Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Montel and Morgenthau - a couple of powerful reform voices An AP story today: NEW YORK -- The Manhattan District Attorney joined television talk show host Montel Williams on Tuesday to support the legalization of marijuana for medical use. "It should be available to those whose suffering would be eased by the use of marijuana," said Robert Morgenthau. "There is absolutely no reason for not using marijuana for medical purposes. It's another weapon in the arsenal." Morgenthau said he supports a marijuana legalization bill in the state Legislature. He said he came to support medicinal marijuana after doing research and talking to his daughter, a physician who specializes in treating drug abusers. Williams, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999, choked back tears as he said he uses marijuana on his doctor's recommendation to relieve pain in his legs and feet caused by the neurological disease. Could New York actually join the medical marijuana states? 7:19:09 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Judge James Gray for Senate in California I've been a huge fan of Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, author of the fabulous book Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs. Well, he's running for Senate in California as a Libertarian, and there's a nice recent interview in LA CityBEAT that's worth reading. Here's a quote that caught my attention: I have been told by two sitting congressmen in Orange County that many folks in Washington realize the war on drugs is not winnable, but it's eminently fundable. They are addicted to the money. If Judge Jim Gray were to be elected to the United States Senate from California, having been very straightforward with regard to where I stand on the drug war, it would be such a revolution that that alone would get the federal government out of the marijuana prohibition business. And believe me, it's a big business. It's institutionally corrupting. Yep, he understands it: "...many folks in Washington realize the war on drugs is not winnable, but it's eminently fundable. ... it's a big business. It's institutionally corrupting." That's exactly what we're fighting. If you're in California, please send Gray to Washington. 6:49:55 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Chicago Trib tells Istook to get a clue I was very pleased when Rep. Istook's un-American and un-Constitutional provision against promoting a particular viewpoint in the metro system was overturned in court. Yesterday, the Trib took a nice moment to add their viewpoint. You've heard the phrase "drunk with power"? That pretty well captures the state of mind of Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) when he pushed through a measure telling the Washington Metro system what kind of ads it could place in its stations, trains and buses. ... But a federal district court has done the inevitable, striking down the ban as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech. The Metro system has made a practice of accepting issue-oriented ads, the court said, and the government may not choose which opinions shall be allowed. ... But Istook still doesn't get it. After the decision came down, he said, "I'm confident that ultimately the courts will agree with the long-standing principle that Congress is free to decide what we will or will not fund. We provide major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to subsidize contrary messages." What is he talking about? Running the notices would not have "subsidized" an unapproved message: Change the Climate was trying to buy ad space, at a total price of $91,875. Congress is free to decide whether to fund mass transit or not. What it's not free to do is use its power of the purse to suppress one point of view on a matter of public policy. Direct government censorship is forbidden by the 1st Amendment, and so is the indirect kind. It's understandable that Istook takes issue with the policies proposed by Change the Climate and its allies. But if he thinks it would be a mistake to liberalize drug laws, he should use the option he's trying to deny them: Rebut their arguments. And that's exactly what he's afraid to do. Because he'd lose. 6:18:59 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []