|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, February 21, 2004 |
Assistant principal admits planting marijuana in student's locker
From today's Herald Palladium in Michigan.
SOUTH HAVEN -- Facing a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, South Haven High School's assistant principal, Pat Conroy, resigned Friday, Schools Superintendent Dave Myers said...
In his police report, South Haven Deputy Police Chief Tom Martin said Conroy told him that last year he placed some of the marijuana from his office in the locker of a male high school student he strongly suspected was a drug dealer. He said he was hoping the drugs would be found during a police dog search of the school and would lead to the boy's expulsion.
The plan didn't work, because the drug dog did not pick up the scent of the marijuana during the search, Conroy told police.
What are we doing to kids today? I remember High School. It included having some very traumatic growing pains and socializing issues that felt like the end of the world. And yet, I didn't have to pee in a cup, or have lock downs while dogs sniffed my book bag, or have an Assistant Principal frame me for drugs. I seem to remember having an asshole Assistant Principal (I think that was in the job description), but I never worried about this.
So, Mr. Drug Czar, what message are we sending to our kids?
This drug war is obscene.
[Thanks to the amazing Elmer Elevator for the tip.]
Update: More on the story in the comments.
4:56:48 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 20, 2004 |
The Idiocy that is Istook
Jacob Sullum at Reason has a great article about the ACLU lawsuit against the feds.
Istook's willingness to so blatantly violate the First Amendment plays into the hands of his opponents, who portray it as a sign of the drug warriors' intellectual bankruptcy and political desperation. "The message that marijuana prohibition has failed is so powerful," declares Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project, "that the only way the federal government can think of to combat it is by stopping us from communicating with the public."
Although Joseph White says he was "stunned" by Istook's amendment, he adds, "We are grateful to Congressman Istook for bringing these issues so clearly to the forefront." Says Ethan Nadelmann, "We think Congressman Istook's crass proposal will likely accelerate the pace of reform. For this we thank him."
With enemies like Istook, who needs friends?
6:58:53 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
John Hirko - is justice near?
The federal civil lawsuit regarding the death of Drug War Victim John Hirko is wrapping up. Earlier coverage is here.
The Morning Call has been covering the story:
The case is likely to go to the jury for deliberations today after U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner finishes explaining the relevant laws to the jury. ...
The jury will be asked whether police used excessive force when they shot the suspected drug dealer 11 times, accidentally set fire to his home and forced his fiancee to escape from a second-floor window. Hirko died in April 1997 as the police SWAT team stormed the South Side home to search for drugs
I received this message today:
John Hirko was my friend..my friend for yrs before this all came about. He was a wonderful, intelligent person who didn't deserve this. Although I do not disagree nor did I approve his involvement with drugs, I know for a fact that he would have never shot at an officer (he didn't have a criminal background). I believe this was a phase that he would have certainly grew out of. I definitely think a form of punishment other than DEATH would have helped facilitate this. Seven years after his death I still cannot get over how he has been portrayed to justify his homicide. It sickens me.- Marylou
6:17:06 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 |
Federal Government sued by ACLU, Marijuana Policy Project, Change the Climate and Drug Policy Alliance
A couple of months ago, I discussed the idiotic and constitutionally challenged Oklahoma Representative Ernest Istook who didn't like the fact that Change the Climate was running ads on the Metro calling for the legalization of marijuana. So he pushed for a last-minute provision on the omnibus spending bill that would prevent any transit system from accepting ads that promoted changing the laws regarding marijuana. And it passed. And was signed into law.
Now this is so completely and absolutely a violation of the constitution that it's almost funny, yet it became law.
Fortunately, we have a number of active Drug Policy Reform organizations and none of them are taking this lightly. The day the law went into effect, four of these organizations attempted to purchase space for this ad in the DC transit system:
[caption] One in three adult Americans have tried marijuana and federal marijuana laws can imprison every one of them just for simple possession. These laws are unfair and abuse our criminal justice system. Prosecuting and jailing these Americans wastes valuable resources better spent keeping violent criminals off our streets. As it is, hundreds of thousands of citizens have already been imprisoned - many of them non-violent, otherwise law-abiding and many of them stripped of their right to vote, their property, their jobs and their college grants. Let's adopt common sense and fairness and enact more realistic marijuana laws. And let's save the jails for real criminals. Get involved today.
As expected, the ad was rejected due to the new provision from Congress.
So today, the following distinguished organizations jointly announced a lawsuit against the federal government and the DC transit system (the links go to the organizations' pages about the lawsuit):
The suit is called ACLU v. Mineta. Remember that name -- I guarantee you'll be hearing a unanimous verdict and it won't be in favor of the feds. This is a no-brainer.
In fact, reading the Memorandum of Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (pdf), you can almost detect undercurrents of glee in the coalition's case:
The material facts are not in dispute and the constitutional infirmities raised by Section 177 are neither complex nor subtle. Section 177 is unconstitutional, both on its face and as enforced by WMATA, a state actor.
The attorneys for the coalition are going to have fun with this one. (Remember though that lawsuits aren't cheap -- consider donating to one or more of the organizations.)
Violation of Oath
I have often felt that Congress has gotten off without any sanctions despite violating their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Particularly when you consider that the First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say: "Congress shall make unconstitutional laws in order to make a political statement and then let the courts straighten it out."
Now this unfortunately happens all the time, but rarely has there been a case this blatant. Just in case there was any doubt in your mind that these Congressmen actually intended the provision to silence the free speech rights of citizens, check out the statement that they arrogantly printed in the conferees report:
The conferees note with displeasure that public service advertising space in Washington, DC's Metropolitan Area Transit Authority rail stations and buses has been used to advocate changing the nation's laws regarding marijuana usage. WMATA has provided $46,250 worth of space to these types of ads; therefore, as a warning to other transit agencies, the conferees have deleted funding totaling $92,500 from projects and activities for WMATA in this bill...
...the conferees remain concerned that the opportunity exists nationwide for transit properties to run similar advertising. Therefore the confererence agreement includes a provision (Section 177) that prohibits Federal transit grantees from obligating or expending funds that would otherwise be available in the Act, if the grantee is involved directly or indirectly with any activity, including displaying or permitting to be displayed advertisements on its land, equipment, or in its facilities, that promote the legalization or medical use of substances listed in schedule 1 of section 202 of the Controlled Substance Act.
Istook, and the other conferees involved, should be impeached and removed from office.
10:30:22 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
More lies from Deputy Czar Andrea.
Via Vice Squad: Andrea Barthwell is at it again in this OpEd in yesterday's Chicago Tribune. Andrea is one of our Drug Czar's Deputy Directors.
Naturally, shortly after a medical marijuana bill is introduced in the state legislature, the feds have to step in and try to apply some pressure -- as usual by lying.
First, she brings up and completely distorts, as an example of excess, a medical marijuana awards event in Oregon and then notes:
With marijuana awards making a mockery of medicine, drug use and addiction, it is no wonder we have a hard time teaching kids how dangerous drugs really are and creating an environment of prohibition.
"creating an environment of prohibition"??? What is that and why would we possibly want it? Isn't an environment of prohibition when citizens are less and less likely to cooperate with police because of rightly perceived excesses in tactics and sentences? Isn't an environment of prohibition when people end up dead like this? Isn't an environment of prohibition where students are, without suspicion, made to pee in a cup for the government and lie down on the floor while dogs sniff them? Environment of prohibition? WTF?
She continues with the usual:
Smoking marijuana impairs attention, memory, and dexterity, and increases the risk of traffic accidents. Repeated use can lead to respiratory disease and permanent cognitive impairment. Marijuana use is addictive.
False. All of these specific points have been debunked before and elsewhere on this site, and what do any of them have to do with medical marijuana? According to the DEA's own chief administrative law judge Francis L. Young, marijuana is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
Andrea again shills for the pharmaceutical companies:
There is a variety of existing, scientifically proven options available to patients in need of pain relief. Among these is the FDA-approved medicine Marinol. But smoked marijuana advocates refuse to acknowledge Marinol as a viable option. Interestingly enough, the only property that Marinol lacks is the capacity to create a "high."
Again false. One of the problems with Marinol is its strong "high" that is harder to control with oral medicine. Patients complain that by the time the high reaches them it's too late to adjust the dosage, whereas with smoked marijuana, the dosage can be easily regulated.
She ends:
The biggest threat to creating an effective environment of prohibition is the active campaign of legalizers to blur the line between dangerous, illegal drugs and medicine.
There's that "environment of prohibition" again. And the lie of classifying marijuana as "dangerous."
And don't forget. We pay her salary.
10:08:06 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Odds and Ends
 LastOneSpeaks points us to the transcript of an incredible speech on the floor of the House this week by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, regarding the DEA's meddling with pain management.
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh's case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.
LastOneSpeaks also notes that Narco News is back in town, redesigned and with a group format that should prove interesting. (And I am also quite thankful for the visual re-design and skin change option - red and yellow text on black background was in for about 5 minutes when the internet first discovered color; now it's just painful.) Check it out. There's no better source of information on the Latin American Drug War.
An Illinois school district has decided not to drug test its students.
"There would have to be a clear and present [drug] problem," Stinson added.
Although some of their other policies are still too extreme, it's nice to see a school that has avoided the lock-step buy-in to the drug testing regime.
9:22:12 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 16, 2004 |
Drug war money corrupts, and some Utah police want their share again
Nationally, asset forfeiture laws, in conjunction with the drug war, have been extremely profitable to law enforcement, to the extent that many units depend on a certain level of seizures to achieve their annual budgetary goals.
This means that law enforcement is sometimes put in the position of making decisions based on profit motive, rather than protecting and serving.
In Utah, citizens decided through initiative B (AKA the UFPA, and supported by 70% of the voters) that this was a conflict of interest. According to Deseret Morning News:
Before UFPA, forfeiture proceeds went back to police departments to fund equipment, training and other costs. Since the measure, that money was redirected through the state treasurer's office for deposit in the Uniform School Fund.
Very little money has actually come to the state, however, because law enforcement either halted it or partnered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for federal investigation and prosecution.
So law enforcement basically responded to the citizens with "If we can't have it, we're not going to let education have it either."
Well now Senator Chris Buttars has introduced SB175, a bill to reverse many of the initiative provisions and put profits back in the hands of law enforcement.
Shameful.
8:10:50 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, February 15, 2004 |
Canada blasted for believing its citizens are free
A U.S. report that has been hitting Canadian media sites in the past two hours says that Canada is too terrorist friendly. A serious charge, but let's take a closer look at it.
First, the report (titled Nations Hospitable to Organized Crime and Terrorism (pdf) and completed in October) is prepared by the Library of Congress in an arrangement with the CIA Crime and Narcotics Center, which naturally continues to try to link drug policy with terrorism (and is influenced by the administration's drug war).
Second, some of the language in the report is downright offensive. Canada is blamed in part for:
The Canadian Constitution guarantees rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment that make it easier for terrorists and international criminals to operate. In addition, a technologically advanced economy and infrastructure facilitate operations and activities as well as providing a myriad of opportunities for abuse.
This tone continues later in the report:
Perhaps until recently, there has also not been widespread concern that Canada could be the victim of a terrorist attack. Sensitivity to civil liberties combined with this low threat perception has made both the adoption and the enforcement of tougher immigration laws and strong counter terrorism measures more difficult. The fact that the 2002 bill designed to make Canada's immigration laws less favorable to terrorists and international criminals is entitled the "Immigration and Refugee Protection Act" serves as an indication of the prevailing concern for or priority placed upon civil liberties in Canada.
Is it just me, or is it extremely disturbing that the United States would, in an official report, talk about civil liberties and individual rights in a country as a negative factor?
Aren't these qualities that the United States used to value? (And in fact, if a government of the people stops supporting these rights and liberties, doesn't it lose its legitimacy?)
7:12:12 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Your tax dollars at work
TalkLeft reports that the cost of prosecuting Tommy Chong for making bongs was $12 million. This comes by way of Chong's attorney who got the information from the government prosecutors.
It's outrageous, but not particularly surprising. The amount of tax money that's thrown away in this drug war would probably be enough to end world hunger.
But let's just look at the cost of prosecuting Tommy for making some pipes:
- $12 million would pay for treatment for 3,500 drug addicts for an entire year.
- $12 million would pay for enough needle exchange programs to prevent 1,258 HIV infections.
- $12 million as a direct grant to me would stimulate spending in my household and help the economy.
Got any other ideas of what we could do with $12 million? Leave them in the comments.
Update: Some additions:
- It would also provide 1,000 AIDS victims antiretroviral drug therapy for a year [David]
- 12 million would also buy approximately one million large pepperoni pizzas with side orders of cheesy dots from Domino's.[David]
- After listening to All Things Considered tonight, I'll also add that $12 million would pay to add new technology that prevents fuel tanks from exploding to 48 passenger jets.
6:30:55 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
