BLOG
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.
CHANGE.GOV The Obama-Biden Transition Team Website
President-Elect Obama has a forum where you can Share Your Vision of the country. The Website is CHANGE.GOV, The Obama-Biden Transition Team.
Dissertation on America's push for punitive drug laws
Certainly not light reading at over 300p, but I just came across Nathaniel Lee Smith's 2007 dissertation for UNC,
What are the Weakest Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs?
Pete Guither lists a couple of the worst arguments we hear from our opponents. There are basically an infinite number of stupid reasons to oppose drug policy reform ("My girlfriend was smoking all this weed and making out with hippies and we broke up"), but Pete's right that the worst arguments are often regurgitated repetitively, so it's worth taking note of the common ones. Fun too, if you like banging your head against a wall.
Drug War Debate Continues in El Paso
I wrote yesterday about El Paso Mayor John Cookâs veto of a city council resolution calling for a debate on our drug policy. Today, Former El Paso Mayor Bill Tilney came out in favor of the vetoed resolution.As a former mayor, I understand the position taken by Mayor John Cook, when he decided to veto the resolution at the last moment. [link] The City of El Paso is dependent in many ways on both the Texas state government and the United States federal government for funding of many important projects. Tweaking their noses could have unpleasant consequences. U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who has done a great job as the region's representative, was chief of the Border Patrol for many years. Given the fact that he was involved in the "war on drugs" and interdiction here along the border, he may have reservations about launching a national debate at City Council. Nevertheless, given President-elect Barack Obama's philosophy of "Yes, we can change," this seems a propitious moment to give El Paso center stage at the national level. Also the simple truth that the last three presidents have experimented with illegal drugs, like cocaine or marijuana, makes it a most apropos time to initiate a national debate. [Newspaper Tree]It just gets better from there. Read the whole thing. Itâs wonderful to see conversations about our drug policy bubbling up in new places without the involvement of the usual familiar faces. If this is a sign of the direction weâre headed, that can only be a good thing.
Gupta's Anti-Pot Article Cites Anti-Prohibition Article
Dr. Sanjay Gupta's anti-pot article contains this passage: That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition. Now if you actually read the linked article, it's clearly a call for the drug's legalization:The chief dangers of marijuana, practically, seem to spring from only one of its features: it's illegal. People get beat up, shot up and locked up because of the great amount of money that rides on selling the stuff, stuff that would be about as expensive as lettuce if it weren't against the law. I have treated people seriously hurt by the illegality of pot....  I also feel pretty strongly that nearly every child should study Latinâreallyâbut I don't think we should lock them up if they don't.Hanging around with all sorts of big dope-smokers for the same 35 years I should have bumped into at least one or two with those "serious health effects". The fact is I haven't.But when you try to change certain things by force, things close to the core about what folks love and hate, about their personalities, you just run into trouble. It doesn't work. You might knock down but you will never build up. This is why the government is better off out of the marijuana business.Either Gupta didn't read the article, or someone at Time linked the other story, without reading it!
RSS goodness
FYI, I've found a good way to stay on top of prohibition news in my RSS reader (I use Bloglines).
If the Drug War is so Great, How Come You Donât Wanna Talk About it?
Total chaos has erupted in El Paso, TX following a city council resolution calling for an open dialogue about drug legalization. The mayor promptly vetoed it, and lots of angry people are talking about how we shouldnât talk about this.To understand how little it takes to drive drug war supporters completely insane, watch El Paso City Rep. Beto OâRourkeâs impressively reasonable argument for a dialogue on our drug policy. All heâs saying is that we should talk about drug policy options and try to address ongoing problems. And to that, the mayor repliedâ¦VETO! Here is the totality of El Paso Mayor John Cookâs argument for not talking about drug legalization:"It is not realistic to believe that the U.S. Congress will seriously consider any broad-based debate on the legalization of narcotics," Cook added. "That position is not consistent with the community standards both locally and nationally." [El Paso Times]If this sounds familiar, itâs because enemies of the drug war debate have been insisting for years that thereâs nothing to talk about. Itâs weird too because if theyâre so sure Congress will never do it, then thereâs really no good reason to obstruct the conversation. What are they afraid of?Of course, the downside of claiming a monopoly on reality and refusing to debate is that you look like an idiot. And thatâs exactly what appears to be happening here, as the mayorâs allies are refusing to back his veto and the council is pushing for an override. So all we have to do is win the debate over whether or not to have a debate, and we can finally get around to debating. I can't wait.
The Drug War is Basically an Employment Program for Criminals
One of the least impressive arguments youâll ever here from drug war supporters is that we have to keep drugs illegal otherwise all the drug offenders will move on to other more horrible types of crime. Check out how LEAPâs Howard Wooldridge rips it apart in a Wall Street Journal LTE:I learned something about how drug prohibition generates crime during my 18 years of police service. Eighty percent of my property-crime case load was caused by addicts needing money to pay sky-high prices for crack, etc. Legal crack would cost an addict about a dollar per day, as would heroin and amphetamines.Ronald Shafer (Letters, Dec. 30) worries about what drug dealers would do without their prohibition-generated jobs. The one million teens who sell drugs would begin flipping burgers and mowing yards. Serious thugs will rob banks where we will capture or kill them. Or was Mr. Shafer suggesting to continue prohibition as a jobs program for bad guys? Itâs really just that simple. People like to sell drugs because itâs ridiculously easy and profitable, not because theyâre all born criminals. I canât say for sure what all of them will do if we regulate them out of business, but I can tell you what they wonât do: sell drugs on the street to anyone with a $5 bill. And thatâs the point.Weâre the only people entering this discussion with a plan to actually stop people from selling drugs on the sidewalk in our communities. Our plan may not be perfect, but the alternative is a proven disaster.
Metro Threatens Flex Your Rights with Legal Action, ACLU Defends
Flex Your Rights' opposition to random searches on D.C. public transportation has finally pushed Metro officials over the edge. Whole story here.
Latest Drug Czar Lies
It does not bother me that John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy, is passionate about his positions on drug addiction and how it is best treated; with opinions I can always respectfully disagree. What is unacceptable are lies, fallacies, and deceptive wording in federal government publications.
Obamaâs Surgeon General Hates Marijuana (But Sort of Supports Medical Use)
Barack Obama is looking at CNN correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta to serve as surgeon general, providing yet more ammunition for those of us who like to constantly point out how bad his choices are when it comes to drug policy.Here's Gupta's 2006 article "Why I Would Vote No on Pot." The reason? Because "marijuana isn't really very good for you," as though that has anything do with whether or not it makes sense to arrest nearly 1 million American a year for possessing it. The bright side is that Gupta acknowledges "health benefits for some patients." Unfortunately, he then proceeds to complain that most medical marijuana supporters "just want to get stoned legally," as though that justifies supporting laws that hurt legitimate patients.Hopefully, if Gupta is our next surgeon general, he will come to understand that there is in fact an enormous war on marijuana users in America that harms them in all sorts of ways that aren't really very good for you either.
Canadian army cannot be trusted(military press report)
An article that appeared in the Metro newspapers Vancouver edition claimed that tests done on military vehicles(2)showed traces of narcotics and that the military was going to experience drug traffick