|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, June 5, 2004 |
Ohio Hempfest Saved!
The 17th Annual Ohio Hempfest will go on as planned today from noon to midnight on the South Oval of the Ohio State University campus in Columbus.
But it almost didn't happen.
On Tuesday, the university cancelled the event, claiming that sponsors (the local chapter of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy had failed to follow an administrative requirement (despite the fact that they had made the reservation back in October and followed all procedures that any other event has to follow.
But the university had added a couple of hoops for the organization, based on the charge that some students had smoked pot at a previously sponsored event (something that was not the fault of the organizing group).
The OSU Police Chief John Petry, in a local media report, said he was hesitant to give permission for the event because of drug abuse at past Hempfests.
Clearly the university was looking for ways to shut this down and waited until the last minute, when it was impossible to re-schedule all the bands and vendors.
The student newspaper (Lantern) came out with a couple of good editorials Fest Smoked Out - Hempfest Cancellation Unfair and Hempfest Might Still Rise From Ashes.
Friday afternoon, the 6th Circuit Federal Court issued an injunction against OSU, and Hempfest will go on as planned.
After my own experience with Illinois State and their attempts to prevent the posting of Hempfest flyers, it's great to see this Hempfest victorious. Clearly this was an attempt by the university to sabotage an event that they didn't like. The administrative items that were deficient were requirements that no other events had to follow, and then the university did not even try to work with the organization (despite the fact that the event had occurred for 16 previous years), but announced the cancellation at the last minute. The 6th Circuit was correct.
12:25:57 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, June 4, 2004 |
June 4 - Day of Action for Medical Marijuana
Today, I ask you to do more than read this blog. This is a day to take action.
In a coordinated effort, drug reform groups are asking people to contact their Congressional Representatives today and ask for their support of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment.
The amendment is quite simple. It says that the federal government will not interfere with medical marijuana laws in those specific states that have passed them. Logical. Sensible.
In last year's article Can Congress Get a Clue, I discussed the Hinchey Amendment that lost then and even some of the bizarre debate on the floor. Last year the amendment failed 152-273, but that was remarkable in that 136 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 Independent voted in favor of a medical marijuana bill.
We can do better this year.
From NORML:
NORML has teamed up with the Marijuana
Policy Project, the Drug Policy Alliance and others to coordinate actions
at over 110 Congressional district offices around the country. These
actions will focus on educating members of Congress who voted against the
Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment last year, which would have prevented the
DEA and Justice Department from interfering in states with medical
marijuana laws.
NORML expects that this amendment will come up for a vote again this year,
hopefully by the end of this month. While last year's amendment failed by
a vote of 273 - 152, we are confident that this year we can convince many
members to change their vote this time around, but we need your help!
Since most NORML supporters cannot attend one of these local actions, we
are asking all of you to please call your members of Congress today and
voice your support for the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment. To be connected
to your Representative's office, simply call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard
at 202-224-3121.
Please tell your member of Congress that it is vital that they support the
Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment when it comes up for a vote later this
month. Be sure to stress that this vote would not legalize medical
marijuana, but it would simply prevent the federal government from
interfering in states that already have medical marijuana laws on the
books.
Do it today.
In fact, do it right now. Why wait?
Update: If you didn't get to it today, don't worry. It's still important and useful. Make the call. Send the letter. It's easy. And let me know if your Congressman's staff has anything to say in response.
8:18:08 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 |
Judge rules for free speech; Istook vows fight to eliminate it
In tomorrow's Washington Post: Judge Voids Law Against Drug Ads On Metro
A federal law aimed at keeping advertisements critical of national drug policy out of Metro stations and bus shelters illegally chills free speech and cannot stand, a federal judge ruled yesterday
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman barred the U.S. government from enforcing a law passed by Congress this year that calls for denying federal transportation money to any transit system that accepts ads promoting the legalization of drugs. ...
"Congress . . . cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences," the judge said. He called the law "an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' broad spending power."
My earlier posts on this are here, here, and here (reverse chronological order). The idiot that got this all started was Ernest Istook, Moron First Class from Oklahoma.
I'm still trying to decide if Istook is just that stupid, or if he's actively attempting to subvert the Constitution of the United States.
Today's ruling didn't slow him down:
"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," Istook said. "We provide major funding to combat drug use, and tax dollars should not be used to subsidize contrary messages."
He'll have a hard time convincing the courts. The judge's opinion (available at Change the Climate specifically stated:
There can be no legitimate argument that the government is "speaking" through its funding of capital improvements to mass transit facilities or that the grant of funds for mass transit is "designed" to facilitate private speech.
and
The government has articulated no legitimate state interest in the suppression of this particular speech other than the fact that it disapproves of the message, an illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible reason. ...
Just as Congress could not permit advertisements calling for the recall of a sitting Mayor or Governor while prohibiting advertisements supporting retention, it cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences.
Now it's time for someone to send the bill for the costs of this court case to Istook. I don't want to have to pay for his violation of his oath of office.
11:46:49 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Drug task forces - a federal jobs program gone fishing on the highways
I have never liked federally funded drug task forces -- for a lot of reasons, including dangerous tactics and a lack of accountability.
Now, the ACLU of Texas has given me another reason to dislike drug task forces, in their recent report: Flawed Enforcement: Why drug task force highway interdiction violates rights, wastes tax dollars, and fails to limit the availability of drugs in Texas (pdf report).
The report's findings include:
- Task forces perform searches at traffic stops much more
often than regular police and sheriffs departments.
- In some task forces, 98% of task force searches at traffic
stops are discretionary searches where the officer searches the
car with the driver’s verbal “consent,” but has no other legal
authority to do so.
- Texas law allowing arrests for fine-only-traffic offenses
creates a coercive environment for discretionary so-called
“consent searches.”
- Unlike most traffic enforcement, up to 99% of traffic stops
by some task forces result in no citation. Along with the high
ratios of discretionary searches, this indicates task force
officers in highway interdiction programs routinely trump up
excuses to stop drivers who are committing no crime.
- Task forces were more likely to search blacks than whites
in eight of nine task forces that supplied sufficient data to
calculate search rates by race. Latinos were searched more
often than whites by seven of nine task forces reporting race
data on searches.
In reading the Wilson County News report of this study, I am once again impressed by U.S. Representative Ron Paul.
Another suggestion was made to make task forces more self-reliant by paring down or eliminating the federal funding stream that currently keeps them running.
"Instead of directing Byrne funds toward other programs that are eligible, you're spending it on a task force because agents want new SUVs for their department," said Jeff Deist, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Clute.
Rewarding task forces with funds generated from drug seizures compounds the problem, Deist said.
"You dangle the carrot of federal dollars in front of them, and it's just become a great jobs program. The fundamental problem is that we've just accepted this 'drug war,' and it's costing an incredible amount of money.
No kidding.
9:21:38 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
Crack Babies
Jim at Vice Squad has a post about the historically volatile issue of crack babies and notes that the May 26, 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association provides a new study that looks at cocaine-exposed infants when they reach four years old. Here are the study's conclusions:
Prenatal cocaine exposure was not associated with lower full-scale, verbal, or performance IQ scores but was associated with an increased risk for specific cognitive impairments and lower likelihood of IQ above the normative mean at 4 years. A better home environment was associated with IQ scores for cocaine-exposed children that are similar to scores in nonexposed children.
Yep. That's the current science of crack babies -- no association with lower intelligence scores. Yes, there are true dangers of mothers addicted to crack, but most of those dangers relate to the increased use of alcohol with crack and the poor home environment with drug addicts as parents.
Now flash back to the 1980s, when the crack baby scare reached a peak of national hysteria. As reported in a 1995 Mother Jones article:
Social workers, foster parents, doctors, teachers, and journalists put forward unsettling anecdotes about the 'crack babies' they had seen, all participating in a sleight of hand so elegant in its simplicity that they fooled even themselves. They talked of babies shrieking like cats and refusing to bond, of children unable to focus on a task--and then they slipped in the part they should have tested, attributing these problems to prenatal cocaine use. Reporters went into hospital nurseries and special schools and borrowed the images of premature babies or bawling African-American preschoolers to illustrate their crack-baby stories. Carol Cole, who taught at the Salvin Special Education School in Los Angeles, remembers reporters asking if they could get pictures of the children trembling.
The crack baby quickly became a symbol for the biological determinism recently promulgated in its rawest form by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in The Bell Curve: These (mostly black) bug-eyed morons weren't quite human--and no amount of attention could make them so. In the late '8os, some commentators predicted they would become America's "biologic underclass." By 1991, John Silber, president of Boston University, went so far as to lament the expenditure of so many health care dollars on "crack babies who won't ever achieve the intellectual development to have consciousness of God."
Drug warriors had even taken to stating things like the "fact" that "375,000 crack babies are born annually in the United States, each one with developmental deficits costing $500,000 to $1 million in medical care" (and most of the media at the time neglected to do the simple arithmetic that would have shown those numbers to be impossible).
The myth of the crack baby epidemic was debunked in the early 1990s, but the damage had already been done, in one of the most blatantly racist episodes of the drug war - one that has caused incredible damage to our country - the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This act created mandatory prison terms are triggered exclusively by the quantity and type of drug involved in the offense.
As indicated in the February, 1995 Sentencing Report to Congress:
The 1986 Act was expedited through Congress. As a result, its passage left behind a limited legislative record. ... The sentencing provisions of the Act were initiated in August 1986, following the July 4th congressional recess during which public concern and media coverage of cocaine peaked as a result of the June 1986 death of NCAA basketball star Len Bias. Apparently because of the heightened concern, Congress dispensed with much of the typical deliberative legislative process, including committee hearings.
I swear, when Congress does this kind of thing, they should all be investigated on ethics charges for gross dereliction of duty, and violation of their oath.
Part of that act included a 100:1 sentencing quantity ratio between powder and crack cocaine (5 grams of crack or 500 grams of powder triggered the 5 year minimum, and 50 grams of crack or 5,000 grams of powder triggered the 10 year minimum). That sentencing disparity came in part from the hysteria sweeping the country regarding the exaggerated stories that crack was highly addictive, connected to violence, and, of course, caused an epidemic of crack babies. The fear of crack baby was specifically discussed in the 1988 follow-up law that created a minimum of 5 years prison for possession of 1-5 grams of crack.
The result? Racial inequities in sentencing. 85 percent of those subject to the enhanced sentencing for crack cocaine have been black.
Is it just coincidence that the recent prison report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that 12 percent of all black males in their twenties were in jails or prison?
12:34:34 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 31, 2004 |
'Drugged driver' law facing court challenges
It's really, really bad law and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal reports that it's about to get some constitutional scrutiny at the state level.
A new law aimed at so-called drugged drivers is facing constitutional challenges as the first prosecutions under the legislation go to court.
Instead of establishing a threshold by which drivers who have used illegal substances could be judged to be impaired, lawmakers have made it unlawful for drivers to have "any detectable amount" of drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and Ecstasy in their bloodstreams.
Those words are now the targets of defense attorneys.
"Unlike consumers of alcohol for which empirical evidence shows a relationship between blood level and impairment, drug users can be penalized for the mere use of a restricted substance even after considerable time has passed, so long as it is allegedly detected even under what is here an undefined standard," defense attorney Laurence M. Moon wrote in a case involving a Milwaukee man being prosecuted under the law. "This discrepancy is irrational."
I'm not sure what the grounds would be specifically at the state level, but I hope this law gets shot down. I'd be interested to watch the government try to defend their compelling interest in an "any detectable amount" provision.
"It is very typical for the question to be raised about whether the new law is constitutional," said Janine Geske, a distinguished professor at Marquette University Law School and former state Supreme Court justice. "Because this law is not like operating while intoxicated and there is no specified amount, I think that is a serious, legitimate issue to raise.
"Whether it will rise to the level of making it unconstitutional remains to be seen."
We'll be watching.
5:30:01 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Positive Development in Hemp Fiber
 An interesting release came out about 2 weeks ago from Hemptown Clothing:
Hemptown Clothing Inc., a leading provider of environmentally responsible clothing, is pleased to announce that it has entered into a collaboration with the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) on the development of a patentable enzyme technology process that may see hemp fibers replace cotton worldwide.
The collaboration between Hemptown and NRC is intended to produce hemp clothing fabric that would match cotton in price, while eliminating the tons of pesticides and enormous water consumption required by cotton. Furthermore, industrial hemp is 5 times as efficient as the same acreage of forestry in the conversion of atmospheric carbon dioxide into plant materials for industrial application, thus allowing the latter to remain as the reservoir of the greenhouse gases.
In addition to the textile sector, the availability of clean hemp fibers at reasonable cost will enable widespread application in industry to provide rigidity for plastics as vehicle interior trim with reduced weight and ease of recycling, and in buildings as a natural insulator, as compared to the traditional fiberglass.
An efficient enzyme system will give a competitive advantage to Hemptown or to any third party companies to whom it licenses the process. This ground-breaking fiber technology is expected to be delivered into the market within the next 3 years.
"Hemptown was identified as an ideal partner for NRC," said Scott Ferguson, Business Development Officer for the NRC Institute for Biological Sciences. "Their understanding of the Hemp Fiber industry, coupled with their stability and strong corporate profile, made them an excellent candidate with which to help develop this new generation biotechnology. We are excited about the prospects for this collaboration, which could ultimately revolutionize the apparel industry as well as many other industrial applications."
"If we are able to provide our environmentally friendly hemp fiber activewear, at a price that is equal or better than that of current cotton products, there is no reason for consumers to not make the smart choice." commented Hemptown Clothing President, Jason Finnis. "We are enthused about the initial developments, and intend to use this technology to launch a proper hemp textile industry in Canada, as well as all other industrial hemp growing nations around the world. The potential market for the use and licensing of this hemp production technology worldwide may be in the billions of dollars."
I wish the best of luck to the new collaboration and fervently hope that they succeed. If hemp can compete financially with cotton, then the whole ballgame will change. When the international (including American) garment industry starts puchasing Canadian hemp instead of U.S. cotton, all hell will break loose. And then, you'll see one of these two outcomes:
- American farmers are allowed to grow industrial hemp, creating the beginnings of a booming American hemp industry; or
- We invade Canada.
4:36:43 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Tobacco, Drugs, and Regulation
Adam J. Smith of Progressive Capitalist has a very interesting post on recent moves to have the FDA assume regulatory control over tobacco. In part:
We live in a society in which most "recreational" drugs are prohibited. That is to say, they are completely unregulated. Illegal under almost all circumstances to produce, market and possess, recreational drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, methamphetamine, psychadellics and heroin are nonetheless easily available without age restriction, purity requirements, or labelling in every part of the country. Perversely, the very fact of their prohibition means that these substances are more, rather than less likely to be sold to young people, and are often the self-medication of last resort for thousands of mentally ill people who lack medical insurance or prescription drug coverage. ...
So what does all of that have to do with Tobacco? If the FDA does gain authority over tobacco products we as a society will have an opportunity for a serious debate on what it means to rationally and effectively regulate potentially harmful -- along with some not-so-harmful -- recreational substances in a free society. Right now, the debate is often mis-framed as an either-or choice between all-out prohibition, with its attendant unintended consequences, and the type of loose regulation that we have now with tobacco (and to a lesser extent, alcohol) meaning few labelling requirements, broad-based (if somewhat restricted) advertising, and a product that is available in every corner convenience store in every community in the nation.
The post is well thought out and quite provocative. To his credit, Adam recognizes the potential dangers that can come from over-regulation (increased black-market, etc.) and doesn't assume that regulation can cure all ills (on either side). I'm not sure I'm as optimistic, given our government's reputation -- I figure that this move toward regulating tobacco might just as easily create a new "war on tobacco" prohibition spree (Adam also notes this possibility). But I'd like to believe that he's right and a rational discussion could take place.
Read the full post. What do you think? Can FDA regulation of tobacco actually help create a sane drug policy?
3:26:06 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 30, 2004 |
Breaking news: Badnarik wins Libertarian nomination in an upset
From the AP:
Michael Badnarik, a computer programmer from Texas, won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination on Sunday.
Badnarik, 49, of Austin, defeated former Hollywood movie producer Aaron Russo on the convention's third ballot, after former radio host Gary Nolan, who was eliminated on the second ballot, endorsed Badnarik.
Badnarik's take on the drug war:
The government's war on drugs violates the rights of Americans so egregiously that it is a bigger threat than the drugs themselves. Libertarians do not want our children taking drugs either, but we recognize that the several decades of drug interdiction haven't slowed the flow of narcotics into this country. Children take drugs because criminals actively sell them. Criminals sell drugs because they are astronomically profitable. Drugs are highly profitable only because they are illegal. The Libertarian solution is to decriminalize drugs, which will make drugs extremely cheap, which will remove the profit motivation for selling drugs, which will result in fewer children taking drugs.
Drug laws have not reduced the amount of drugs on the street. Drugs are far more common now than they were before we started this stupid "War on Drugs." Drug laws established an "asset forfeiture" policy which violates our right to be secure from "unreasonable search and seizure" and our right not to be "deprived of property without due process of law." This policy has a tendency to corrupt our police agencies who use the assets as "unreported income." You probably don't remember the Prohibition, but all it did was raise the price of alcohol. The only thing the "War on Drugs" has done is to raise the price of heroin and marijuana - and to make them profitable enough to kill for. If we decriminalize drugs, then they will no longer be extremely profitable. This will remove the black market incentive, and make our city streets safer in the process.
I'll be discussing Badnarik some more as we get into the election season.
More on the nomination (including some very interesting details and vote totals) at Random Act of Kindness (which, I feel the perverse need to point out, endorsed both Nolan and Russo).
6:07:11 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
