BLOG
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty Wants to Send Dying Cancer Patients to Jail
We knew Gov. Pawlenty was likely to veto medical marijuana legislation due to pressure from law enforcement, but then the bill was changed so that only terminally ill patients would qualify. Surely, the governor would at least agree not to arrest people who are dying, right? Wrong:He announced his intention to veto the medical marijuana bill at his news conference today. Then, amazingly, he went on to wax rhapsodic about how âThe sky is blue, the sun is out. The minds of Minnesotans are turning to Memorial Day, summer, fishing.âTell that to Joni Whiting, whose daughter Stephanie gained some comfort and the ability to eat from medical marijuana during the last months of her doomed struggle with melanoma. Pawlenty thinks itâs just fine to treat Joni, Stephanie, and others in that dreadful situation as common criminals. [MPP]There's no middle ground here. You either think it's ok to arrest dying patients for using doctor recommended medicine, or you don't. If Pawlenty vetoes this bill, he firmly rejects even the vague appearance of compassion for dying patients.Send him a polite note here.
U.S. Supreme Court Kills Effort to Overturn State Medical Marijuana Laws
Good news! Something bad could have happened, but didn't:California's medical marijuana law survived its most serious legal challenge today as the U.S. Supreme Court denied appeals by two counties that argued they were being forced to condone violations of federal drug laws.The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to officials from San Diego and San Bernardino counties who challenged Proposition 215, an initiative approved by state voters in 1996 that became a model for laws in 12 other states. It allows patients to use marijuana for medical conditions with their doctor's recommendation. [San Francisco Chronicle]Today's result was really a foregone conclusion because it's just a basic fact that states can make their own drug laws. Still, it's good that this happened insofar as it will hopefully serve to silence those who continue to cite conflict between state and federal laws as a reason why no one can have medical marijuana. They are completely wrong and it's amazing how many federal judges had to break it down for them.For the hundredth time, conflict with federal law is not an obstacle to passing and implementing state laws that permit medical marijuana. Federal law enforcement can come in and cause trouble, but that doesnât make state laws invalid. Those laws still apply and provide valuable protection against state police, who patients are more likely to come in contact with. The very idea that federal law somehow cancels out state policies is just some made-up nonsense that enemies of medical marijuana have been spewing in desperation for several years now. Nice try, but you're wrong. Case closed.
Michael Phelps and Marijuana Legalization
Phelps resumed competition this weekend, prompting Jim Caple at ESPN to call for a debate on legalizing marijuana:We need to hear all sides, as part of a serious discussion on this subject, and then make a rational decision about whether marijuana should be legal in this country.What we do not need is to waste any more energy fretting over a college-age athlete smoking pot and the negative lesson it sends to the nation's youth. Otherwise the negative message kids will learn from Phelps' bong hit is this: Adults are too busy shouting about meaningless crap to intelligently discuss what is actually important.Damn straight. I'm assuming, of course, that he's referring to those who condemned Phelps and not those of us who launched an angry boycott against Kellogg's. Because that was totally necessary.
Pete Guither Will Correct Your Incoherent Editorial for Free
This is funny. That is, if your idea of funny is arguing with people who have strong unfounded opinions about marijuana.When I criticize individuals in the blog, I try to choose my words based on the assumption that the post will be read by the person I'm writing about. I sometimes forget to do this, but it's a good habit. Regardless, I don't see how Pete could have handled the situation any better.Update: My favorite example of someone getting pissed about something I wrote can be found here.
Increased Marijuana Potency is an Argument for Legalization, Not Against it
Here we go again:The average potency of marijuana, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time, the U.S. government will report on Thursday.â¦The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say. [CNN]Who the f#$k said that? My god, is it really necessary to explain that stronger marijuana has the exact same effect, except more of it? This is basic, basic stuff here. The argument that good pot makes people feels unpleasant is just a non-starter, and I couldnât be less surprised not to find a name attached to it.Marijuana has gotten stronger under marijuana prohibition, just like alcohol got stronger during alcohol prohibition. Suppliers are incentivized to maximize the potency of their product to achieve the highest profit while reducing risk. Harsh laws also encourage consumers to obtain the strongest product since penalties are determined by weight, not potency. In a regulated market, there would be high demand for lower potency marijuana, just as light beer and light cigarettes are extremely popular. A flavorful strain with mild effects and a low price could become a big seller, but nobody in their right mind would ever try to grow something like that right now. Why risk jail over a crop that's half as profitable? Prohibition is shaping the marijuana market, yet drug warriors ironically turn around and cite potent pot as an argument for keeping the policy that made things the way they are.There's really nothing bad about higher potency pot, since it's completely non-toxic and easy to consume in controlled doses, but to whatever extent anyone is concerned about it, the obvious solution is regulation. Test it. Label it. Put age restrictions on it. Then watch in amazement as marijuana users become even healthier and happier than they already are.
Wall Street Journal Thinks Americans Still Love the Drug War
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal interview with new drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is generating discussion due to Kerlikowske's statement that we must move beyond the "war on drugs" analogy. But Gary Fields's piece also included a dubious assumption that shouldnât escape notice:Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.This is controversial? There is no evidence of that. In fact, everywhere you look, you'll see a changing political climate with regards to drug policy:1. Obama made repeated statements in favor of various drug policy reforms on the campaign trail, including support for medical marijuana, treatment over incarceration, needle exchange, and fixing the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity. In a hard-fought campaign, these were among his least controversial positions. 2. Support for legalizing marijuana is surging in America, currently polling as high as 52%. Since taking office, Obama's biggest controversy with regards to drug policy was his statement in opposition to legalizing marijuana. 3. A recent Zogby poll found that 76% of Americans believe the war on drugs has failed. This view was held by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The idea that there's anything controversial about moving towards a more moderate drug policy is just false on its face. The opposite is true. Americans are tired of the "tough criminal justice approach" and they elected a president who said he'd bring a new perspective to this issue.If anything, it would have made more sense to say these policy shifts will most likely make our drug policy less controversial. Certainly, that's what Kerlikowske expects by making these conciliatory remarks. He's pandering to the growing public sentiment that the drug war is getting out of hand. Seriously, why on earth would anyone expect controversy over this? To the contrary, people find it reassuring, which is exactly why the White House is framing it this way. I thought that was obvious.Thus, with this one seemingly harmless quip, "likely more controversial," the WSJ ends up missing the entire point of the story and utterly misdiagnosing what Kerlikowske represents. Public attitudes about the war on drugs are changing, thereby forcing our political leadership to begin implementing certain popular reforms while generally reframing the entire issue.Any questions?
Wall Street Journal reports on Kerlikowske's call to end the "War on Drugs"
As Noam Chomsky has said, reading the WSJ provides enlightening insight into the thought processes of Americas power elite.
An open letter to the new "Drug Czar"from Norm Stamper
Norm Stamper from LEAP has written an open letter to Gil Kerlikowske. It starts out:
New Drug Czar Says "War on Drugs" Mentality is Over
In his first interview since taking office, newly appointed drug czar Gil Kerlikowske had some very interesting things to say:WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues."Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country." [WSJ]Coulda fooled me. It's plainly ridiculous to suggest that we're not waging war as we arrest nearly a million Americans every year just for marijuana, as we kill innocent people and even harmless dogs in an endless parade of botched drug raids, and continue promising new crackdowns on American drug users.Still, it's certainly encouraging to see that Kerlikowske is determined to separate himself from his predecessors. This is a bold and remarkable statement no matter how one interprets it. Any effort to pander to growing drug war opposition is encouraging, even if disingenuous. On that note, I think Ethan makes a good point:Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports legalization of medical marijuana, said he is "cautiously optimistic" about Mr. Kerlikowske. "The analogy we have is this is like turning around an ocean liner," he said. "What's important is the damn thing is beginning to turn."Stay tuned.
CNBC Attacks Schwarzenegger For Endorsing Marijuana Legalization Debate
Watch CNBC's Larry Kudlow go ballistic over Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent statement in favor of debating marijuana legalization:Here's what Schwarzenegger actually said:"Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues [are worth considering] ⦠I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalised marijuana and other drugs. What effect did it have on those countries?"And here's what Kudlow heard:"I mean he basically wants to get everybody stoned and then raise taxes" Did you even read the damn quote, Larry? It's just incredible to watch the childish hissy fits that erupt over something as sensible as suggesting we talk about marijuana laws. Anyone who doesn't want to discuss marijuana policy doesnât have to, but if you don't think it's important, please do the rest of us a favor and just be quiet.
DEA Agent Indicted for Framing 17 Innocent People
Over and over, the very foundations of the war on drugs are revealed to be utterly fraudulent and corrupt. These laws are harmful enough when they're enforced honestly, but moments like this really illustrate what a colossal fraud this whole thing truly is:CLEVELAND â An agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was indicted today on charges that he lied repeatedly in a botched 2005 drug case that caused 17 people to be wrongly charged.Lee Lucas, a 19-year veteran, was charged in U.S. District Court in Cleveland with perjury, making false statements, obstruction of justice and violating a person's civil rights involving a case that resulted in 26 arrests in Mansfield. [Cleveland Plain Dealer]As one might expect, all of this revolves around a lying informant who played everyone in a desperate attempt to save his own hide. Officer Lucas is accused of failing to provide proper supervision and repeatedly lying to cover up the mess.Of course, Lucas's fellow officers have eagerly come to his defense, because there scarcely exists any form of police misconduct so shocking to the conscience as to disqualify from being treated as a martyr by their colleagues. This comment, posted on the Plain Dealer story, perfectly reveals the mentality that police aren't responsible for mistakes in the war on drugsLee Lucas is being a scapegoat for a convicted drug criminal named Jarrell Bray. Jerrel Bray turned on Lee because Lee would not engage in getting Jerrel off the hook for a shooting Jerrel committed.â¦Jerrel is afraid to return to prison as a snitch. Can you blame him? He is a weasel who is trying to save his skin on the inside.How do you think a snitch like Jerrel would function in the big House?Is Jerrell Bray the person you want to trust?No, he's not, and that's exactly the problem. This shady informant's dubious allegations should never have formed the basis for criminal charges against anyone. It was Lucas and the DEA who trusted this guy and used him to serve their agenda, not anyone else. Everything these informants say is treated as gospel when it comes to getting search warrants and scoring convictions, but the second the informant turns on the cops, all you hear is that informants can never be trusted. No kidding.If you rely on untrustworthy people to help you make drug arrests, then your drug arrests can't be trusted. It's just that simple. And if you can't (as drug cops often claim) do basic drug enforcement without relying on these people, then it follows that solid and reliable drug enforcement is truly impossible.It's amazing to watch a disgraced drug cop comes forward and try to defend himself with no better argument than the fact that his whole job revolves around working with notorious liars to put people in jail who may or may not have done anything wrong. It sounds like Lucas stepped way out of line here, but the real fault lies with the way our drug laws are enforced in general. Can you even imagine how often this process produces gratuitous injustices without anyone but the innocent defendant paying the price?
Video: SWAT Raids -- No One Is Safe
We've made a video -- there's a petition too, sign it here. Spread the word...
Out of the silence
I don't know if anyone ever reads this stuff but you may have noticed I haven't posted in a while.After the arrests of the Bacon brothers and several UN gang members and the crew that worked my area,t
Who Put Stephen Baldwin in Charge of Opposing Marijuana Legalization?
CBS News has a pro/con feature today on marijuana legalization with a great piece from Ethan Nadelmann and an opposing view coauthored by Stephen Baldwin and Kevin McCullough. Pete Guither properly demolishes the later here, but I just want to reiterate how crazy it is that Stephen Baldwin has become the poster boy for the war on marijuana. It's ridiculous.Fortunately, Baldwin totally lives up to everyone's expectations by ceasing to make sense the instant he gets started:America doesn't want its pot...American potheads do!Sure the debate is raging presently, but it's as fictional in its need as whether pigs can fly or whether Superman was or was not faster than that bullet.In the modern trumped up controversy over whether marijuana should be legalized for the masses, the biggest canard of all is the supposed demand that exists. As a team that produces a weekly talk radio show now heard on 195 stations, we can earnestly say one thing is definitively true in the discussions we've launched about the revival of the "Should pot be legal?" question: "America doesn't want its pot...American potheads do!"It's hilariously false on multiple levels:1. There's an online poll embedded right there on the same page showing 94.86% support for legalizing marijuana.2. Baldwin claims only potheads want to legalize marijuana, despite having recently gotten his ass kicked in a debate with Ron Paul, who has never tried it.3. If the press could find someone more famous than Stephen Baldwin to oppose legalization, he wouldn't even get the opportunity to say these things.
Former Mexican President Calls For Drug Legalization Debate
As Mexican President Felipe Calderon continues to escalate the Mexican drug war to previously unthinkable levels of death and destruction, his predecessor is saying we should think about ending prohibition:Fox also said it's time to renew the debate about legalizing some drug use â an idea he proposed while still in office. It is gaining ground in Mexico amid increasing violence that has killed more than 10,500 people since Calderon launched a military-led offensive against powerful trafficking cartels in 2006.Fox said strict controls and high taxes would be necessary under legalization. He said levels of drug use might remain the same but violence would be significantly reduced because the cartels would no longer control the supply. Families and schools should bear much of the responsibility to educate against drug use, he said."I am not yet convinced that that's the solution," he said. But he added, "Why not discuss it?" [AP]This "let's talk about it" line is going viral. Keep an eye out for this. We'll be hearing it more and more. As a willingness to discuss and debate drug policy slowly replaces knee-jerk opposition to reform, we are presented with an entirely new political climate in which to make our case. Let's do so gracefully.
Obama Claims to Support Needle Exchange, While Telling Congress to Ban it
Can someone please explain to me what this means?White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the administration isn't yet ready to lift the ban - but Obama still supports needle exchange."We have not removed the ban in our budget proposal because we want to work with Congress and the American public to build support for this change," he said. "We are committed to doing this as part of a National HIV/AIDS strategy and are confident that we can build support for these scientifically-based programs." [Huffington Post]So they're going to build support for needle exchange by telling Congress to continue the federal needle exchange ban? How's that supposed to work? And what's up with this:The White House website no longer features the president's support of the program, however. See the before and after here. "It's hard to imagine how removing mention of support for a proven lifesaving program from the White House website is part of a grand strategy to 'build support' for syringe exchange," said Tom Angell, a spokesman for the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Exactly. If Obama wants to promote needle exchange, he should consider not making it illegal for the government to support needle exchange. The administration is arguing that supporting the ban at this time is necessary to avoid politicizing the budget process, yet opposing needle exchange is just as political as supporting it. You're taking a political stance either way, obviously. The only difference is that Obama is choosing the wrong side and lending legitimacy to crazy idiots who oppose needle exchange.
WHEN THE SOLUTION IS OFF THE TABLE
Barack Obamaâs left-liberal and self-styled radical supporters are having to contort themselves ever more bizarrely in order to maintain their faith in Barack the Hero.Â
The States Don't Need Federal Permission to Legalize Marijuana
I'm not sure I understand what Mark Kleiman means by this:California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill to legalize cannabis in California. The bill quite sensibly recognizes that California can't have a legal market while the drug remains banned under federal lawâ¦Why not? California has a legal market for medical marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law. There has been federal interference, but the vast majority of dispensaries in California remain in operation. Patients can generally obtain medicine legally and conveniently, despite anything and everything DEA has done to undermine California law.I'm sure the DEA would like us to think that we can't legalize marijuana, and that might go a long way towards explaining why they keep doing these ridiculous raids that everyone hates. But there is no reason that California or any other state can't legalize marijuana as long as the votes add up. Sure, the feds will likely show up and makes a mess here and there, but in case nobody noticed, those actions consistently lead to greater public support for changing marijuana laws. If we've learned anything from what's been happening in California for the past decade, it is that the federal government can't even come close to stamping out marijuana reform at the state level. Imagine this:1) California voters pass ballot initiative creating regulated marijuana sales.2) Shops begin opening in LA, San Francisco.3) DEA raids high-profile operations, big headlines, big protests.4) Federal charges brought against defendants. First jury trial ends in surprise acquittal.  5) Number of new businesses opening exceeds number of raids being conducted.6) Voters in Nevada, Oregon pass ballot initiatives creating regulated marijuana sales...Is any of this impossible?
How Much Money is Marijuana Legalization Worth?
I enjoyed this dizzying attempt by Mark Kleiman to quantify the actual potential revenue that could be generated by legalizing marijuana in California. It's a fun exercise, but you can only get so far down this path before becoming overwhelmed by hypotheticals. For example, Kleiman bases his calculations on the estimated population of marijuana users in the state (I'm sure some people who don't live in California would buy pot there). There are many things we can't account for, such as the percentage of users who develop a sudden interest in gardening once marijuana becomes legal to cultivate for personal use. Regardless, the bottom line is that legalizing and taxing marijuana will generate plenty of taxable income. Of course it will. There are ways in which it won't pay out the way we'd hope, but also other ways in which it will create unexpected financial benefits. Not ruining people's lives for possessing it is a huge bonus by itself. Imagine trying to calculate the economic harm collectively suffered by people who've been arrested for small amounts of pot and couldnât get jobs, etc.Leaving aside all the other powerful reasons for changing marijuana laws, I'm sure the people of California could devise a marijuana policy that makes vastly more economic sense than the current one.
Geraldo Smokes Again
Geraldo Rivera, who smoked pot on camera in 1974 will reportedly resume his research on Fox's Geraldo at Large tonight (10 pm EDT).