Drug WarRant Friday, August 15, 2003 Signs of Intelligencer With the federal government attempting to demonize anyone who disagrees with the current war on marijuana use, and even resorting to name-calling (like "cynical, cruel, and immoral"), it's not surprising that many are reluctant to speak out in favor of any relaxation of laws, let alone outright legalization. It was very refreshing to read in yesterday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer a bold, clear, and common-sense OpEd by attorney Maureen Brown: "Legalize, tax marijuana to fill budget gap." While Maureen's numbers don't completely add up (for one thing, her numbers assume no reduction in gross prices, and on the other side she neglects many of the incidental cost savings from ending the marijuana wars), they still paint a remarkable picture. I have long felt that one of the keys to reforming marijuana laws is coherently explaining economic realities. But it's going to take a major effort to get the money argument out to the people. Under the current system, those who control the war (and thus have attempted to control the discourse) have found the war very profitable for them, at the expense of the ordinary citizen. 9:30:07 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, August 13, 2003 Cops Against the Drug War The news story is not that the war on drugs has failed, it's who's saying it now. It's not like it's a front for fringy, pony-tailed pot smokers. You need to read the excellent article: "Cops Against the Drug War" by Nina Shapiro, in the current issue of Seattle Weekly. This is a feature about the wonderful organization called LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which has done an great job of drawing together some of the real front line warriors who have come to realize that the war doesn't work, and that drug policies must be changed. Here are a few quotes from law enforcement personnel (from the article and elsewhere): "I'm tired of putting myself in harm's way for a losing cause." (Jonathan Wender, a Mountlake Terrace police officer) "If we put 50-gallon drums out on every street corner in America filled with drugs, we wouldn't have the problems we have today," (Peter Christ, a former police officer in New York state who came up with the idea for LEAP) "You can get over an addiction, but you can never get over a conviction," (Jack Cole, retired from 26 years with the New Jersey Police, board member of LEAP) "After a while, I saw that we spend more and more money and arrest more and more people and have more and more drugs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this policy is not working. People need to look at this rationally and ask if this is effective. Do we have a healthier society because of drug prohibition? Drug dealers are certainly wealthy because of it. The reason drugs have expanded so much is there is a profit to be made in drug dealing. We need to eliminate that profit motive. " (Sheriff Bill Masters, author of Drug War Addiction, from an interview with Alternet) Check out the article, and also stop by LEAP's website and support their activities. 10:13:18 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, August 12, 2003 "Guest Rant: Ethan Straffin takes on Lou Dobbs" Last week, Lou Dobbs hosted a series on CNN called "The Forgotten War" (entire transcript) in which he gave particular emphasis to the distortions of drug war cheerleaders like former drug czar William Bennett and current drug czar John Walters. On August 10, Dobbs followed this stunt with an outrageous OpEd in the New York Daily News, in which he parroted false and distorted information from the drug warriors, and ignored his supposed economic credentials. As a special treat today, I bring you the wonderful response by a fellow drug policy reformer Ethan Straffin. You can also read Lou Dobbs' original article, and my letter to the editor. -- Read the Full Story -- 8:59:51 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Monday, August 11, 2003 Federal Government would rather have poor children become drug dealers than get an education. One of the many stupid laws to be passed in the name of the war on drugs is the 1998 revision to the Higher Education Act, which included a new provision that blocked college opportunities to students revealing drug convictions on their Application for Federal Student Aid. If you've raped someone, it doesn't affect your financial aid, but if you've had an arrest in your past for smoking a joint, forget about getting federal assistance. This, of course, doesn't affect the children of congressmen -- they can afford college without aid. Apparently, nobody in Congress thought about the practical aspects. Imagine a promising boy who had some youthful indiscretions, including a bust for possessing a substance that is safer than what the congressman drinks at business lunches. The young person has paid the price for his indiscretion and now wants to make something of himself by going to college. "Sorry. No college for you." So what does he do? No education. Not many jobs in his community except... Anyway, Senator Kennedy is planning to soon introduce a bill to overturn this provision. He needs a Republican co-sponsor, and there are a few who could possibly be convinced. So if you live in the states of Senators Mike DeWine (OH), Jeff Sessions (AL), John Warner (VA), Sam Brownback (KS), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Olympia Snowe (ME), or Arlen Specter (PA), click on their name to send a targeted letter to them. For more information, and to write your representatives in general about the HEA, or sign the petition, go to Raise Your Voice. Oh, and if you live in the district of Mark Souder (IN), who authored this piece of crap, vote him out. By the way, I'm proud to say that my institution - Illinois State University - was one of the earliest to endorse a resolution calling for the repeal of this horrible provision. 8:46:16 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Sunday, August 10, 2003 Judiciary Face-off As I mentioned earlier this week, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive requiring prosecutors to snitch on judges who use their own discretion and provide lighter sentences than Ashcroft wants. Senator Edward Kennedy accused Ashcroft of engaging in an "ongoing attack on judicial independence." Now another Kennedy has entered the fray -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. While not directly responding to Ashcroft, Kennedy took the opportunity in an address to the annual meeting of the American Bar Association yesterday to blast mandatory minimum sentences. "I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences," Kennedy said. "In all too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unjust." Although Kennedy himself has voted on the Court to uphold mandatory minimums and finds them constitutional he noted that our "resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long," and that it is "a grave mistake to retain a policy just because a court finds it constitutional." As Congress and the Administration continues to take pot-shots at the judiciary (not to mention Pat Robertson, who has organized prayer groups to convince God to "remove" several Supreme Court justices), it will be interesting to see whether or how the judiciary finds additional ways to assert itself. Here's an idea. When the next medical marijuana case makes it to the Supreme Court, the justices could send a strong message to the administration by affirming that the Federal Government does not have the right to interfere with state law that is designed to protect the health of its citizens. 3:23:32 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Can someone explain this? On the DEA website, there is a Drug Intelligence Brief titled: "Area Codes: Frequently Asked Questions (June 2003)". After giving a page of general information about how area codes work, and how they're assigned to different geographic regions, etc., the credits at the bottom note that "This report was prepared by the DEA Intelligence Division, Office of Strategic Intelligence, Domestic Strategic Intelligence Unit and the Dangerous Drugs Strategic Intelligence Unit." I'm having a hard time here. Is this really the DEA's idea of an intelligence briefing? Is the concept of an intelligence briefing given by the DEA an oxymoron? Do they believe that drug dealers are using area codes for some nefarious purpose? Is the DEA looking to take over long distance? Will Carrot-Top start urging us to dial 1-800-CALL-DEA? Or, perhaps, the DEA is just panicked that when we run out of area codes it will be harder to keep track of the citizens it wants to control. 12:30:28 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []