BLOG
Raise a Flag (your opinion please)
I am thinking about putting in a flag pole to raise the marijuana flag (I'm a little pissed off about my arrest and probation for growing marijuana- I can't even toke). I was thinking about just raising the Marijuana flag minus the American or State flag complete with lights so it shines brightly at night.
What's a gram of cocaine go for where you live?
Drug czar John Walters is making noise this week about how a decline in cocaine availability is causing price increases. Walters always jumps on these price blips to tout the success of US eradication and interdiction policies...then the prices go down again. We will see what happens this time. In the meantime, I wonder what cocaine prices are in your neighborhood. I lived in Austin in the 1980s, and a gram of cocaine (usually obtained from a Nicaraguan college student...go figure) went for between $120 and $150. Just last night I was on the phone with folks in Austin, and they report that a gram can now be had for $40. Gee, maybe it's up from $35 last month; I don't know. But the long-term trend is undeniable: Down in price by about two-thirds since the '80s. What are cocaine prices like in your neighborhood? Historically and currently. Let's get us a little unscientific survey going.
Marijuana Dealers Offer Schwarzenegger One Billion Dollars
As California faces a $1 billion budget shortfall, the marijuana industry offers a commonsense solution to the state's fiscal problems:August 6 -- A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. The group, calling itself Let Us Pay Taxes makes the offer through its web site LetUsPayTaxes.com. The offer comes at a time when the California legislature is deadlocked on a new budget and California has stopped issuing checks for vitally needed social services. Legislators are currently arguing over which programs will be cut in order to balance the budget. [link]This effort is the brainchild of drug policy expert/activist Cliff Shaffer, who has hit the nail square on its head. The failure of prohibitionists to grasp the inherent economic lunacy of the drug war has always been particularly startling to me. I grudgingly accept that drug war supporters feel no sympathy for the victims of harsh laws, and even that they clumsily attribute the harmful effects of prohibition to the drugs themselves. Yet, tragic and irrational as these beliefs may be, they do not explain the willingness of government to cast aside billions in taxable commerce.Marijuana is, after all, the #1 cash crop in the nation. This fact cleanly illustrates the failure of prohibition, while vividly depicting the massive windfall available to any state with the wisdom to pursue regulation. And all this is to say nothing of the incalculable value of discontinuing our current marijuana policy, which is as wasteful and ineffective as can be. Gov. Schwarzenegger is unlikely to be impressed with this offer, unfortunately, having vetoed California's hemp bill over concerns regarding conflict with federal law. Yet, as Shaffer points out, there is truly nothing the DEA can do to prevent state level regulation of marijuana. The vastly smaller medical marijuana industry has already overwhelmed the agency's enforcement capacity. Ongoing DEA raids are merely a face-saving gesture, designed to confuse legislators in prospective medical marijuana states. The full-scale regulation of the marijuana economy in any state would reveal DEA's genuine impotence, permanently burying the myth that conflict with federal law ensures some sort of brutal showdown. Having failed to get the point across in so many ways, it's about time to start offering people a billion dollars.
Who Should Be the Next Drug Czar?
We will have a new president in January 2009, and that means we will have a new cabinet as well, including a new head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP--the drug czar's office). Who should the next drug czar be? Do we want another general? Another drug war true believer? (Would that be a job requirement?) A doctor? A public health person? A lawyer? An activist? A politician? The progressive web site The Backbone Campaign is seeking "shadow cabinet" nominations. Anyone can nominate anyone. Here's the list so far for the drug czar position: Nominee(s): Ethan Nadelmann Dean Becker Tom Hayden Gary Johnson Rep. Maxine Waters Russell Simmons Bill Maher Al Sharpton Keith Stroup I'd be happy with any of these folks, including our buddy Dean Becker from the Drug Truth Network. I'll also suggest a couple more: Professor Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, co-author of "Drug War Heresies," knows drug policy issues inside and out and is a pretty progressive fellow on these issues. And, of course, in a perfect world, the next drug czar would be Tommy Chong. But I don't know if he could make it through the committee hearings... Who's your nominee?
Get Saved or Get Busted
A church in Kentucky is starting a "Court Watch" program. Church members attend court and note the disposition of each case with an emphasis on drug cases. The Community Church of Manchester is not in court to help these defendants with spiritual advise, rehabilitation, counseling, or ministry. The Rev. Doug Abner, pastor at Community Church -- whose slogan for a 2004 anti-drug march was "get saved or get busted" -- said the presence of Court Watch volunteers puts "mild pressure" on judges "to do the right thing.
The letter of the law...
Defined as criminal under title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code; Title 18 U.S. Criminal Code -- Chapter 13 Section 241. CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS OF CITIZENS If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same; or
D.C. Drug Policy Softball Team Ranked #1
Just when you thought reformers couldnât play ball on Capitol Hill:WASHINGTON, DC â The One Hitters, a softball team sponsored by Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, took over the #1 ranking in the Congressional Softball League last night. The teamâs 13-3 record has vaulted them to the top of the league, which is made up of Congressional offices, lobbying and consulting firms, non-profit organizations, and local businesses. [Dare Generation Diary]With players from SSDP, MPP, NORML, and of course StopTheDrugWar.org, the One Hitters represent the athletic side of the drug policy reform movement. Opponents who arrive expecting clumsy Cheech & Chong antics get slaughtered and humiliated. It's been a while since the One Hitters surprised anyone, however, since they are now well known throughout the Congressional League for raising hell on the field.The One Hitters garnered national media coverage two years ago when the Office of National Drug Control Policy started a team and promptly refused a face off. ONDCP's Tom Riley was not at his best attempting to explain why ONDCP was unwilling to challenge the "stoner" softball team:"I wouldn't think we would play any team that promotes drug use," Riley said, adding, "that includes teams that promote smoking meth or smoking crack." [MAPinc]A more likely explanation is that ONDCP heard rumors of a severe and inevitable beating if such a game were to take place, and now that the One Hitters have risen to the top of the league, it seems they made the right call. It's too bad though. A picture of sheepish ONDCP staffers sulking off the field would be worth a thousand blog posts.
Feds take criminal action in 'every' aspect of fighting constitutional rights, & disrespecting the true rule of law...
Please listen to my dear friend - Danny Fabricant's appeal in the 9th district.. Life sentence for 'third' drug offense, informant skates on murder. Danny Fabricant v.s. THOSE People
Feds take criminal action in 'every' aspect of fighting constitutional rights, & disrespecting the true rule of law...
Please listen to my dear friend - Danny Fabricant's appeal in the 9th district.. Life sentence for 'third' drug offense, informant skates on murder. Danny Fabricant v.s. THOSE People
New Study: Marijuana Does Not Cause Psychosis, Lung Damage, or Skin Cancer
I've performed a meta-analysis of various scare stories about marijuana appearing in major papers this week. The results of my research are as follows:Hypothesis:Alarmist reports about marijuana will turn out to be wildly exaggerated and in some cases completely fictitious. Obvious inconsistencies will be overlooked by the press and widely available contrary evidence will be ignored. Methodology:I read various stories about marijuana and used basic logic and reasoning to determine whether their conclusions made any sense. In some cases, I used Google and other sources to search for other information that contradicted seemingly dubious claims. Findings: Marijuana Increases the Risk of Psychosis by 40%: This one turned out to be totally wrong. Apparently a correlation between marijuana use and psychosis doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana caused the psychosis. Many of the researchers made this clear in their findings, but reporters left it out. Furthermore, none of the stories on this topic explained that the risk of psychosis is small, so a 40% increase isn't that significant to begin with. Reporters also failed to observe that massive increases in marijuana use over the past century have not corresponded with increased rates of psychosis. Smoking a Joint is as Bad For Your Lungs as 5 Cigarettes: This report also turned out to be almost entirely bogus. Shockingly, "air flow" was the only category (of several) in which marijuana was determined to be more harmful. Researchers stated that marijuana was 2.5 to 5 times more harmful than tobacco in this category, which reporters simply rounded up to 5 for the headline (behold the lofty journalistic standards of Reuters). Reporters also failed to mention conclusive research proving that marijuana does not cause lung cancer; a notable omission since "bad for your lungs" likely implies cancer for many readers. Finally, media reports failed to explain that marijuana users consume far less per day, and do not continue using for nearly as many years as tobacco smokers. Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer: I don't know anything about skin cancer, so I won't attempt to refute the findings of this Harvard study. The manner in which it was reported, however, leaves much to be desired. The FOX News headline reads "Study: Marijuana Use May Cause Skin Cancer." Only upon reading the article does the reader discover that only one extremely rare form of skin cancer has been associated with marijuana, and that the researchers claim that more research is needed. Furthermore, only people with weakened immune systems are even susceptible to this infection. A more appropriate headline would have been "Study: Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer Under Very Rare Circumstances." Conclusions: Reading coverage of marijuana research in the mainstream press increases the risk of becoming misinformed by 50-300%. More research is clearly needed to identify further sources of flawed marijuana reporting. The risk of bad reporting remains stable despite concerted efforts to inform the media that hysterical claims about marijuana frequently lack scientific merit. Exposure to poorly researched news about marijuana is correlated with support for costly, ineffective, highly punitive marijuana laws.
Why Rep. John Hall (D-NY) voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher...liberal fear of federalism
Today I called the Washington office of my congressman, John Hall. I have vigorously supported him in the 2006 election against a Bush rubber stamp Sue Kelly. He was seemed to be a progressive democrat (indeed he joined the progressive caucus after entering office). However, he voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher, refusing the step to stop DEA from raiding the dispensaries.
... and Another Letter from a Medical Marijuana Patient
Another patient story posted on the comment boards: Six years ago I was literally struck down with Fibromyalgia. I simply couldn't get out of bed one morning. I crawled versus walking most of the time as it was less painful. My husband had to lift me onto the toilet, give me baths, cook, etc., because I was of no use to anyone, including myself. I also had no appetite whatsoever. I lost 20 pounds in a matter of weeks, leaving me a frail 100 lb 50 year old. My husband thought maybe marijuana might help with my appetite, so he "scored" some for me. It not only restored my appetite, it also took a lot of my pain away. It makes me sick to think we both could have been arrested. When is this country going to wake up?!! As before, good question.
Opposition to Medical Marijuana is a Conspiracy to Prevent Broader Legalization
An important fact to understand about the medical marijuana debate is that the federal government knows perfectly well that marijuana is an effective medicine: *They've been providing it for decades to a select group of seriously ill patients, and continue to do so.*They've approved a synthetic drug with the same active ingredient (THC). *They commissioned a huge study in 1999, which explicitly said it works.*They've been blocking research, which makes no sense if they think the results will favor them.So the debate over medical marijuana isn't even about whether it has medical properties. It is about something else entirely, stated perfectly by ONDCP's Tom Riley just the other day:"â¦a lot of the people who are behind this aren't really interested in sick people who need medicine, they're interested in marijuana legalization and they're playing on the suffering of genuinely sick people to get it." [Reuters]As silly as it is, this argument explains everything there is to know about why the government actually opposes medical marijuana. Though countless mainstream medical, legal, and religious organizations support medical marijuana, the federal government remains fixated on drug policy reformers and our role in defending the rights of patients.The simple truth is that they are afraid that medical marijuana could lead to full-blown legalization of marijuana for recreational use. And it's not an irrational concern. If you're struggling to prevent accurate information about marijuana's effects from reaching the scientific community and the public, the last thing you want is a huge user population that can speak openly about their experiences with the drug.Ironically, it is ONDCP's obsession with legalization that has turned medical marijuana into a great controversy, not ours. Similarly, it is ONDCP that exploits patients for political purposes, not us. Opposition to medical marijuana is not championed by doctors or scientists. It is funded and carried out by political operatives who want to keep marijuana illegal for everyone. That's the real medical marijuana conspiracy.
Important Exchange Re: Clinton & Obama on Needle Exchange
Ben Smith's blog on The Politico web site today discussed an important exchange of comments between Hillary Clinton and Charles King, the executive director of Housing Works, at a private appearance earlier this month, as well as comments by Barack Obama at a different meeting in the same series. King had asked Clinton if she would lift the ban on use of federal AIDS funds to support needle exchange programs, an issue that previously came to a boil in 1998 during her husband's second term. (Some activists believe that Bill Clinton would have lifted the ban if Donna Shalala rather than Barry McCaffrey had boarded a certain Air Force One flight.) According to Smith: Clinton responded to King's question, after some prodding, by saying, "I want to look at the evidence on it" to see whether needle exchange would prevent the spread of HIV without increasing drug abuse. Shalala, King responded, had "certified" the safety and effectiveness of the programs. "And then she refused to order it, as you remember," Clinton said. King replied that that had been her husband's decision. "Well, because we knew we couldn't maintain it politically," Clinton said, and went on to discuss the trade-offs in that dispute with Congress. "I wish life and politics were easier," she said. King then referred back to Clinton's opening remarks. "You made a great comment earlier about how our next president needs to have some spine," he said. "Weâll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances," Clinton responded. Obama, by contrast, had responded that he supports lifting the ban. Click here to read Smith's full post, which includes the video footage. A little background: Housing Works has for years been a stalwart in the harm reduction movement. (Harm reduction is the idea that people who use drugs should be helped in reducing the harm they do, to themselves or others, whether they are about to stop using drugs or not.) The organization is very well known in New York City, which successfully beat back a late 1990s attempt by then Mayor Rudy Giuliani to bankrupt them. In 2000, activists from Housing Works stormed the Ashcroft confirmation hearings to denounce his record on needle exchange. King's co-founder and co-executive director of Housing Works for years, the late Keith Cylar, was a member of DRCNet's board of directors (and a friend).
Six Months Since Police Shot an Innocent 80-Year-Old Man, and Still No Explanation
80-year-old Isaac Singletary had a habit of chasing drug dealers off his property. Then, one fateful day, he emerged with a pistol to threaten two dealers that were creeping around his yard. They turned out to be undercover cops, and Singletary was promptly shot and killed.That was six months ago, and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is almost ready to explain what the hell happened:While a Jacksonville Sheriff's Office review of the shooting is scheduled for next week, State Attorney Harry Shorstein said in April that while he was very concerned with how undercover operations like this one were conducted, he would not file criminal charges against the officers. [News4Jax.com]That's how this works, folks. The determination that police weren't at fault tends to emerge quickly, while actual reports explaining what happened take several months. How they figure out that the police were innocent without yet completing the report is a trade secret, I guess.Perhaps they're right that the police didnât do anything illegal, but that's a huge part of the problem. It should be illegal for police to dress up as drug dealers and trespass on private property. And it should be even more illegal for police to shoot innocent people who donât know they're the police.If police act so much like criminals that well-intentioned citizens canât tell the difference, those officers should not be permitted to defend themselves with deadly force. So, once again, if these officers' actions turn out to be legal, it's time to change the law.
Why did alcohol prohibition end?
Did the "tax-it and make money for the government" argument carry the day in the fight to end alcohol prohibition? Donald Boudreaux makes a case in Prohibition Politics, Pittsburgh Tribune Review. (Via Radley Balko, who is not a fan of prohibition or taxes.)
Republican and Democratic Senators Query Gonzales on Crack Sentencing Views
User "puregenius" reports over in the Reader Blogs that Republican and Democratic senators -- Jeff Sessions and Pat Leahy -- queried Alberto Gonzales about his views on the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, in last Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Dept. of Justice oversight. Short answer -- he likes it, they don't. Update: Just saw this link on TalkLeft to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Derrick Kimbrough, a federal prisoner serving time on a crack cocaine offense. LDF contends that "The Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines Have Resulted in Vast Racial Disparities" and "The Racial Disparities Associated with the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines Have Caused Widespread Distrust of the Law.
Five Architects of the Drug War -- and the Result of Their Work
Alex Coolman's Drug Law Blog has published a list -- with pictures -- of "5 Bumbling Architects of America's War on Drugs": Hamilton Wright, Richmond Pearson Hobson, Harry Anslinger, William Randolph Hearst, and Richard Nixon. It's a good historical review of how duplicitous and random the pathway to prison and the current drug war really was. In order to believe that current US (and world) drug policy makes sense, it is necessary to assume that a sensible drug policy occurred by accident. The most important picture is the one at the end, showing the result of our architects' efforts:
San Francisco Orders Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Sell Fatter Bags
Regulation of medical marijuana distribution can have some interesting side effects. The following email, sent to a dispensary operator by an employee of the San Francisco Department of Health, shows that the city is requiring clubs to be more careful in their measurements:Dear MCD Applicant;It has come to my attention that some MCD's [medical cannabis dispensaries] are using the incorrect equivalent conversion between grams and ounces. You must use 28.35 grams/ounce, not 28 grams/ounce for all cannabis sold by weight. The law behind this is in the State Business and Professions Code, which is typically enforced by Weights and Measures (State Dept of Agriculture). As they currently are not addressing weights and measures issues regarding cannabis clubs, the City's MCD Inspection Program will enforce this requirement.Please feel free to share this with any club operator (I do not have emailfor most operators).Thank you for your cooperation.In other words, San Francisco is ordering dispensaries to give patients more bud for their buck. The extra 3rd of a gram per ounce isnât going to put any providers out of business, but it's amusing to see the city intervene on behalf of medical marijuana consumers.This is the kind of regulation the marijuana industry actually needs. Hopefully someday, when the DEA shows up at your dispensary, it wonât be to confiscate your proceeds and product, it will be to warn you: "It's come to our attention that you're selling skimpy sacksâ¦"
New Resource on Judges' Views on Federal Sentencing -- Basically, They Hate It
Law professor David Zlotnick has released a new resource on judicial views on the federal sentencing system, available on his web site at the Roger Williams School of Law (link below). Briefly, judges don't like it. A few of the comments Zlotnick collected -- from the additional comments section -- provide some flavor of what it is to be found there: Judge Morris S. Arnold Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Appointed by George H.W. Bush, 1992 "You may say that I said that many of our drug laws are scandalously draconian and the sentences are often savage. You may also quote me as saying the war on drugs has done considerable damage to the Fourth Amendment and that something is very wrong indeed when a person gets a longer sentence for marijuana than for espionage." Senior Judge Andrew W. Bogue District of South Dakota Appointed by Richard Nixon, 1970 Prior Legal Experience: State's Attorney, Turner County, South Dakota, 1952-1954 "I will say this on the sentencing guidelines: I detest them. The sentencing guidelines divest courts of their role in imposing just and appropriate sentences to fit the crime and the defendant, with due consideration to all the attendant circumstances. They deprive judges of their discretion which is the touchstone of justice. Were the sentencing guidelines merely suggestive, they might very well serve as an important and helpful model which could assist judges in a difficult task. However, in their present form, as I said, they are detestable." Judge Richard A. Gadbois, Jr. (deceased) Central District of California Appointed by Ronald Reagan, 1982 "The law stinks. I donât know a judge that thinks otherwise." Following are some introductory comments from Zlotnick, via Doug Berman's Sentencing Law and Policy blog: I am pleased to announce that the website for my federal sentencing project can be now be accessed at this link. The underlying research for this project was funded by a Soros Senior Justice Fellowship grant and was conducted over the past four and a half years. The heart of the work is contained in forty comprehensive case studies of federal cases in which Republican appointees complained that the sentences required by law were excessive. These profiles are the most comprehensively documented cases studies of federal sentencings available on the Internet. The site also includes a draft of my forthcoming article in the Colorado Law Review, "The Future of Federal Sentencing Policy: Learning Lessons from Republican Appointees in the Guidelines Era." This article contains a blueprint for sentencing reform legislation that might resonate with this cohort of federal judges in the post-Booker era. The launch of the website this summer is intended to allow my work to be used by sentencing reformers in the upcoming debate in Congress over the Sentencing Commission's proposed changes to the crack cocaine penalties. By showing that Republican appointees share many of the same concerns as academics and criminal defense attorneys, I hope to explode the myth of the liberal federal judiciary and pave the way for meaningful and bipartisan sentencing reform.