BLOG

Love Trumps Hate in United States!

I read that Tea Party members shouted "the "n-word!" at former civil rights leader and current Atlanta Congressman, John Lewis during a protest in DC.

Drug Cartels Are Terrified of Marijuana Legalization

The laws against their products just make them rich. The threat of being killed or imprisoned just gives them a rush. Their reputation for ruthlessness just gets them laid. The cartels truly have only one thing to fear and that is the day when their monopoly is destroyed:Legalizing marijuana wouldn't end the criminal drug trade and its violence. Addicts still would crave heroin, cocaine and other hard narcotics. But decriminalizing [he must mean legalizing] marijuana would be a body blow to drug cartels. Half the annual income for Mexico's violent drug smugglers comes from marijuana, one Mexican official told the Wall Street Journal last year. Imagine how many smugglers and street-corner reefer hustlers would be put out of business. [Chicago Sun-Times]See, this is the mental exercise everyone needs to perform. If you're undecided about legalization, then try to put the politics aside for a moment and just think for yourself about what legalization would mean for the cartels. They have to lose something don't they? Let's please stop acting like this is an all-or-nothing proposition. If we can take some money from the cartels, that's awesome. We don't have to destroy them to make it worthwhile; we need only save a few lives from the cartels' brutal violence to achieve a massive victory. Anyone who hates drug cartels owes it to themselves to muster the courage and curiosity to give this a chance.

Illegal Growers Are Terrified of Marijuana Legalization

This fascinating AP story really nails a dimension of the legalization discussion that is rarely understood or acknowledged in the press:If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast.Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat.Funny how the "threat of legalization" means such different things to different people. If anyone still doesn't understand how legalization will impact the black market, well, try asking the black market what it thinks. These people are freaking out and you really shouldnât need an advanced degree in economics to understand why that is.This is the reality that legalization's opponents are incapable of addressing. The marijuana economy already exists and the debate over taxation and regulation is merely a question of how the industry will be structured. This is not a matter of whether or not California should have marijuana. California already has more marijuana than it knows what to do with.A vote against legalization is a vote for illegal growers and dealers. And they thank you for your support, as always.

An Argument to Avoid Making, Part 2

Whenever I explain why I think reformers should avoid suggesting that politicians benefit from supporting "tough on crime" policies, I get some incredulous responses. It's true that you can still find politicians sucking up to law enforcement, embracing bad drug policies everywhere all the time, and generally believing that doing so serves their political interests. If I ever sounded like I was questioning any of those realities, it's my fault for not being clearer.My point isn't so much that politicians never benefit in any way from doing these things, but rather that it's less true than it used to be and that we shouldn't be reinforcing that belief if we want political support. Just a few years ago, everywhere I looked, I saw reformers complaining publicly that politicians wouldn't support our cause because it might cost them votes. I saw prominent journalists like Joe Klein at Time Magazine calling for legalization and then in the next breath giving politicians a great reason to oppose it:â¦the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio. See, this is the kind of thing that supporters of reform shouldn't be saying. This is why I've been arguing for years that we should always emphasize the potential political benefits of taking our side rather than lamenting the possible harms. For example:Bad = "Politicians won't support ending the drug war because they're afraid of losing votes."Good = "Politicians are starting to get the message that the drug war isn't as popular anymore."Am I making sense here?

An Argument to Avoid Making

I've spent years challenging the notion that "tough on crime" policies help politicians get more votes. That idea becomes less true each day as polls tip in our favor, and even if it were completely valid, advancing this notion would not serve our interests as reformers. So imagine my surprise at finding myself quoted in The Washington Post saying this:The bureau's stats show that "stop and frisks" are occurring at record rates, Morgan says, particularly where minorities and low-income people live. He blamed "hard on crime" campaigns by politicians trying to get or stay elected. [Washington Post]No, I didn't. This surprising statement emerged from an interview with a Washington Post writer at Wednesday's D.C. premiere of my new movie 10 Rules for Dealing with Police. If anyone said this, it wasn't me, and I can't get over the irony of being quoted in a major paper saying the opposite of what I've been arguing for years.I guess it just goes to show how pervasive the idea still is that the American people want our leaders to have us arrested as often as possible. Sure, there was a time when "tough on crime" politics could be used as a political bludgeon. It's called 1988. Thankfully, we're finally moving beyond it.

If You Call Yourself a Drug Policy Reformer, You Need to Watch This

This Slate article about how college professors across the country are using The Wire to teach a variety of subjects reminded me how many of my fellow drug policy activists still haven't gotten around to watching the show. If institutions of higher learning are able to comprehend The Wire's mind-expanding educational value, then it really shouldnât be necessary for me to beg reformers to put those ridiculous Weeds DVDs aside for a couple weeks and watch the most accurate and revealing depiction of urban drug warfare ever created. It is literally so realistic that people who've watched all five seasons should be considered eligible for a certificate of expertise in modern drug war police practices. Your failure to watch The Wire could be depriving you of insights that would advance the cause of reform. In other words, you are screwing over the rest of us by not doing your share and forcing us to carry the burden of The Wire's wisdom on our own. We have to listen to you express opinions that would be more succinct if you'd seen it, thus you're basically wasting everyone's time with your non-Wire-influenced ideas about the war on drugs.Your intransigence might be forgivable if The Wire were boring, but it is widely and correctly considered the most interesting and entertaining program in the history of television, even among people who never gave a damn about crime and drug policy until The Wire came along and completely blew their minds.Here, just watch Omar steal all the heroin in Baltimore and tell me you don't want more:

The Real Reason Football Players Aren't Supposed to Use Marijuana

This Sports Illustrated piece on the growing prevalence of marijuana use among NFL prospects is such a carnival of mind-bending idiocy that I wonder if I'll ever enjoy the sport quite as much after having read it. The whole thing is just a series of anonymous quotes from NFL coaches and executives acting like marijuana is some sort of mysterious plague gripping professional sports. Yet for all the deep concern about it, you won't find any attempt at explaining why anyone even gives a sh*t about this to begin with.So what if an athlete has a secret history of getting super baked. Does he have a secret history of sucking at football? That would be worth looking into. But the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the real story behind all this nonsense is actually rather simple and far too embarrassing to acknowledge.I seriously doubt any of this has anything to do with concerns about the impact of marijuana use on an athlete's performance. The sport of football has a rich history of dominant players known for indulging in cannabis and it would be laugh-out-loud moronic to suggest that the stuff was gonna screw up anybody's stats. Nobody even bothers to argue that, because it's dumb and everyone knows it's dumb. The real issue is that you have to worry about these guys failing drug tests or getting arrested and then having to deal with seismic media attention and pissed off corporate sponsors. It's all about money, but you can't say that without revealing the mindlessness of marijuana policy in general, which the NFL isn't about to weigh into. Instead, we're stuck with marijuana-in-sports coverage that remains ubiquitous, yet utterly devoid of substance.Meanwhile, as SAFER points out, the NFL is married to the alcohol industry and couldn't possibly do more to shove beer in everyone's face at every conceivable opportunity. It is unquestionably the best example that exists of an organization which simultaneously glorifies and promotes alcohol, while treating marijuana use as an intolerable vice. I dare anyone to consume on a frequent basis all the nutritious food and beverages the NFL wishes to sell to you, and once you're sufficiently fat and drunk, you can then make it your business to lecture Rookie of the Year Percy Harvin about whether treating his migraine headaches with marijuana is a responsible choice.

It's Official! California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Qualifies for the November Ballot

Californians will be voting on whether to legalize marijuana in November. The California Secretary of State's office Wednesday certified the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 initiative as having handed in enough valid voters' signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative is sponsored by Oaksterdam medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee and would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults and allow for personal grows of up to 25 square feet. It also provides for the taxed and regulated sale of marijuana by local option, meaning counties and municipalities could opt out of legalized marijuana sales. Some 433,000 valid signatures were required to make the ballot; the initiative campaign had gathered some 690,000. On Tuesday, state officials had certified 415,000 signatures as valid, but that didn't include signatures from Los Angeles County. Initiative supporters there Wednesday handed in more than 140,000 signatures. With an overall signature validity rate of around 80%, that as much as ensured that the measure would make the ballot. Late Wednesday afternoon, California Secretary of State's office made it official. Its web page listing Qualified Ballot Measures now includes the marijuana legalization under initiative approved for the November ballot. The 104,000 valid signatures from Los Angeles County put it well over the top. "This is a watershed moment in the decades-long struggle to end marijuana prohibition in this country," said Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources, and making criminals of countless law-abiding citizens. Elected officials havenât stopped these punitive, profligate policies. Now voters can bring the reality check of sensible marijuana regulation to California." "If passed, this initiative would offer a welcome change to Californiaâs miserable status quo marijuana policy," said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which recently endorsed the initiative. "Our current marijuana laws are failing California. Year after year, prohibition forces police to spend time chasing down non-violent marijuana offenders while tens of thousands of violent crimes go unsolved â all while marijuana use and availability remain unchanged." Proponents of the measure will emphasize the fiscal impact of taxing marijuanaâthe state Board of Equalization has estimated that it legalization could generate $1.3 billion in tax revenues a yearâas well as the impact of regulation could have on reducing teen access to the weed. They can also point out that by now, California has lived with a form of regulated marijuana distributionâthe medical marijuana dispensary systemâfor years and the sky hasn't fallen. Opponents, which will largely consist of law enforcement lobbying groups, community anti-drug organizations, and elements of the African-American religious community, will argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and that crime and drugged driving will increase. But if opponents want to play the cop card, initiative organizers have some cards of their own. In a press release Wednesday evening, they had several former law enforcement figures lined up in support of taxation and regulation. "As a retired Orange County Judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working," said Retired Superior Court Judge James Gray. "Controlling marijuana with regulations similar to those currently in place for alcohol will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business." "The Control and Tax Initiative is a welcome change for law enforcement in California," said Kyle Kazan, a retired Torrance Police officer. "It will allow police to get back to work fighting violent crime." Jeffrey Studdard, a former Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, emphasized the significant controls created by the Control and Tax Initiative to safely and responsibly regulate cannabis. "The initiative will toughen penalties for providing marijuana to minors, ban possession at schools, and prohibit public consumption," Studdard said. The campaign should be a nail-biter. Legalization polled 56% in an April Field poll, and initiative organizers say their own private research is showing similar results. But the conventional wisdom among initiative watchers is that polling needs to be above 60% at the beginning of the campaign, before attacks on specific aspects of any given initiative begin to erode support. But despite the misgivings of some movement allies, who cringe at the thought of defeat in California, this year's legalization vote is now a reality. "California led the way on medical marijuana with Prop 215 in 1996,â said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Now itâs time again for California to lead the way in ending the follies of marijuana prohibition in favor of a responsible policy of tax and regulation."

California releasing prisoners

The NYT has an article titled California, in Financial Crisis, Opens Prison Doors.

Researchers Prove Definitively That the Drug War Sucks

In a sane world, this ought to be all the evidence you'd need to conclude that the drug war is just a complete unmitigated disaster:Researchers at the Urban Health Research Initiative (UHRI), a program of the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE), conducted a systematic review of all available English-language scientific literature to examine the impacts of drug-law enforcement on drug-market violence. The systematic review identified 15 international studies examining the impact of drug-law enforcement on violence. Contrary to the prevailing belief that drug-law enforcement reduces violence, 87% of the studies (13 studies) observed that drug law enforcement was associated with increasing levels of drug-market violence. [MarketWire]So all we've ever accomplished here is getting a bunch of people killed for nothing? Yeah, that about sums it up. The question then is how much longer we'll continue causing constant and horrific violence while pretending to do the precise opposite.

The "Fake Marijuana" Situation is Getting Confusing

As efforts to ban fake marijuana products continue to escalate, I predict we'll be seeing a lot of this sort of thing: My understanding is that JWH-018 is the active ingredient in question here, but is that the end of the story? Maybe there are 9 other similar compounds that will work as well. Maybe there are 100. I'm not a scientist, but I'm starting to get the impression that the whole synthetic marijuana substitution phenomenon is just getting started. Banning a single ingredient will not only fail for all the reasons that prohibition always fails, but it might not even succeed in making fake pot illegal. Don't be surprised to see the DEA intervene at some point wielding the broad Federal Analogue Act, but you can't possibly ban every random concoction someone might stuff in a bong. Science is smarter than prohibition, so the longer we have stupid rules about what people are and are not allowed to ingest for their own amusement, the more loopholes will emerge to circumvent and trivialize those rules.

New Jersey MS Patient Sent to Prison for Five Years for Growing His Medicine

New Jersey Multiple Sclerosis patient John Ray Wilson was sentenced last Friday to five years in prison for growing marijuana plants to ease his symptoms. Wilson, whose case we profiled in December, originally faced up to 20 years in prison, but a jury failed to convict him of the most serious, maintaining a habitation where marijuana is manufactured. He was convicted of manufacturing marijuana (17 plants) and possession of psychedelic mushrooms. Wilson was convicted in December, before New Jersey recognized medical marijuana. Ironically, it became the 14th state to do so between the time Wilson was convicted and his sentencing. But the new New Jersey law would not have protected Wilson's marijuana growing because it only allows for patients to obtain it at state-monitored dispensaries. State Superior Court Judge Robert Reed banned any references to Wilson's medical condition during his trial, finding that personal use was not a defense and that New Jersey had no law protecting medical marijuana use. Wilson was ultimately able to make a brief, one-sentence mention of his medical reasons for growing marijuana, but that wasn't enough to sway the jury. Wilson's attorney, James Wronko, told the Associated Press that the outcome might have been different had the jury been allowed to hear more about his illness. "We're disappointed that he's in state prison for smoking marijuana to treat his multiple sclerosis," Wronko . "I think anytime someone using marijuana for their own medical use goes to state prison, it's clearly a harsh sentence." Wilson's case became a cause cÃ©lÃ¨bre for regional medical marijuana advocates, and also drew attention from the state legislature. Two state senators, Nicholas Scutari, sponsor of the medical marijuana bill, and Ray Lesniak, called in October for Gov. Jon Corzine (D) to pardon Wilson. But Corzine punted, saying he preferred to wait until after Wilson's trial had finished. Now, Wilson has been sentenced to prison, Corzine's term has ended, and new Republican Gov. Chris Christie is not nearly as medical marijuana-friendly. Wronko said an appeal of the sentence was in the works.

Were You Strip-Searched After a Minor Bust in New York City Between 1999 and 2007? There Could Be $$$$ Waiting for You

As the Chronicle story below reports, New York City is about to pay yet again for unlawfully strip-searching minor offenders, including people busted for public pot possession. If this includes you, it just might behoove you to contact the law firm handling the lawsuit in question, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff, and Abady. Here's the story: Law Enforcement: New York City to Pay Out $33 Million for Unlawful Strip Searches For the third time in the past ten years, New York City has been forced to pay big bucks for subjecting non-violent prisonersâincluding minor marijuana offendersâto illegal strip searches. In a settlement announced Monday, the city announced it had agreed to pay $33 million to settle the most recent lawsuit stemming from the illegal strip searches. The settlement applies to roughly 100,000 people who were strip-searched after being charged with misdemeanors and taken to Rikers Island or other city jails. These were people who were arrested and strip-searched between 1999 and 2007. In 2001, under the Giulani administration, the city settled a similar lawsuit on behalf of 40,000 people strip-searched prior to arraignment for $40 million. In 2005, the city agreed to pay millions of dollars more to settle a lawsuit on behalf of thousands of people illegally strip-searched at Rikers and other city jails between 1999 and 2002. The most recent settlement came from a lawsuit filed in 2005 by a local law firm. In 2007, the city acknowledged wrongdoing and agreed to hire monitors to ensure that the practice was stopped. But the settlement includes at least 19 people who had been illegally strip-searched after 2007. Richard Emery, law lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times it had been settled law since 1986 that it was unconstitutional to require people accused of minor crimes to submit to strip searches. "The city knew this was illegal in 1986, they said it was illegal and they stopped in 2002, and they continued to pursue this illegal practice without justification," he said. "We hope the settlement constitutes some semblance of justice." It is expected that about 15% of those illegally strip searched, or 15,000 people, will file claims seeking damages. If that's the case, each plaintiff who files would collect about $2,000, although at least two women subjected to involuntary gynecological exams will receive $20,000. The law firm will get $3 million for its efforts. Emery said many of those strip-searched had been charged with misdemeanors like shoplifting, trespassing, jumping subway turnstiles, or failure to pay child support. Others were small-time marijuana offenders. Under New York law, pot possession is decriminalized, but the NYPD has a common practice of ordering people to empty their pocketsâwhich you are not required to doâand then charging them with public possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. David Sanchez, 39, of the Bronx, was one of the people strip-searched after a minor pot bust. He said he was searched twice by officers after being arrested in a stop and frisk outside a friend's apartment, but after he was arraigned and taken to Rikers Island, jail guards demanded he submit to a strip-search. "I was put into a cage and told to take off my clothes," he said Monday, describing how he had to squat and spread his buttocks. "It was horrifying, being a grown man. I was humiliated." "I donât know why it was done," Emery said, "but it seems like it was a punishment, a way of showing the inmates who is in charge." And now the good burghers of New York City will pay yet again for the misdeeds of their public servants. Will the third time be the charm? Check back in a few years.

Were You Strip-Searched After a Minor Bust in New York City Between 1999 and 2007? There Could Be $$$$ Waiting for You

"No, the number one thug in this movie is definitely Scott Morgan."

Pete Guither's review of my new movie just made me laugh super hard. I kinda forgot that my acting skills were on display here too.

The War on Drugs Is Doomed

â¦according to Mary Anastasia O'Grady in her latest awesome Wall Street Journal editorial. She's written basically this exact same piece a few times now, getting a bit more precise and effective with each effort. Yet, I don't doubt that O'Grady is beginning to feel like she's banging her head against a wall.Now matter how well you do it, explaining that the entire drug war fundamentally doesn't work is going to overwhelm a lot of people. O'Grady isnât talking about medical marijuana or sentencing reform, she's saying that our whole drug policy is completely ill-conceived and unworkable. Not everyone is capable of understanding something like that, but the number who are continues to grow and the occurrence of such arguments in the Wall Street Journal is a not a good sign for anyone hoping the drug war will be with us forever.The case can be ignored, but it can never be refuted. The drug war isnât going to start working one day, nor will intelligent people ever stop working to end it.

Cops + Drugs = Corruption

It's really just that simple. As long as police are in charge of solving "the drug problem," there will be outrageous stories of police misconduct in the newspaper every morning for you to read about. It's as predictable as it is disturbing:CAMDEN, N.J. -- Charges have been dropped or convictions vacated in 185 drug cases in one of the nation's most crime-ridden cities because information gathered in a criminal investigation of five police city officers suggests evidence could have been tainted, a prosecutor announced Friday.One of the officers pleaded guilty in federal court Friday to conspiring with other officers to deprive others of their civil rights. Kevin Parry, who has resigned from the department, admitted he planted drugs on suspects, conducted illegal searches, threatened additional charges for suspects who refused to cooperate, stole drugs and money from suspects, and paid informants - many of them prostitutes - with drugs in exchange for information. [Washington Post]You really don't have to look very hard to discover that many of the scariest drug crimes are perpetrated by the people who supposedly enforce our drug laws. The fact that 185 cases now have to be thrown out is just incredible and yet there's nothing even the least bit unusual about any of this. It happens constantly and it's perfectly typical that huge numbers of cases are affected by corruption scandals; the cops got away with it the first 184 times.

I'm back

Having failed to mention that I was going on vacation, I now announce my triumphant return. I attended the always inspiring SSDP national conference in San Francisco and then drove out to Yosemite with my girlfriend for some hiking, skiing and photography. Fortunately, the drug cartels have yet to completely ruin the Sierra Nevadas with their massive outdoor marijuana grows, but the beauty of Yosemite was a stark reminder of what we have to lose if our marijuana policy isn't fixed quickly.What a strange feeling it is to gaze upon our nation's most precious wilderness and know that even the ancient Sequoia forests aren't safe from the drug war's destructive clutches. Thankfully, I managed not to spend the entire time thinking about that.

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

IT'S TIME PEOPLE WOKE UP TO SEE WHAT THIS "MIRACLE" DRUG REALLY 'CAN AND DOES' WORK. CALL YOUR NEIGHBORS,FRIENDS GET THE WORD OUT INSTEAD OF STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.

Chomsky on effective advocacy

The following is an excellent interview with Prof. Noam Chomsky.

Subscribe to On the Speakeasy Blog