BLOG
Sarah Palin and the Marijuana Legalization Debate
These comments from Sarah Palin last week are continuing to generate discussion:"If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot, because I think that would just encourage our young people to think that it was OK to go ahead and use it and I'm not an advocate for that.However, I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts. And if somebody is going to smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and clean up some of the other problems we have in society that are appropriate for law enforcement to do and not concentrate on such a, relatively speaking, minimal problem that we have in the country."Mike Huckabee responded with a bizarre joke about Palin doing cocaine on TV, and Ryan McNeely has a good piece addressing the absurdity of defending marijuana laws while simultaneously asking that they not be enforced. Unfortunately, The Economist departed from its typically superb drug policy coverage with a strange defense of Palin's remarks:Basically, while Sarah Palin's position on this issue, as on many others, is semi-deliberately incoherent, it is in this case a semi-deliberate incoherence that has proven to be effective policy in many countries, and I'm not even sure it's the wrong stance on the issue.The full argument is too rambling to quote (see for yourself), but the author's point is that marijuana isn't really even legal in the Netherlands, so maybe there's no need to legalize here either. It might make sense if we didn't have a massive blood-thirsty drug war army literally occupying our cities. Prohibition is a for-profit industry in America. It sustains itself through a vast campaign of propaganda and intimidation, and I doubt the solution is as simple as asking these guys to please calm down. The warriors who invade private homes in bulletproof bodysuits and murder small dogs for having the audacity to bark at them are not responsive to pleas for a more measured enforcement model. That the law authorizes their actions is the go-to excuse when their machine guns go off prematurely, and until that changes, neither will anything else. Nevertheless, the fact that Palin was able to create such a flurry of dialogue with a few casual comments is testament to her potency as an advocate for whatever half-measures she's willing to stand for. And the fact that FOX News is now employing people who will keep posing these questions to prominent political figures is pretty cool, too.
Supporting Harsh Drug Laws is Political Suicide in NY
Now that New York's famous Rockefeller drug laws have been scaled back, the issue is being used as a political weapon against those who failed to support reform:For many Democrats in Albany, it was a landmark achievement: the long-sought overhaul of New Yorkâs strict Rockefeller-era drug laws, repealing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders that critics said disproportionately and unfairly fell on blacks and Latinos.But that legislative victory last year has emerged as a litmus test in the increasingly bitter five-way Democratic primary battle for attorney general.â¦"The reforms resonate powerfully in the African-American community," said David S. Birdsell, dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. "It is also a signature piece of progressive legislation for an increasingly large part of the Democratic primary base. It's a litmus test for progressive voters and an appeal to a group that was disproportionately harmed by the old laws." [NYT]You couldnât ask for a better example of how quickly drug war politics are evolving. For decades, our political culture has clung to the conventional wisdom that endorsing drug law reform was instant career suicide. Now we're beginning to see candidates getting burned for failing to endorse reform. That doesn't mean you can now get elected president on a meth legalization platform, but it should come as a harsh warning to any elected official who thinks they can still sell voters on stupid anti-drug stereotypes from the Reagan years. Certain reform issues now enjoy majority public support and others are surging in that direction. If you're not ready to embrace and champion reform, that's one thing, but it should at least be clear that shrouding yourself proudly in the drug war battle-flag is no longer a smart campaign strategy.
Ethan Nadelmann Destroys Bill O'Reilly in Drug War Debate
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up:As I've said in the past, we should be nothing short of thrilled that Bill O'Reilly is as big a drug war idiot as he is. Sure, he has his devotees, but an awful lot of people form their political identity around believing the opposite of anything he says. O'Reilly's recent obsession with trashing Sting and the Drug Policy Alliance is exposing his audience to ideas you won't often hear on primetime FOX News programming.Hopefully, getting schooled by Ethan hasn't dampened O'Reilly's enthusiasm for ranting mindlessly about drugs.
Radley Balko Discusses Botched Drug Raids on FOX
John Stossel's new show on Fox Business Network is off to an impressive start with an hour-long assault on prohibition titled Drug War Disaster. Here's a segment featuring Radley Balko and Cheye Calvo: You can (and should) watch the entire episode here. At the very least, check out the opening segment in which Stossel crushes Sean Hannity in a drug policy debate. It's truly priceless.
Government-Sponsored Murder in the Name of Prohibition
This fascinating piece in Slate recalls the government's seldom-discussed effort to enforce alcohol prohibition by poisoning people:Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.It's a nightmarish tale of prohibitionist lunacy that's worth reading in its entirety. Government officials were viciously calculating in their actions and callously blamed naïve drinkers for the consequences. Today, prohibition kills people in different, yet equally abhorrent and unnecessary ways. Its advocates continue to deny responsibility for the predictable and inevitable consequences of the policies they defend and the death toll has grown to incalculable proportions, spanning the globe. The drug war leaves sickness and murder in its wake at every turn, yet many among us remain blind to the lessons learned nearly a century ago.
StoptheDrugWar.org on Huffington Post
I have started blogging on Huffington Post. Check out my first post there, SWAT Raids: No One Is Safe. This is a basic statement laying out the case for why SWAT deployments are now out-of-control and need to be dramatically reined in. Sadly, even more outrageous and infuriating evidence of the need for SWAT to be reined in has already come out, as Scott's latest post here last night demonstrates. If you'd like to follow me on Huffington Post on a regular basis, visit my page there to make use one of the subscription options -- make sure to "like" the page on Facebook too. I will also be writing more editorials over the coming months in our own Drug War Chronicle newsletter; check out the latest one if you haven't already, here.
Police Kill Grandmother's Dog in Botched Drug Raid
I don't know what else to say about this, except that it's just like all the other inexcusably brutal, incompetent and entirely unnecessary drug raid killings we've covered here: As usual, the officers involved had every opportunity on earth not to shoot this woman's dog. She asked to put the dog in the bathroom and they said to go ahead and do that. Then, at some point, an officer went into the bathroom and killed the dog. The guy they were looking for hadnât even lived there in 12 years.
Reminder: Marijuana Already Exists
Via DrugWarRant, here's another concerned citizen who seems to think that marijuana was invented recently:Al Martinez: Do we need one more drug to shield us from reality?I predict that by the end of the year the sale of marijuana will become so common in L.A. that Mom will be able to say, "Timmy, run down to Vons and get me a quart of milk, a loaf of sourdough bread, a pound of tomatoes and two ounces of pot."First of all, there has never been a point during the life of Al Martinez when there wasn't a phenomenal amount of marijuana available for purchase in Los Angeles. Also, no one is even advocating for marijuana to be sold in grocery stores, and that will never ever happen, not even if George Soros were put in charge of U.S. drug policy. No reform to marijuana policy can occur without significant public support, so please just spare yourself the anxiety of speculating about bizarre policy changes that aren't being considered by anyone anywhere.This "do we need one more drug?" nonsense is embarrassingly stupid, yet manages somehow to gain popularity with the anti-pot crowd, due perhaps to the profound absence of more intelligent arguments such people might make.
BOYCOTT ALCOHOL UNTIL MARIJUANA IS LEGAL!
BOYCOTT ALCOHOL UNTIL MARIJUANA IS LEGAL! BOYCOTT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNTIL MARIJUANA IS EQUALLY LEGAL. You can make your own wine from dandelions and
Legalize the one thing that can stop the pain and suffering of millions
My mother in law has MS. She has perscription pain pills, that do nothing to help. There are many american citizens out there that have to suffer from pain, that shouldnt have to.
Two I-1068 signature hotspots need volunteers today and tomorrow.
Two I-1068 signature hotspots need volunteers today and tomorrow.
Oregon Board of Pharmacy Reschedules Marijuana
On June 16th, 2010, The State of Oregon - Board of Pharmacy has officially rescheduled Marijuana from 'Schedule I Controlled Substances' to 'Schedule II Controlled Substances'.
One Thing After Another for Pain Patient
My wife and I just solved a problem getting the 90 days of pain medication we need to go see the grand-kids in Oregon and Montana. It was just a mis-communication with the doctor.
w. h. auden
this was supposed to be a nice information! its very exciting so watch out! w. h. auden
There's Only One Argument Against Legalizing Marijuana (And It's Wrong)
Opponents of legalization routinely regurgitate an endless array of flawed logic, mindless speculation, and apocalyptic prophecy anytime they're confronted with the case for marijuana reform. But regardless of whatever head-spinning mouthful they deliver, it invariably rests upon the same grand assumption: that legal marijuana means many more people smoking much more pot. Fortunately, we've made enough progress already to take that theory for a test-drive, and the results are delightfully underwhelming:Marijuana use is not on the rise.At least, that's the gist of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health done every year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2008 â the most recent data available â 6.1 percent of Americans 12 and older admitted using marijuana in the previous month.â¦And yet, during those same years, marijuana has been edging toward legitimacy. States with medical marijuana laws have made it possible for thousands of people to buy pot over the counter, in actual stores. Some police departments have started de-emphasizing marijuana arrests. [NPR]Imagine that. After decades of debate, the first stages of reform have taken hold and all the trains are still arriving on time. More than a decade after the first legal marijuana sales began taking place on American soil, the consequences we were told to expect can be found nowhere other than the imagination of our dwindling opposition. If rates of marijuana use aren't rocked by reform, then everything bad that's ever been said about marijuana is perfectly irrelevant to the legalization debate. The morons who think we're trying to "add a new drug into the mix" are shown to be badly confused, and we can move fearlessly towards dismantling the vast spectrum of nightmarish prohibition problems that we've brought on ourselves for no reason whatsoever.If our opponents have any integrity, if they truly want safer communities and just laws, then they'll someday be very pleased to learn that we've been right all along.
Police Corruption in the Egyption war on drugs
Egypt is facing growing calls for an independent probe into the police killing of a young man who was reportedly preparing to expose police corruption.
Legal Marijuana Will Not Increase Crime. Please Stop Saying That.
The closer we get to legalization, the more people are talking about it, and the more people are talking about it, the greater the likelihood of hearing bizarre and incoherent viewpoints:Those in favor also contend that if you remove the black market by making pot consumption legal â much of the marijuana-related crime would automatically go down.That is where I have to respectfully disagree.Money is legal, but criminals still rob banks to get it.The more marijuana there is out there being grown, the more of it there will be to be stolen.Criminals gravitate to wherever there is anything of value they can steal. [Oakland Tribune]Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with whether or not marijuana should be legal? Yeah, we're all familiar with the fact that people prefer to steal stuff that's worth money. What on earth is your point? I think the author might actually be arguing that prohibition somehow devalues the marijuana supply, which would have to be the stupidest understanding of drug laws I've ever encountered. So let me respond in very simple terms: marijuana will not be worth as much money when it is legal. Marijuana sales will take place in secure facilities, and thugs will be put out of business, so you'll be less likely to see stories like this in the news:Police said Arrington was selling marijuana to one of the victims in the back seat of a white Chevrolet Yukon when the two began arguing about the quality of the marijuana. Arrington allegedly pulled out a gun, shot the man with whom he was arguing, then shot two of the man's acquaintances, who were in the front seat. [Washington Post]That shooting took place a week ago and only a mile from my home, so I take this very seriously. Marijuana laws are a matter of life and death, and anyone who walks around spouting off opinions without thinking is making the problem worse. If we don't want people getting shot over pot deals in the back of SUVs, then we need to put it somewhere safe. We put money in banks, and sometimes they get robbed, but no one ever argues that banks are a dangerous way to store and distribute money. We don't need to prove that legalization is 100% perfect and invincible in every conceivable way in order to justify our position. We can easily show that it's the safest and best available option. If that's not enough for you, then you're either an obstructionist, an idiot, or both.
Ron Paul and Sarah Palin Discuss Marijuana Legalization
Well, you know what to expect from Ron Paul, but Sarah Palin's comments might surprise you (starts at 6:16):Though unwilling to support legalization, Palin clearly has some sympathy for marijuana users on privacy grounds and sort of gets the fact that marijuana enforcement is a stupid distraction from important police work. But you can't have it both ways. As long as police and prosecutors hold the power to pursue and punish people for pot, they'll continue to do so, and they'll say they were just doing their job when some poor soul gets their dog shot over a dimebag. There exists a rather fundamental incompatibility between prohibition and politeness.Still, Palin's comments are interesting in the context of the overall discussion. The whole point of the segment was to bring together representatives of the Tea Party movement and debate some sensitive issues. Listening to Ron Paul's opposition to marijuana laws and Palin's reluctance to defend them, you start to wonder if anyone in the right-wing activist movement still cares about fighting a war on marijuana.Obama has been attacked viciously from the right for almost everything he's ever said or done, yet when his administration talks about scaling back the war on drugs, the backlash never comes.
Cops Kill Father-to-Be in Botched Marijuana Raid
Drug Raids: Las Vegas Narc Serving Marijuana Search Warrant Kills Father-to-Be In His Own Bathroom A 21-year-old father-to-be was killed last Friday night by a Las Vegas Police Department narcotics officer serving a search warrant for marijuana. Trevon Cole was shot once in the bathroom of his apartment after he made what police described as "a furtive movement." Police have said Cole was not armed. Police said Monday they recovered an unspecified amount of marijuana and a set of digital scales. A person identifying herself as Cole's fiancée, Sequoia Pearce, in the comments section in the article linked to above said no drugs were found. Pearce, who is nine months pregnant, shared the apartment with Cole and was present during the raid. "I was coming out, and they told me to get on the floor. I heard a gunshot and was trying to see what was happening and where they had shot him," Pearce told KTNV-TV. According to police, they arrived at about 9 p.m. Friday evening at the Mirabella Apartments on East Bonanza Road, and detectives knocked and announced their presence. Receiving no response, detectives knocked the door down and entered the apartment. They found Pearce hiding in a bedroom closet and took her into custody. They then tried to enter a bathroom where Cole was hiding. He made "a furtive movement" toward a detective, who fired a single shot, killing Cole. "It was during the course of a warrant and as you all know, narcotics warrants are all high-risk warrants," Capt. Patrick Neville of Metro's Robbery-Homicide Bureau said Friday night. But a person identifying himself as Pearce's brother, who said he had spoken with his sister, had a different version of events: "The police bust in the door, with guns drawn to my little sister and her now deceased boyfriend," he wrote. "My sister is 8 ½ months pregnant, two weeks until the due date. But they bust in the door, irritated they didn't find any weapons or drugs, drag this young man into the restroom to interrogate him and two minutes later my sister hears a shot. They shot him with a shotgun, no weapon. For what? My sister is a baby, this young man is a baby, now my sister is at his house telling his mom her son is dead, and he is barely 21." Pearce herself told the Las Vegas Review-Journal Monday that police forced her to kneel at gunpoint in the bedroom and that she could see Cole in the bathroom from the reflection of a mirror. According to Cole, police ordered Cole to get on the ground, he raised his hands and said "Alright, alright," and a shot rang out. According to Pearce and family members, Cole had no criminal record, had achieved an Associate of Arts degree, and was working as an insurance adjustor while working on a political science degree at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. He was not a drug dealer, Pearce said. "Trevon was a recreational smoker. He smoked weed, marijuana. Thatâs what he did," she told KTNV-TV. "They didn't have to kill him. We were supposed to get married next year, plan a black and white affair,â she said. "He was all I ever knew, we were gonna make it." LVPD Monday identified the police shooter as narcotics detective Bryan Yant, a 10-year veteran of the force. This is the third time Yant has controversially used his police firearm. In 2002, he shot and killed a robbery suspect, claiming the suspect, who was on the ground, aimed a weapon at him. But although the suspect's gun was found 35 feet away, a jury took only half an hour to find the shooting justified. The following year, he shot and wounded a man armed with a knife and a baseball ball who had been hired to kill a dog that had killed another neighborhood dog. Yants claimed the man attacked him and that he mistook the bat for a shotgun, but the man said he was running away from Yants when Yants fired repeatedly, striking him once in the hip. Because there was no death in that case, no inquest was held, but the department's use of force board exonerated Yants. Yants is on paid administrative leave while the department investigates. The family has hired an attorney to pursue a civil action. And another American has apparently been killed for no good reason in the name of the war on drugs. "Narcotics warrants are high risk warrants," said Capt. Neville. The question is for whom, and the answer is obvious: The people on the receiving end of them. The police? Not so much, as we have shown in our annual surveys of police casualties in the drug war.