BLOG
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).
Former Drug Czar McCaffrey in Iraq War, Afghanistan War Propaganda & War Profiteering Scandal
David Barstow, investigative reporter with the New York Times, won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for his articles "Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagonâs Hidden Hand" and "One Manâs Military-In
Obama No Longer Supports Needle Exchange Programs That Reduce AIDS
On the campaign trail, Obama made clear statements in support of needle exchange as a proven means of reducing transmission of AIDS and other diseases among drug users. Once in office, the President reiterated his commitment to ending the federal blockade against these life-saving programs:The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. That language appeared on the President's own website, until it was ominously removed a couple weeks ago. Today, the President's Budget (pg. 795) formally announces Obama's decision to continue the federal needle exchange ban:"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug."With that one sentence, Obama blatantly violates an important campaign promise and chooses politics over science with thousands of lives on the line. It's just disgraceful, and if he thought no one would notice, he was wrong. Â This isn't a matter of Obama not understanding the issue. He's already said that needle exchange would "dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users," so it should be unnecessary to further debate that point or dig any deeper into the towering mountain of evidence surrounding the efficacy of needle exchange programs. Apparently, the President simply isn't willing to spend political capital saving the lives of drug users. If this is all about politics, and I believe it is, then the question that must be asked is why the hell the President thinks needle exchange is a political liability. When Jim Ramstad's name was circulating as potential nominee for drug czar, his opposition to needle exchange was a big factor in sinking his candidacy. Moreover, the newly appointed drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, is known for supporting needle exchange during his tenure as Seattle Police Chief. Maybe Obama should talk to his new drug czar before resurrecting the Bush Administration's failed and fatal policy of opposing harm reduction.There is simply no serious or credible opposition to implementing proven life-saving programs in the fight against AIDS. Obama's previous statements in support of such programs provoked zero backlash on the campaign trail and obviously didnât prevent him from becoming President. All he had to do was leave this stupid language out of the budget -- like he said he would -- and no one would even have noticed.Instead, we're forced to come to terms with the reality that our President is willing to sacrifice human lives based on an ill-conceived perception of political convenience and nothing more.Please contact the White House to demand that Obama keep his promise to support needle exchange and save lives.
Gil Kerlikowske is the New Drug Czar
It's official:WASHINGTON (AP) â The Senate on Thursday approved the nomination of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the nation's drug czar, signaling a change in U.S. drug policy.Kerlikowske, a 36-year law enforcement veteran who has been Seattle's top cop for nine years, has pledged to take a balanced, science-based approach to the job. He also said he will focus on reducing demand for illicit drugs in the United States â a sharp contrast from the Bush administration's focus on intercepting drugs as they cross the border and punishing drug crimes.I like the sound of that, but I haven't seen any evidence that Kerlikowske won't be supporting aggressive interdiction programs and harsh sentences. Regardless, there are a few reasons to feel optimistic that he will represent a departure from the blind arrogance and aggression of his predecessors.Former Seattle Police Chief and LEAP member Norm Stamper has a terrific open letter to Kerlikowske.
The effects of long-term addiction
The effects of long-term addiction has shown that substantial changes in the way the brain functions are present long after the addict has stopped using drugs.
The Drug Czar's Office Doesnât Know What to Say about Marijuana Legalization
I've previously noted the reluctance of the current administration to actually debate marijuana legalization. When cornered, they'll say they're against it, but they wonât say why or offer any interesting observations about our marijuana laws.Another great example appeared in this superb MSN piece on the merits of legalizing and taxing marijuana. The article goes on and on about the economic benefits of legalization, to which the drug czar's office replied with a shrug:A spokesman for the drug policy office declined to comment, saying the office wanted to wait until the Senate has confirmed Obama's drug czar nominee, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.This wait-and-see response may sound reasonable enough, but it's totally nuts when you consider that opposing legalization is literally one of the fundamental purposes of the this office as defined by law:Responsibilities. --The Director-- [...](12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--  1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and  2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration; That is all perfectly straightforward, and yet the office currently has no talking points prepared when a reporter calls for a quote about marijuana legalization? ONDCP has never been anything other than a clearinghouse for unhinged drug war propaganda. It is literally a factory for designing crazy arguments against legalizing drugs. So if they can't answer a simple pot policy question without the help of a guy who doesnât even work there yet, then it's safe to say that ONDCP as we know it has been completely destroyed. Once the new drug czar arrives, the office will no doubt regroup and formulate some kind of response to the thunderous cries for reform that presently surround them. I'm sure whatever they present will be deeply problematic. But it is simply delicious to witness even a temporary collapse of the once-great government drug war propaganda machine.
Will Legalization Actually Reduce the Black Market? Of Course.
Opponents of taxing/regulating marijuana and other drugs frequently maintain that there's just no way we can really cripple the black market. It's true insofar as there's a black market for everything (I saw a lady buy a bootleg DVD from a guy on the subway recently). But people overwhelmingly prefer to do their shopping at actual stores. The burden shouldnât be on us to prove that pot stores can effectively corner the market on selling pot. Of course they can. The only reason anyone has a hard time picturing the demise of the traditional drug dealer is because there's so damn many of them, every one of which was created when we stupidly tried to ban drugs. Anyway, go read this post from Pete Guither which addresses this point quite well.
Another Medical Marijuana Raid in California
This is interesting/disturbing:Kern Sheriffâs deputies and agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency were searching a medical marijuana store in east Bakersfield Wednesday afternoon.â¦Calls to the sheriffâs department were not immediately returned. A spokesman from the DEA said that agency was there only to assist. The spokesman said the sheriffâs department was the lead agency in the case.â¦Sheriff Donny Youngblood said his office will not interfere with the operation of non-profit medical co-operatives run by patients for patients. But, he said, dispensaries that sell marijuana for a profit should be expected to be treated like other drug dealers. [KGET]DEA explained that they're "only there to assist," but that doesnât eliminate the possibility of federal charges down the road. This isnât the first time DEA has "assisted" local law enforcement during a dispensary raid. I just spoke with Caren Woodson at Americans for Safe Access and they're waiting to learn more about the situation. I'll update as details emerge.Update: ASA just informed me that this appears to be a DEA raid being assisted by local authorities, rather than the other way around.Update 2: Turns out it really was a state raid, based on a state warrant. ASA got some mixed messages from the PR dept. at DEA.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Calls for Marijuana Legalization Debate
Considering that he vetoed a hemp bill in 2006, this is about as good a statement as I would expect from him:Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations' experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea.He says it's time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the state Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol.State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state.Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that "it's time for debate" on the idea. [NBC]I like what's happening with this "let's debate it" line we keep hearing lately. It's a way for public officials to show interest in the subject without alienating anyone who feels strongly about the issue. Perhaps it has come to the Governator's attention that 56% of Californians support legalizing marijuana. Considering the famous Schwarzenegger-smoking-pot video that's all over the web, some will accuse him of hypocrisy should his position ultimately fall anywhere short of outright support for legalization. Still, it's notable in and of itself that we're beginning to see politicians shifting away from knee-jerk opposition to reform, in favor of the more open-minded position of endorsing a debate on the subject.
Hello? Mexico on the Verge on Decriminalizing Drug Possession...
...and nobody north of the Rio Grande seems to have noticed. Last week, I wrote that the Mexican decrim bill had passed the Senate, but on the afternoon before we published that report, the bill also passed the Chamber of Deputies. Now it awaits only the signature of President Calderon. While a Dallas Morning News blogger wrote that it is unclear whether Calderon will sign the bill, it seems likely to me that he will. The bill, after all, was pushed by his ruling PAN party, and unlike 2006, when a similar bill passed only to be vetoed by then President Fox in the face of US threats and bluster, there have been no threats and bluster from Washington this time. And, of course, the situation in Mexico is much worse than in 2006, thanks largely to Calderon's war on the cartels. The bill is not great: The personal use quantities are tiny, and it allows for the states to prosecute low-level trafficking offenses (currently, that is the province of the feds, with the result being that being low-level traffickers are never tried because the federal prosecutors and courts are overwhelmed with serious trafficking cases). But it is decriminalization, and right on our border, not an ocean away, like Portugal. I'll be talking to people on both sides of the border this week about this bill and what it means and I'll have a feature article on it Friday. In the meantime, here's the lone Reuters article on these momentous events: Mexico passes bill on small-scale drugs possession Fri May 1, 2009 8:39pm EDT MEXICO CITY, May 1 (Reuters) - Mexico's Congress has passed a bill decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs, from marijuana to methamphetamine, as President Felipe Calderon tries to focus on catching traffickers. The bill, proposed by Calderon after an attempt by the previous government at a similar bill came under fire in the United States, would make it legal to carry up to 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana, 500 milligrams (0.018 ounces) of cocaine and tiny quantities heroin and methamphetamines. The lower house of deputies passed the bill late on Thursday. It already has been approved by the Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Calderon in the days ahead. Mexico's Congress passed a similar proposal in 2006 but the bill was vetoed by Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, after Washington said it would increase drug abuse. The United States recently pledged stronger backing for Calderon's army-led war on drug cartels, whose turf wars have killed some 2,000 people so far this year in Mexico, as the drug violence is starting to seep over the border. The new bill also allows Mexican states to convict small-time drug dealers, no longer making it a federal crime to peddle narcotics, a move that should speed up those cases. U.S. President Barack Obama praised Calderon's drug war efforts in a visit to Mexico last month and promised more agents and southbound border controls to curb the flow of guns and cash to the cartels. (Reporting Miguel Angel Gutierrez; Editing by Bill Trott)
Ethan Nadelmann vs. Steve Colbert, Round 3
Ethan's really getting the hang of this. I thought this face-off with Colbert was his best yet:The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cEthan Nadelmanncolbertnation.comColbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFirst 100 Days
Support for Marijuana Legalization is Huge in Canada
Duh. Still, I was intrigued by the way they framed the question:The majority of British Columbians think the legalization of marijuana would reduce violence related to the drug trade, an Angus Reid Strategies poll suggests.Sixty-five per cent of the respondents would legalize marijuana in order to minimize violence, while 35 per cent think harsher penalties for marijuana trafficking are the answer. [Vancouver Sun]This question could be criticized for putting words in the respondents' mouths. Still, it's notable that, given a choice, so many opted to conclude that violence is a consequence of prohibition. Once that concept is understood, the whole idea of a war on drugs pretty much falls apart.
Support for Marijuana Legalization Continues to Grow in America
A new ABC poll shows that 46% of Americans favor legalizing personal use of marijuana. That's the highest number we've ever seen and, interestingly, it's doubled in only 12 years. Wow.The idea of fixing our marijuana policy is enjoying a meteoric rise in popularity. It's particularly noteworthy when you consider how vigorously the previous administration campaigned to convince the public that marijuana is highly toxic and evil. They have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at us, and here we are, stronger than ever before.So how does one explain such a dramatic shift in public perceptions surrounding marijuana policy?
The War On Drugs, Or The War To Preserve Bloated Agencies?
This blog isn't to say that all government agencies are bad, however, when I see certain government offices and it strikes me they are only dedicated to inflating their perceived effectiveness - in th