BLOG
Walter Cronkite on the Drug War
Epilogue by Walter Cronkite at the close of ""The Drug Dilemma: War or Peace," The Cronkite Report, June 20, 1995: Every American was shocked when Robert McNamara, one of the master architects of the Vietnam war, acknowledged that not only did he believe the war was, "wrong, terribly wrong," but that he thought so at the very time he was helping to wage it. That's a mistake we must not make in this 10th year of America's all-out War on Drugs. It's surely time for this nation to stop flying blind, stop accepting the assurances of politicians and other officials, that if we only keep doing what we are doing, add a little more cash, break down a few more doors, lock up a few more Jan Warrens and Nicole Richardsons, then we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. Victory will be ours. Tonight we have seen a war that in its broad outline is not working. And we've seen some less war-like ideas that appear to hold promise. We've raised more questions than we've answered, because that's where the Drug War stands today. We're a confused people, desperately in need of answers and leadership. Legalization seems to many like too dangerous an experiment; to others, the War on Drugs, as it is now conducted, seems inhumane and too costly. Is there a middle ground? Well, it seems to this reporter that the time has come for President Clinton to do what President Hoover did when prohibition was tearing the nation apart: appoint a bi-partisan commission of distinguished citizens, perhaps including some of the people we heard tonight, a blue-ribbon panel to re-appraise our drug policy right down to its very core, a commission with full investigative authority and the prestige and power to override bureaucratic concerns and political considerations. Such a commission could help us focus our thinking, escape the cliches of the Drug War in favor of scientific fact, and more rationally analyze the real scope of the problem, answer the questions that bedevil us, and present a comprehensive drug policy for the future. We cannot go into tomorrow with the same formulas that are failing today. We must not blindly add to the body count and the terrible cost of the War on Drugs, only to learn from another Robert McNamara 30 years from now that what we've been doing is, "wrong, terribly wrong." Goodnight.
down to three
After the Willingdon location was so soundly trashed by residents who threatened to make it the sole election issue,causing the government to dodge imminent defeat by scrubbing plans for the location,
Calling it Medical Marijuana sends the RIGHT message to kids.
Talking to kids about marijuana can be a daunting task for a parent. With 13 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and five others with pending legislation, the issue is no longer as simple as "Just Say No."
Ethan Nadelmann Challenges NAACP to Oppose the Drug War
It's a fascinating speech and I would have liked to see the audience's reaction for myself. It's an unfortunate reality that the case for drug policy reform has yet to be widely embraced in the African-American community and Ethan faced the unique challenge of presenting our argument to NAACP leaders in only 7 minutes. Bonus: Here's some subsequent discussion from the same event, in which an audience member asks the panelists what they think about marijuana legalization.
The Mexican Drug War is Losing Public Support
In a report on the latest massacre of federal police in Mexico, the Los Angeles Times points out that the Mexican people seem to be losing faith in President Calderon's escalated campaign against the cartels:"We cannot, we should not, we will not take one step backward in this matter," Calderon said Tuesday.Mexicans seem skeptical. In a new poll, more than half of respondents said they believe the government is losing the war. Only 28% said it is winning, according to the survey, published Tuesday in the daily Milenio newspaper.That frustration is becoming a big problem for Calderon:MEXICO CITY - President Felipe Calderon suffered a setback in midterm elections yesterday when the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party unseated his party as the largest force in Mexicoâs fractured Congress in a vote that turned on the global economic crisis and the governmentâs crackdown on drug traffickers. [Boston Globe]And it's only going to get worse. Calderon's crackdown has produced the opposite of its intended effect, which is exactly what one should always expect from aggressive tactics in the war on drugs. Violence and corruption will only continue to escalate and Calderon will inevitably be fighting for re-election amidst daily episodes of horrific street violence brought about by his own policies. Calderon's predecessor Vicente Fox is now advocating discussion about legalizing drugs and it's probably just a matter of time before that debate becomes the central question in Mexican politics.
Man Tries to Swallow Drugs, Gets Choked to Death by Police
Just remember, the drug war is here to protect potential drug users from danger:The poor man died on the scene with a broken bone in his throat and according to Chief Deputy Ard of the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office, "there's no regret" about what happened. Check out Ryan Grim's chilling interview at the Huffington Post, in which Ard rambles in defense of using these sorts of tactics in the war on drugs. Inevitably, when police are done investigating their own actions, it will be determined that everyone followed procedure. And that may very well be the case, because police are generally encouraged to choke the hell out of anyone who they suspect of attempting to swallow drug evidence. The larger question -- and the one no police investigation would dare attempt to address â is whether a rational and humane drug policy would produce outcomes like this. How many among us can watch police literally squeeze the life out of this frightened man and say that justice has been served? How many among us would call that a fair sentence for the crime of possessing and attempting to conceal a small bag of drugs? The police say they released this footage because they believe it vindicates the officers involved. Yet, in the process, they've indicted the very foundations of the war on drugs itself. Once again, we may watch with our own eyes as our drug laws destroy everything they were supposed to protect.
Congress Slashes Funding For Anti-Drug Propaganda
Tyler Smith has the story at Dare Generation Diary.
Pablo Escobar's Pet Hippos Are Still Alive (And Causing Big Problems)
Did you know that legendary cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar had his own zoo? I'd forgotten all about this, but it turns out that a few of Pablo's most vicious minions were never captured: Escobar lived large here in his lush fiefdom 100 miles east of Medellin, far from the teeming slums where he began his life of crime. He built a bullring, an airstrip, an ersatz Jurassic Park with half a dozen immense concrete dinosaurs. He stocked a private wild animal park with hundreds of animals, including elephants, camels, giraffes, ostriches and zebras. He installed four hippos in one of the estate's 12 man-made lakes. Today, Hacienda Napoles is in ruins, taken over by jungle foliage and bats. The sprawling Spanish-style mansion has been gutted, scavenged by treasure hunters looking for stashes of gold and cash buried under the floors. Escobar is long gone, cut down in a hail of police gunfire. But the hippos are still here. [Los Angeles Times] Yeah, they are. Hippos are indestructible. They live underwater, plus they're bulletproof and furious. That's why Escobar only needed four of them. Anyway: â¦the hippos were never claimed because they were too large and ornery to move. Now the original four have multiplied to 16 and, far from starving to death, as some expected, they have learned to forage like cows. In fact, local authorities say they represent a safety hazard -- and are standing in the way of plans to redevelop the late drug lord's estate.See, this is just another one of those crazy fiascos that would never happen in a million years if it wasn't for the war on drugs. Seriously. This is real life, not some comic book where evil villains like Escobar acquire their powers from a freak radioactive disaster. The bad guy with an epic fantasyland super-fortress used to be a fictional character until we came up with a system of international drug control that was so flawed and corrupt that it actually became possible for the meanest son-of-a-bitch on the face of the earth to afford his own heard of zebras. Â
How to Win a Marijuana Debate on Television
1. Argue that marijuana should be legal. Being right will give you an immediate advantage. This argument won't guarantee success by itself, but you can't win without it. There has never been a documented instance of someone looking intelligent while arguing that marijuana should be against the law.2. Try not to say anything completely insane. It's clear that Calvina Fay has come unhinged when she claims that, "about 60% of everybody out there using drugs is involved in abusing children." Such statements will cause viewers to associate your position with derangement. Similar lapses can be observed at other points in the debate when Calvina is speaking.3. Be the last person to talk. Notice how Rob Kampia concludes the debate with a series of correct statements. Speaking last will help prevent viewers from becoming confused by your opponent's ideas. If the moderator offers your opponent the final word, draw attention away from their comments by transitioning between the following series of facial expressions: surprise ? skepticism ? amusement.
I Visited Imprisoned Medical Marijuana Patient Will Foster in Jail Last Night
I finally made into the Sonoma County Jail yesterday to visit medical marijuana patient Will Foster, who has been sitting there for the past 16 months first fighting off a bogus marijuana cultivation charge--since dropped by prosecutors--and now fighting off the zealous efforts of Oklahoma parole authorities to return him to the state where he was originally sentenced to a cruel and insane 93 years in prison. I don't want to recount the entire sorry tale--you can read my recent article about his case here--but in a nutshell: Thanks in part to a publicity campaign started by DRCNet, Foster was able to get that horrid original sentence reduced to 20 years, he eventually won release and was paroled to California, which released him from parole after three years of good behavior. That wasn't good enough for Oklahoma, which still wants a few more pounds of flesh. Oklahoma issued a parole violation extradition warrant a few years back, which foster successfully--and unusually--beat with a habeas corpus writ, a California judge throwing out the warrant. So Oklahoma parole officials issued another extradition warrant, this time trying to add new charges after the fact to increase Foster's potential exposure. That warrant is keeping him in jail right now. Foster and his allies are conducting a two-track effort to win his release: First, a political track attempting to get either the California governor or the Oklahoma governor to rescind the extradition warrant. You can help with this. Ed Rosenthal has a Free Will Foster blog post that will show you what actions to take. Second, Foster has prepared another habeas writ. It will have a hearing August 4, and I will attend. He could walk free that day, but he might want to walk fast--Oklahoma is vowing to immediately issue a new extradition warrant. To me, that's a sign of what vengeful, vindictive, authoritarian pricks inhabit the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. But that's just me. There may be a protest at his hearing. Details are sketchy at this point, but if you're in the neighborhood and interested, just email me for now: [email protected] After 16 months in the slammer, Foster isn't looking so good. He's got big dark circles under his eyes and his skin has that jailhouse pallor. He has long suffered from arthritis, which is what he used marijuana for, and he also suffers from injuries in a car accident a couple of months before he was arrested and jailed. The nice folks at the Sonoma jail have plied him with all sorts of pharmaceuticals, but no pot, of course. Still, Foster remains strong in spirit and firm in his resolve. This guy is a determined fighter, not just for his freedom, but for what is right. Will Foster never hurt a soul. Why years of his life have been taken away from him and his loved ones for growing a plant is beyond me. If you believe in justice, take the time to help him out. Will Foster isn't the only drug war POW, but he is fortunate in the sense that at least some one is paying attention to his plight. Today is Bastille Day. In lieu of mob action to free the prisoners, will you pay some attention to a drug war prisoner you know? Send a letter? Make a visit? Send a check to commisary? Agitate with your elected officials? Something? Let's not forget our imprisoned brothers and sisters!
Ecstacy and the war on empathy.
I recently read an article on the Sotomeyer Hearings, which discussed how "Republicans Question Need for Empathy".
"The potent smell of marijuana legalization is in the air"
This report from CBS News is a perfect example of how much the debate has changed. The story itself is great (a revealing look into the unimpressive origins of our marijuana laws), but it's the packaging and context that jumped out at me.(CBS)Â This story was written by Charles Cooper and Declan McCullagh as part of a new CBSNews.com special report on the evolving debate over marijuana legalization in the U.S. Click here for more of the series, Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed The giant "Marijuana Nation" banner at the top of the page is emblematic of the mainstream media's sudden fascination with marijuana legalization. Unsurprisingly, the story is pulling huge web traffic thanks to Digg.com, whose visitors love stories about legalizing marijuana. It took a long time, but the press has finally picked up on the fact that skeptical drug war reporting is extremely popular with the public. That simple concept appears to be reshaping and amplifying the drug policy debate right before our eyes.
No One Takes the Drug Czar's Office Seriously (Not Even the President)
At a White House meeting earlier today:The new director of the Office of National Drug Policy, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, was on hand as well. But not even Obama's retentive mind could recall his full title."I just wanted you to know, as well as the new director of our office of -- I always forget the full name of this -- I call it the Drug Czar . . ."I'm fine with that," Kerlikowske interrupted. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] The Office of National Drug Control Policy has been such a joke for so long now that it comes as no surprise that the President can't even remember what it's called. No wonder the office was downgraded from cabinet status.What an embarrassment. Can we please just cancel ONDCP altogether and save everyone the humialtion of trying to remember what it stands for?
An Epidemic of Botched Drug Raids in Maryland
Radley Balko has a new piece at Reason showing that the disastrous Cheye Calvo raid is just the tip of the iceberg. His conclusion is sad, but probably correct:Terrible as it sounds, it may well take more mistaken raids on high-status victims like Calvo to generate real debate over the wisdom of using violent, high-risk police tactics to serve warrants for nonviolent crimes.Hopefully Calvo's lawsuit, along with the new SWAT monitoring legislation he helped pass, will bring about needed changes without any more lives having to be lost. I'd hate to think that further bloodshed is the only path to reform.
New Hampshire Governor Vetoes Medical Marijuana Bill; A Handful of Additional Votes Needed to Override
The House passed the bill 234-138 and the Senate passed it 14-10. If my calculations are correct, that means a successful override needs 14 more votes in the House and 2 more in the Senate. If an override effort is made, it will happen when the legislature returns in September. Until then, it's time to let those legislators know what they need to do. Here is Gov. Lynch's veto message press release in its entirety: Gov. Lynchâs Veto Message Regarding HB 648 By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on July 10, 2009, I vetoed HB 648-FN, an act relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. I have tremendous compassion for people who believe medical marijuana will help alleviate the symptoms of serious illnesses and the side effects of medical treatment. Although opinion of the medical community on the efficacy of medical marijuana remains mixed, I have been open, and remain open, to allowing tightly controlled usage of marijuana for appropriate medical purposes. But in making laws it is not enough to have an idea worthy of consideration, the details of the legislation must also be right. I recognize that the sponsors of this legislation, and the members of the conference committee, worked hard to attempt to address the concerns raised about this legislation. However, after consulting with representatives of the appropriate state agencies and law enforcement officials, I believe this legislation still has too many defects to move forward. Law enforcement officials have raised legitimate public safety concerns regarding the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. These concerns have not been adequately addressed in this bill. Marijuana is an addictive drug that has the potential to pose significant health dangers to its users, and it remains the most widely abused illegal drug in this State. I am concerned about the quantities of the drug made available to patients and caregivers under this bill, particularly because there are different types of marijuana and the potency of marijuana can vary greatly depending on how it is cultivated. I am troubled by the potential for unauthorized redistribution of marijuana from compassion centers. In addition to patients and designated caregivers, an unlimited number of âvolunteersâ can receive registry cards and receive the full protections afforded under this legislation to authorized cardholders. The provisions made for law enforcement to check on the status of an individual who asserts protection under the proposed law are too narrow. There are also many inconsistencies and structural problems in the legislation that would greatly complicate its administration and would pose barriers to controls aimed at preventing the unauthorized use of marijuana. The bill does not clearly restrict the use of marijuana to those persons who are suffering severe pain, seizures or nausea as a result of a qualifying medical condition. The bill requires compassion centers to hold a license to cultivate and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes, but the bill does not contain clear provisions regarding a licensing process or standards. Compassion centers can be penalized for distributing amounts of marijuana that exceed permissible limitations, without the compassion centers having the means to know how much marijuana the patient already possesses. Caregivers in some instances are required to control the dosage of marijuana without any real means to accomplish this task. The bill leaves unclear the authority of a landlord to control the use of marijuana on rented property and in common areas of property. While the bill contemplates self-funding, there have been inadequate fiscal studies. The Department of Health and Human Servicesâ administrative responsibilities are of such a magnitude under this legislation that the fees potentially would be so great as to deny access to anyone but the wealthiest of our citizens, resulting in potential inequities. I understand and empathize with the advocates for allowing medical marijuana use in New Hampshire. However, the fact remains that marijuana use for any purpose remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, if we are to allow its use in New Hampshire for medical purposes, we must ensure that we are implementing the right policy. We cannot set a lower bar for medical marijuana than we do for other controlled substances, and we cannot implement a law that still has serious flaws. Therefore, I am regretfully vetoing HB 648-FN.
I Was Turned Away Again Trying to Visit Medical Marijuana POW Will Foster in Jail Last Night
You remember Will Foster: The Oklahoma arthritis sufferer who was sentenced to 93 years in prison for growing a closetful of pot plants, eventually got his sentence reduced to 20 years, got paroled to California, and finished parole there, but whom neanderthal Oklahoma parole officials want to drag back to that benighted state to extract yet another pound of flesh. Will has been sitting in the Sonoma County Jail for 16 months now after a bogus bust of his legitimate medical marijuana garden. The local charges were eventually dropped, but Foster remains behind bars and deprived of his liberty because of Oklahoma's pending parole violation extradition warrant. The extradition warrant has been signed by the governors of both California and Oklahoma, but either could end this tragedy by rescinding his signature. Those are the two obvious political pressure points. Will has fended off extradition by filing a writ of habeas corpus (he won an earlier one), but that means he stays in jail in California for as long as it takes to resolve that--unless one of those governors acts. I wrote about his plight here. Ed Rosenthal has organized a campaign to Free Will Foster. Go there and do what he asks. So, anyway, I went to see Will last night. It was my second attempt to visit him. I was turned away a few nights ago because I was wearing steel-tipped shoes. Who knew? Well, I didn't see him last night, either. After his girlfriend, Susie Mueller, and I arrived at 7:15 to get in line for the 7:30 sign-in for the visits set for 8:15, then waited before getting in line for the actual 8:15 visit, the whole place went into lockdown. We waited awhile to see if the lockdown would be quickly lifted, but it wasn't, so we left. I'll try again next week. Sheesh, it's starting to feel like it's as hard to break into one of these joints as it is to break out.
Big News: House Subcommittee Approves Legislation Eliminating the Needle Exchange Funding Ban
popular needle exchange logoBIG NEWS: The infamous ban on use of federal AIDS grant funds to support needle exchange programs will soon be history, if the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services of the House Committee on Appropriations has its way. Led by Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the subcommittee left the language which has imposed the ban these many years out of the new bill. According to Obey's office: This bill deletes the prohibition on the use of funds for needle exchange programs. Scientific studies have documented that needle exchange programs, when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention for reducing AIDS/AIV infections and do not promote drug use. The judgment we make is that it is time to lift this ban and let State and local jurisdictions determine if they want to pursue this approach. The vote followed a protest at the US Capitol in which 26 AIDS activists chained themselves together in the Capitol Rotunda earlier in the day. President Obama pledged during his primary campaign to eliminate the ban. Legislation allows the president to do so if certain scientific findings are made, specifically that needle exchange programs do not increase community drug use levels, and do reduce the spread of HIV. These findings were made long ago, and the Clinton administration acknowledged them, but declined to eliminate the ban. Earlier this year the Obama administration punted the issue to Congress by including the ban in its budget proposal while verbally expressing support for needle exchange. Whether Obey's subcommittee took action because of administration support, or despite a lack of administration support, I don't know. Perhaps a greater savant than I will enlighten us. Now the bill heads to the full committee, after which it will go to the floor of the House of Representatives. Drug warriors may try to add the ban back at either stage. Victory also depends on what happens on the Senate side. Assuming the House and Senate do not approve exactly identical Labor and HHS budgets, it will go to a conference committee that includes both Reps and Senators. Elimination of the ban will neither increase nor decrease the amount of money the federal government spends on AIDS prevention, at least not directly. What it will do is allow state governments who receive federal AIDS grants to choose whether or not to spend some of that money on needle exchange. Those states which are in the habit of using scientific evidence to guide their policies will support needle exchange.
Is Home Delivery the Future of Legal Marijuana Distribution?
Chicago Tribune reports on the popularity of medical marijuana delivery in San Francisco:SAN JOSE, Calif. - -- David Goldman has a chronic headache, but help is on the way. A driver arrives at his apartment, checks Goldman's ID card, then hands over a small bag of marijuana."It's really nice to have the convenience of delivery," said Goldman, a retired teacher who orders medicinal marijuana about once a week from The Green Cross, a medical marijuana delivery service. "I trust their product, and their prices are competitive."As Californians consider legalizing marijuana, The Green Cross in San Francisco is a signal of just how mainstream pot has become. In some ways, the medical marijuana dispensary is just like any other retail business: It takes credit cards, it's reviewed on Yelp and it promises delivery within an hour -- there's even a $10 discount if the pot is late.The Green Cross switched over to a delivery-based model due to problems finding a suitable location when they were forced to move their dispensary. Even in San Francisco, you can run into a "not in my backyard" mentality from neighbors when it comes to dispensing marijuana from a storefront business.As Americans grow increasingly skeptical of the war on marijuana, one of the biggest challenges facing reformers is to develop a plan that the public is comfortable with. As silly as it is that you can sell cigarettes and alcohol to adults over the counter, but not marijuana, we have to face the fact that getting people to vote for any legislation allowing "marijuana stores" is going to remain a challenge. Concerns about peripheral crime, underage access, etc. may be unrealistic, but our opposition can still leverage such anxieties against us at the voting booth.Home delivery has a lot to offer as a means of providing convenient consumer access, while reducing the visibility of activity that makes some people uncomfortable. This is already the model on which New York City's underground marijuana industry thrives, and nobody seems to have a problem with it (the only complaints I've heard are from buyers who say the price is outrageous). The delivery approach reduces exposure for both buyer and seller, while also making it easy for everyone else to ignore them.In the long term, a low-impact distribution model such as this could go a long way towards increasing public tolerance. It's not exactly what most of us have in mind when we envision legalization, but it's a compromise that could go a long way towards eliminating the harms of the current policy without opening up the floodgates and provoking a backlash.What do you think?
Snitch Exposed in Charlie Lynch Case
As if the persecution prosecution of medical marijuana provider Charlie Lynch wasn't sufficiently sickening already, The New Times in San Luis Obispo has some stunning revelations about the involvement of a confidential informant who assisted police in the case. Apparently, police employed a professional informant who obtained a doctor's recommendation and purchased marijuana at Lynch's dispensary. The guy is a world-class scumbag with a history of impersonating police officers and committing various crimes. His work in San Luis Obispo began when he personally approached police and offered to help generate drug arrests. Lynch's case was one of many, including another marijuana case in which one of the defendants ended up committing suicide.While this guy probably wasn't a critical factor in making the Lynch case possible, his involvement adds another layer of moral depravity to the Lynch saga. Given that Charlie Lynch scrupulously followed state law, the only actual criminal involved in the case was the police informant!As alarming and frequent as gratuitous drug war injustices are, they still somehow turn out to be even worse than we thought.
California TV Stations Try to Censor Marijuana Debate
Marijuana Policy Project has launched a TV ad campaign in support of taxing and regulating marijuana in California:Unfortunately, while the ad will appear on several networks, KABC in Los Angeles and KGO and KNTV in San Francisco actually rejected it:At KABC in L.A., the ad was rejected for purportedly encouraging marijuana smoking. [MPP's Bruce] Mirken spoke to station manager Arnie Kleiner, who didn't return a call from the Huffington Post. "His feeling wasn't that the ad was promoting a change in the law, but that it was promoting marijuana smoking," said Mirken, adding that Kleiner told him, "I'm not going to advocate the smoking of marijuana. Marijuana is illegal." [Huffington Post]As anyone viewing the ad can plainly see, it doesnât endorse marijuana smoking in any way. The ad argues that the existing marijuana industry could be used to generate much-needed revenue for the state, which has nothing to do with whether or not one happens to personally like marijuana or think it's a good thing for people to do. The kneejerk assertion that all efforts to reform marijuana laws are equivalent to an endorsement of drug use is really as intellectually barren an argument as you'll ever find in the marijuana policy debate. It's a desperate cop-out and an instant indicator that you're dealing with someone whose comprehension of the issue is not fully formed.Similarly, the argument that you canât talk about changing marijuana laws because "marijuana is illegal" is just a paralyzing absurdity. Even the Governor of California is interested is debating marijuana legalization, so obviously the existence of current marijuana laws does not create an invisible barrier to intelligent discourse about public policy. Fortunately, the marijuana debate has progressed to a point at which such petty obstructions serve only to embarrass those responsible. A recent poll shows that 56% of Californians support marijuana legalization, thus any public entity that endeavors to conceal or trivialize the argument takes a substantial risk of alienating its own patrons. Nevertheless, the ad will air on many stations in California and it's thrilling to see the reform argument marketed to the mainstream. The Governor asked for a debate and that's exactly what he's going to get.