BLOG
A little help please
I am working on a paper comparing the numbers of people dependent on anti depressants and other mood altering pharmaceuticals compared to the people dependent on so called illegal drugs.I need stats s
South Dakota Legislature Will Take Up a Medical Marijuana Bill This Session
South Dakota's one-man marijuana reform movement, Bob Newland, has informed the Chronicle that he has found a legislative sponsor for a medical marijuana bill and there will be a hearing soon, most likely before the end of the month. The text of the proposed bill can be read here. It would be a very pleasant surprise if this bill were to pass, and a sweet vindication for activists like Newland in the only state to fail to pass a medical marijuana legalization initiative at the polls. In the 2006 initiative, medical marijuana gained 48% of the popular vote. Earlier efforts to pass a bill in the legislature went nowhere, and the opposition to this bill will be led by Attorney General Larry Long (R), who was also point man for initiative opponents in 2006. (Who knew the AG was an MD? Oh, he isn't.) Newland sought meetings with Long in an effort to address "law enforcement concerns," but Long made it clear that he is unalterably opposed to medical marijuana. Period. Newland also has a fall-back bill prepared if, as he predicts, Republicans will be aghast at allowing patients to grow their own medicine and try to kill the bill. The fall-back bill simply allows an affirmative defense in a patients is arrested and prosecuted for his medicine.
Will our new President make the changes we've hoped for? Or will he do the same as the Bush Administration and not even address the drug war.
Is Obama honestly with the change we were promised?Â
Holder his feet to the fire, not. Obama's Drug Warrior Attorney General nominee gets softball questions.
Attorney General nominee Eric Holder got some tough questions as he faced the Senate yesterday. Such as, who is better at basketball, he or Barack?
Caring Coverage!!!
Wow! What caring and sensitive coverage we are getting from the media in North Carolina!!
Another Chance to Pressure Obama for Drug Policy Reform
Obamaâs Change.gov website has created yet another feature for soliciting ideas from the public. This time itâs called the Citizenâs Briefing Book and you can vote on ideas or submit your own. The winning ideas will be printed out and handed to Barack Obama, so he can wipe his ass with them.Unsurprisingly, the most popular idea is legalizing marijuana, yet again. This has really escalated to the point of absurdity and if the new administration hasnât figured it out yet, this will continue until they either give us an intelligent response, or stop asking us to post ideas on their website. Â If, like me, youâre becoming cynical about this whole process, shake it off. Go to the website and vote. There is no way of measuring the impact of our repeated domination of Change.gov, but it is intuitively greater than zero. They wouldnât keep doing this if it didnât mean something to them.
Spin Spin Spin
The prohibitionists have been framing the questions for too long. It is time to go on the attack. There are cogent arguments that can be easily put forth.
Thought for 2009
Why do we allow para-military swat teams to serve drug warrants on pot dealers with no violent crime on their record?Why are these raids,when botched causing innocent civilian deaths,are they not only
If You Think Alcohol Should be Legal, Youâre an Alcoholic
Amidst the hysteria surrounding this weekâs events in El Paso, I neglected to mention that Mayor John Cook got caught calling us all "potheads" because we oppose the drug war:ABC-7 obtained an excerpt from the mayor's e-mail, which was sent to Margie Velez, the former office manager for former Senator Phil Gramm in El Paso.It states: "I can tell you that all the pot heads have sent their e-mails and they are encouraging the reps to stand by their decision. But why does the silent majority remain silent? We have certainly attracted attention to our city, but I don't think the attention is positive." [ABC7]Itâs hilarious on multiple levels, beginning with the delightfully bad press it earned him. Heâs literally calling people potheads for supporting a city council resolution that advocates "an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics." With few exceptions, itâs gonna reflect poorly on you if you resort to name-calling against people who asked for an honest and open discussion.But the best part is when he asks for the "silent majority" to come save him from the stoners. Leaving aside the question of whether that "silent majority" even exists anymore (which is doubtful), the mayorâs agenda from day one has been to prevent discussion. If Mayor Cook wanted to give drug war supporters a voice, why the hell did he veto a debate on our drug policy? He torpedoed the discussion, only to then complain that certain views werenât being heard. That is just classic.
Marijuana Law Reform No Longer a Political Liability, Itâs a Political Opportunity
Paul Armentanoâs latest piece at The Hill looks at evolving public attitudes about marijuana policy and the drug war. This is exactly how drug reform politics need to be framed from now on. It sounds like something I would write, probably because Paul is an awesome guy whoâs always right about everything.
Cop Fired for Supporting Marijuana Decriminalization, Wins $815,000 Settlement
Which amendment was it again that says you can talk about stuff and have opinions on things?A former Mountlake Terrace police sergeant whose views supporting the decriminalization of marijuana led to his dismissal in 2005 has won his job back and an $815,000 settlement from the city and Snohomish County.â¦Wender had publicly challenged and criticized the department and its commanders over the years on a number of issues. He is affiliated with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a Massachusetts organization of police officers who oppose the current tactics used by police to fight drug crimes. Among its other members are former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper. [Seattle Times]Wow, watching LEAP take the law-enforcement community by storm is a glorious thing to behold. Itâs only going to get better.
Supreme Court Strikes Another Small Blow Against Exclusionary Rule
The Supreme Court handed down yet another bad 4th Amendment ruling today. I've got a post over at Flex Your Rights explaining, as I often do, that the 4th Amendment isn't dead yet.
Citizen's Briefing Book offers one more chance to put the Drug War on Obama's radar
The Obama Transition Team's website at www.change.cov has started a "Citizen's Briefing Book", giving us one more chance to make it clear that Drug War Reform is an issue important to Americans.
El Paso City Council Threatened With Funding Cuts for Proposing Drug Legalization Debate
Merely discussing alternatives to drug prohibition is enough to incite threats from state and federal legislators:After hours of discussion and almost 40 speakers from the public signed up to give their two cents, City Council members near-unanimously said they supported the resolution upon which they voted last week, but were swayed by threats from the El Paso legislative delegation and U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes.â¦The five Texas House members of the El Paso delegation and Reyes had sent letters to El Paso City Council claiming that the resolution would be used against the city's efforts to secure funding. [Newpapertree.com] The council finally and reluctantly surrendered, even though all theyâd ever done was endorse "an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition of narcotics." Itâs really an incredibly instructive moment in drug policy reform, as I can scarcely recall a moment in which our opponents have appeared so desperate and intimidated by the prospect of discussing changes in our drug policy.Theyâve attacked not only the legalization viewpoint, but our right to be heard. Theyâve condemned the fundamental notion that there is a conversation to be had about whether our policies are working. And theyâve done so with righteous hostility, directly threatening to withhold funding from an entire city (from children?) in order to prevent our drug laws from facing scrutiny. Really, youâve got to wonder about the health of an idea that can only be defended through threats and distractions such as these. Drug prohibition has had plenty of time to prove itself. Having failed to do so, the drug warâs survival now depends on the ability of its adherents to silence criticism and obstruct dialogue preemptively. Itâs an ugly thing to behold.But let me be perfectly clear about this: I donât believe for one second that this weekâs events in El Paso are indicative of any barrier or threshold that we cannot cross. If our opponents think todayâs council vote is a victory for drug prohibition, they are out of their minds. They look like idiots. This whole resolution was nothing before the mayor vetoed it, triggering a weeklong exhibit in the mindblowing intellectual cowardice that underscores opposition to reform at every turn.  Telling us to shut up isnât going to work, I promise.
Ducking Drug War Questions at Change.gov
Obamaâs transition team responded to the second round of Change.gov questions on Friday, proving yet again that theyâd sooner defeat the purpose of the site than actually discuss drug policy. Last time, a question about marijuana legalization got the most votes from the public, resulting in a one sentence "no" response. This time, the questions were broken into categories, and this question came in first in the "national security" section:"Our current war on drugs is failing America. Billions of dollars are spent on a losing campaign. Our prisons are overflowing with people that don't deserve to be there. What is the government going to do in an effort to fix this major problem?"But it wasnât answered. It was the only leading question to receive no acknowledgement, thus the national security category was ignored entirely. Obamaâs team claimed that some leading questions were put aside to make room for new ones:Since there were so many popular questions in so many categories, we tried to pull out some of them that had been addressed previously by the President-elect or Vice President-elect in order to focus the video portion on questions that havenât been as specifically addressed during the Transition.The questions that fall into this category appear at the bottom of the post, except when you scroll down, you find the marijuana question from the first round, but not the new drug war question that won in the second installment. Itâs sort of a bait and switch, the idea being that by referencing the old marijuana question, weâll forget that a totally different drug policy question won in the second round and Obama refused to touch it.All of this is perfectly predictable, and I wonât meet with much success trying to make a controversy out of it. Still, it serves as yet another obnoxious reminder of the desperate avoidance of any meaningful discussion of our drug policy in mainstream politics.
Bush Appoints Interim Drug Czar
Speculation about Obamaâs as yet unknown choice for drug czar just got a little more interesting. Today, the White House announced that ONDCPâs acting Deputy Director Patrick Ward will be promoted to acting director. In other words, the much-anticipated next drug czar will beâ¦Patrick Ward.Heâs a former Air Force guy who joined the federal drug office to run foreign interdiction efforts:⦠Mr. Ward is in frequent and close contact with relevant officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the Central Intelligence Agency, and departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and Justice. Mr. Ward co-chairs the relevant National Security Council Policy Coordinating Committee on International Drug Control, and represents ONDCP at meetings of the NSC Deputies.To put it mildly, Ward isnât a public health specialist. Heâs a drug warrior who knows how to fly fighter planes. Heâs everything weâre hoping to avoid with Obamaâs theoretically pending drug czar nomination.So what the hell is going on here? I have no idea. With only a week left in office, thereâs no way Bush did this without a nod from the Obama camp. Itâs become increasingly clear that Obama isnât ready to fill the position, so I guess someoneâs gotta do it. An interim appointment suggests that weâll be waiting a while for Obamaâs choice, and in the meantime, weâll have a full-blown drug warrior running the show.That sucks, and itâs Obamaâs fault, but what can really be said about it? Jim Ramstadâs name was floating around, but mounting opposition appears to have disqualified him for good reasons. Iâll take a couple months of Patrick Ward if it means we get someone better down the road, but itâs still hard to imagine Obama selecting someone I could support.If nothing else, the fact that the drug czar appointment process has gotten so drawn out and confusing is certainly a result of the potent controversy now surrounding the position itself. I believe Obama recognizes that ONDCP is a seriously flawed institution and heâs trying to reconcile that with his perceived political obligations. Thatâs fine, but the longer he leaves the same people calling the shots at the drug czarâs office, the further heâll find himself from the drug policy "paradigm shift" he proposed on the campaign trail.Update: Pete Guither reminds me that this wonât be the first time weâve had a temporary drug czar, so maybe itâs not as odd as Iâve made it sound. Still, I think itâs interesting that drug czar appointments get handled this way. The position just isnât taken that seriously, either by the administration or the press. Maybe it wouldnât be that way if there were a greater perception of flexibility in our drug policy, such that one drug czar could be really different than another.Fortunately, this time the policy issues at stake are more visible than ever before. The President-elect has made some pretty strong statements about our drug policy and the madness of the last 8 years has solidified numerous coalitions that will vigorously oppose anyone who doesnât promise big changes at the drug czarâs office.
DEA Blatantly Blocks Medical Marijuana Research
After stalling for two years, the DEA has conveniently chosen the final days of the Bush Administration to act on the Craker petition:WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Bush administration struck a parting shot to legitimate science today as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) refused to end the unique government monopoly over the supply of marijuana available for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved research. DEA's final ruling rejected the formal recommendation of DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner, issued nearly two years ago following extensive legal hearings."With one foot out the door, the Bush administration has once again found time to undermine scientific freedom," said Allen Hopper, litigation director of the American Civil Liberties Union Drug Law Reform Project. "In stubbornly retaining the unique government monopoly over the supply of research marijuana over the objections of DEA's own administrative law judge, the Bush administration has effectively blocked the proper regulatory channels that would allow the drug to become a wholly legitimate prescription medication."The DEA ruling constitutes a formal rejection of University of Massachusetts at Amherst Professor Lyle Craker's petition, filed initially June 24, 2001, to cultivate research-grade marijuana for use by scientists in FDA-approved studies aimed at developing the drug as a legal, prescription medication. [ACLU]Marijuana, unlike LSD, MDMA, heroin and cocaine, is almost impossible to obtain for research purposes and the DEA will do everything in its virtually infinite unchecked power to keep it that way. We all know why: theyâre afraid of what the research will show. The really disgusting part of all this is that the drug warriors actually go around claiming that we need more research before we can allow patients to use medical marijuana, all the while doing everything in their power right before our eyes to prevent that research from happening. Thereâs nothing secret about any of this. You can just watch them do it.And the best part of all is that the DEA actually managed to churn out a 118-page monstrosity explaining their position, which can be summed up as follows:Marijuana is bad and we are powerful, so f**k you. Furthermoreâ¦f**k you. And in conclusion, based on the aforementioned factsâ¦f**k you.I donât know why it took them over a hundred pages to flesh it out. I guess they just love killing trees.
Obama Transition Team doesn't answer Drug War questions - again
Well, the second "Open for Questions" round is over on the Obama administration's "Change.gov" website, and again the transition team has avoided making any meaningful statements about the Drug War, o
Just the Canary in the Cave
Have enjoyed reading the well reasoned thoughts and arguments here about this issue. But I question the depth of outrage of most people.