BLOG
Another Reason the Marijuana Debate is Moving Forward
Nate Silver at the very cool polling blog FiveThirtyEight has another angle on the growing support for marijuana legalization. Put simply, the percentage of Americans who've ever tried marijuana is getting bigger. There are steadily fewer voters out there who grew up before the 60's and 70's. Naturally, people who have experience with marijuana are less likely to be fearful of it and support harsh penalties for users. Interesting. In other words, support for marijuana reform is likely to increase over time regardless of anything we say or do. That doesn't mean we donât have our work cut out for us, but it's another factor to keep in mind when we run into new obstacles. The fight is exhausting, but time is on our side in a very real way.from fivethirtyeight.com
Breaking News: Massachusetts Has Not Been Taken Over by Drug Maniacs
I visited Boston this weekend for the Northeast Regional SSDP Conference and was curious to observe that no one was smoking marijuana on the sidewalks. Weird, huh? It's been months now since Massachusetts decriminalized small-time marijuana possession and yet it almost felt as though I wasn't surrounded by hippies in a skunky smoldering ashtray from hell. Good thing I kept the receipt for that gasmask. This is great news for everyone, especially all the police officials who were genuinely concerned that life in Massachusetts would be at least partially destroyed if the punishment for marijuana was reduced slightly. Those cops must really be glad that no one listened to them and everything worked out this way, because now we've got the best of both worlds: 1) fewer people have their lives messed up by getting a criminal record for pot, and 2) nobody blows bong hits in your face when you're trying to hail a taxicab.It's really beautiful to see that the collective goodness of mankind can somehow prevent an intoxicating plant from utterly destroying the world.
Idiotic Drug Policy Reporting Remains a Problem
This post from Pete Guither made me laugh twice. Just because a story is about drugs doesnât mean you can get away with mind-blowing factual errors or unnecessary slang. The news is supposed to make people smart, not turn us into morons.
Flex Your Rights
I've posted a couple new items in the Flex Your Rights blog recently that are worth checking out. We've got an awesome site upgrade coming out soon, so I'm trying to get back into the habit of doing at least a couple posts a week.The focus is on 4th Amendment and police misconduct issues rather than drug policy specifically, but I'd love to see some of you commenting over there if you're interested.
A Drug-Free World -- Reloaded
The matrix of global drug prohibition was reloaded in Vienna last month -- the only change being a new target date for making the world drug free. Video from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union:
5 blocks from here
Vancouver police are cleaning up the third homicide since the "Huge"gang arrests that was the beginning of the end of the gang war.I have found that SFU criminology dept criminologists have a realisti
Honoring Good Cops Doesnât Mean Ignoring Bad Ones
I recently mentioned the controversy surrounding some drug cops in Philadelphia who've been stealing cash and merchandise from convenience stores under the guise of enforcing paraphernalia laws. Via Radley Balko, it looks like the story is getting more interesting. The Philadelphia Daily News obtained surveillance video from one of the stores, which shows officers sabotaging security cameras. While the video doesnât catch officers actually stealing anything, it certainly doesn't look good that they're cutting wires on security cameras right before the alleged theft took place. The video also shows that the paraphernalia purchase cited on the search warrant never actually took place. Uh-oh.The bottom line is that these cops are more than just a little bit dirty. They are insanely corrupt. And yet, the last time I wrote about this, someone actually complained about it in the comment section:The majority of the criminals out there are bad mouthing the police organization because they are upset they got busted. Documented are thousands of cases where police acted as heroes and law enforcers; no one seems to want to report or testify on their behalf, so I am. I respect the law enforcement organizations for what their true goals are and strongly suggest that people such as your selves find a new line of work.Yeah, I'll stop complaining about police misconduct when police stop committing outrageous crimes. I appreciate good police work as much as anyone, but I won't ignore or forgive horrible misconduct just because other cops are doing their job. Most bus drivers aren't alcoholics, but that doesn't mean every incident of drunk bus driving should become a celebration of all the heroic bus drivers who don't go to work wasted. One crooked cop is one too many. And if the good cops canât get rid of the bad ones, then they're not exactly perfect either.
Decriminalization is a Huge Success in Portugal
On Friday, I had the opportunity to hear Glenn Greenwald speak at the Cato Institute regarding his Cato-sponsored report, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. You can read the report here and Cato also has a downloadable MP3 of the event.The back-story here is that Portugal implemented an across-the-board drug decriminalization policy back in 2001. There's been very little discussion and research regarding its impact, hence Cato recruited Greenwald (a genius and extremely popular political blogger) to study Portuguese drug policy. His findings thoroughly illustrate the efficiency of decriminalization towards addressing key drug policy goals, while refuting the myth that removing harsh penalties will lead to increased consumption. The whole thing utterly shatters most, if not all, arguments that continue to be advanced in support of tough drug laws here in the U.S. and around the world. I found a couple points particularly interesting: 1. When Portugal began looking at alternative policies to address a growing drug problem, they did not consider legalization because it was determined that such a policy would violate international treaties. It's a small country that can't afford to be belligerant. This just goes to show, once again, the extent to which prohibition is not a consensus policy at the international level, but rather an idealogical approach that less powerful nations have been forced to accept. 2. The decision to implement a decriminalization policy emerged through discussion of empirical data, rather than emotional arguments about morals, civil liberties and so forth. I don't know how representative this is of what approach would be most effective in establishing more reasonable policies here in the U.S., but it's certainly worth taking a look at the context in which decriminalization triumphed over other policy options.
The Only Way To Win The War On Drugs Is To Stop Fighting It
In response to this story: One of suspects in 'horrific' attempted murder in Stuart is 14 http://tcpalm.com/news/2009/apr/06/one-two-suspects-stuart-attempted-murder-14/
It's all over(criminologist from UFV)
That was the statement made by long time police spokesperson and criminologist Daryl Plecas just before several top gangsters were arrested on Friday.It took till 11pm for the first shot in the war to
New Survey project to help effect change in law - Advice needed....
I am starting a new survey in hopes of creating support for a ballot petition to legalize marijuana here in Oklahoma. The survey is to be 2 fold:
What do we want? Drug Policy Based on Science
I've written the following article regarding strategy for ending the drug war and posted it at OpEdNews.
Like America,Canada is throwing the book out the window in an attempt to be gangbusters
Citing the name of Al Capone himself,Canadian police and revenue Canada have announced plans to use the tax man to try to seize property and arrest gangsters for tax evasion.I have no idea who decides
Why Does Everyone Think Marijuana Legalization is Politically Risky?
Over and over again, you hear that same justification, "Well, politicians can't publicly support legalizing marijuana or they'll get voted out of office." It's the first thing casual observers point out to me when I tell them I work on this issue. Everyone's gotten so used to saying it and yet no effort is ever made to support the argument. The idea that "marijuana reform is political suicide" survives on little more than its own presumed legitimacy.Thus I was disappointed, but not at all surprised, to find Joe Klein at Time magazine saying this same stuff in an otherwise positive piece on marijuana reform: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.It sounds so familiar and yet it makes no sense. Talk radio doesnât rule our politics. If it did, the top questions in Obama's online forums would be about his citizenship, not about legalizing marijuana. Heck, Obama wouldnât even be president. Where is Joe Klein getting this stuff from? Obama openly supported several reforms to our drug policy on the campaign trail and no one, not even Rush Limbaugh, said a harsh word about it. Obama was "caught" on video advocating marijuana decriminalization in 2004 and he got elected president. Once in office, Obama ordered the DEA to respect state medical marijuana laws and it's easily one of the least controversial things he's done. I challenge Joe Klein or anyone else to prove that supporting marijuana policy reform is politically risky. I can only think of two instances that even approach validating any of this: 1) Michael Dukakis's failed presidential bid in 1988 in which he was successfully portrayed as "soft on crime," and 2) The controversy that arose following Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders' statement about considering drug legalization. That was 15 years ago.It's 2009 and reforming marijuana policy is the most popular idea on the president's own website. Voters are passing state marijuana reform initiatives by incredible margins. Polls show that a majority of both democrats and republicans agree that the drug war is a failure.  Either show me one good example of a modern politician paying a price for supporting marijuana reform, or stop claiming that this issue is politically risky.
The Media's Approach to Marijuana Coverage Has Changed Dramatically
This CNBC appearance by MPP's Rob Kampia is an exhibit in the rapid evolution of marijuana policy coverage in the mainstream press:Radley Balko pretty much nails what I wanted to say about this:Former DEA chief Asa Hutchinson is the only person on CNBCâs (oddly enormous) panel arguing against legalization. These arenât stoners or activists. Theyâre financial reporters and pundits. And they seem to be uniformly in favor of legalizing. This debate has come a long, long, way since the 1980s.I've been critical of CNBC in the past, but this more than surpasses my expectations. Asa Hutchinson probably feels like he was ganged up on, but he should just consider himself lucky that the press didn't start asking these questions a long time ago.
"So how's this war on drugs going?"
Jack Cafferty at CNN punches the drug war in the face:Here's something to think about:How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release? And how many ex-offenders turn right around and do it again?So how's this war on drugs going?I've spent years lambasting the mainstream media for ignoring/mutilating our issue, yet suddenly there's so much delicious anti-prohibition opinionating out there I canât even keep up with it. Go ahead, put me out of a job, why donât you? I always wanted to be a wildlife photographer anyway.
The Drug Czar's Office Doesn't Know What to Say About Marijuana
Ever since Obama's awful attempt to duck the marijuana legalization debate last week, it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the issue of marijuana reform is a major challenge for the new administration. They aren't ready to endorse legalization, but they're equally intimidated by the rapidly growing movement to reform marijuana laws. Another example is found at the drug czar's blog, which posted the video of Obama's statement, yet withheld any further comment on the matter. It 's a subtle, yet profound departure from the way this blog was run during the previous administration. Every post related to marijuana ended with, "Click here to learn more about how marijuana is highly f#$king toxic." I can't prove that, though, because they deleted everything when Obama took office (which just further demonstrates that the new ONDCP is a very different creature). Considering that ONDCP's charter mandates opposition to drug policy reform efforts, their failure to actually even applaud Obama's statement against marijuana legalization is remarkably tame. Â It almost feels like we're running out of people to argue with.
Obama Doesn't Know What to Say About Marijuana
Pete Guither points to yet another prominent example of the Obama administration's glaring inability to explain the president's position on legalizing marijuana:When asked why Obama opposes legalization, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs literally said this:"Uh, he, he does not think that, uh, uh, that that is uh, uh, [pause] he opposes it, he doesn't think that that's the, the right plan for America."It's a comical and precious moment, like when the teacher calls on that half-asleep kid who never has a clue. Except, as Paul Armentano points out, they knew perfectly well that this was a hot issue in their online forum and that the press would likely be asking about it. Clearly, they are badly boxed in, simultaneously reluctant to embrace reform, while equally hesitant to offend marijuana reform advocates with the typical anti-pot propaganda you'd expect from a guy who just said he opposes legalization.The result is a ridiculous and failed effort to laugh the issue off, even as everyone stares at them expectantly. They're still working from the old rules which state that drug legalization questions are best handled by chuckling and mockery, followed by a quick pivot towards a more "serious" issue. That advice is no longer very good.
Obama Compares Drug War to Alcohol Prohibition
Via NORML's Russ Belville, CBS's Bob Schieffer asked President Obama about the drug war violence in Mexico and got this surprising response:President Obama:Â Well, whatâs happened is that President Calderon I think has been very bold and rightly has decided that itâs gotten carried away. The drug cartels have too much power, are undermining and corrupting huge segments of Mexican society. And so he has taken them on in the same way that when, you know, Elliot Ness took on Al Capone back during Prohibition, oftentimes that causes even more violence. And weâre seeing that flare up.I honestly cannot believe the president is looking towards alcohol prohibition for a little perspective on our present predicament. Everyone knows that story. Elliot Ness didn't defeat those cartels. Legalization defeated them.
Q: How Dangerous is Drug Law Enforcement for Police? A: Apparently Not Very
Law enforcement likes to argue that it needs to resort to heavy-handed tactics such as SWAT-style raids and no-knock warrants because drug law enforcement is just so darned dangerous. You know the spiel: "We're outgunned and up against crazed drug dealers, so we need to come on like gangbusters for our own safety." But I'm in the process of reviewing police deaths in the drug war since the beginning of 2008 for a Chronicle article that will appear Friday, and so far, I've only found two officers who were killed in drug raids during this time. I'm using the Officer Down Memorial Page and the National Law Enforcement Memorial data bases and I still have to dig a little deeper into the numbers and the discrepancies between the two, but so far, it doesn't appear that enforcing the nation's drug laws is that dangerous for police. For civilians, it is perhaps a different story. Nobody's keeping a data base of citizens killed by the police, let alone those killed by police enforcing the drug laws, although I have a few ideas on where to come up with some figures, or at least some especially horrendous cases. I'll be looking into that, as well. I'll be talking to as many cops, criminologists, and other interested parties as I can, but at this point, it seems that it is going to be hard to justify the overwhelming use of force typical of police drug raids. As much as they would like to think they are, cops are not US military Special Forces units, and drug law violators are not terrorist fugitives. Look for the story on Friday.