppose efforts to reform marijuana laws. Initiatives in Colorado and Nevada were vehemently contested by law-enforcement interests, who claimed that reform would invite crime and undermine community safety. Sheriff Fred Wagner of Park County, CO even tried to link marijuana reform efforts to a recent school shooting.Intuitively, there's nothing surprising about police lobbying to retain the gratuitous powers granted them by the war on drugs. Yet, as marijuana arrests reach a new record high each year, it becomes increasingly difficult to point towards any societal benefit to these costly attacks on otherwise law-abiding Americans. Because I believe most officers really do want to protect the communities they serve and make a difference, I have often pondered their willful enforcement of, and political support for, a war that endangers communities while failing to a make a difference.I was pleasantly surprised, therefore, to learn that Joplin, MO Police Chief Lane Roberts has pledged not to oppose a local marijuana decriminalization initiative. Roberts correctly defines his role as defending the constitution rather than opining on what the law ought to be. But he goes on to explain that officers sometimes overreact to policy changes that reduce police authority:When asked how his officers had reacted to the decriminalization of pot possession in Oregon and in Washington State where he previously headed up departments, Roberts reclined in his office chair and smiled."When that law was first passed, most police officers thought that the end of the world as we know it was about to occur," he said. "But, we thought the same thing when the Miranda decision came down." [Joplin Globe]Miranda is such a wonderful analogy for law-enforcement's knee-jerk assumption that any restriction on police power will invite pure chaos. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform criminal suspects of their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination before conducting interrogations provoked panic among police. Murderers and rapists would go free, we were told, and crimes of the most despicable nature would become unsolvable. The result was nothing of the sort. Police simply became more professional. It turned out that the freakiest psycho killers still insisted on confessing their misdeeds, while the rest got taken down through good old-fashioned police work. "You have the right to remain silentâ¦" has become a popular and familiar symbol of due process, and the horror show predicted by law enforcement has been long forgotten.The point here is that it was the experts, the interrogation specialists themselves, who were so wrong about Miranda. Today, when police speak out against marijuana reform, they are motivated not by experience at all, but rather a fear of the unknown. Indeed, today's officers simply have no real frame of reference for what law-enforcement in a post-drug war America would look like. I'm optimistic, however, that whatever our friends at LEAP can't explain to their colleagues will ultimately find a way to explain itself. Inevitably, the truth about drug policy reform will become self-evident each and every time it is given the opportunity to do so.Update: I've posted a follow-up to emphasize the important point that a significant number of police officers actually do realize the drug war isn't working and continue to fight it anyway