Drug WarRant Saturday, September 11, 2004 63 years in prison for marijuana sales In tomorrow's New York Times: Long Term in Drug Case Fuels Debate on Sentencing Weldon H. Angelos, a 25-year-old producer of rap records, will be sentenced Tuesday in federal court in Salt Lake City for selling several hundred dollars in marijuana on each of three occasions, his first offenses. He faces 63 years in prison. Laws that set mandatory minimum sentences require 55 of the 63 years because Mr. Angelos carried a gun while he sold the drugs [although he did not show or use it]. "It would appear effectively to be a life sentence," the judge, Paul G. Cassell of Federal District Court there, wrote in a request to the prosecution and the defense for advice about whether he has any choice but to send the man to prison forever. Judge Cassell noted what the maximum sentences were for other federal crimes: Hijacking an airplane: 25 years. Terrorist bombing intending to kill a bystander: 20 years. Second-degree murder: 14 years. Kidnapping: 13 years. Rape of a 10-year-old: 11 years. ... The Justice Department supports mandatory minimums, said Monica Goodling, a spokeswoman. "Tough but fair mandatory minimum sentences take habitual lawbreakers off the streets, lock up the most dangerous criminals and help ensure the safety of law-abiding Americans," Ms. Goodling said. Right. The Justice Department needs to look up the word "justice," or perhaps read some Shakespeare. The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown ... It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest god's When mercy seasons justice... consider this, That in the course of justice none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy, And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. - Shakespeare Mandatory minimums for drug crimes are not equitable, not merciful, not compassionate, not fair, not just, and not smart. [Thanks to Scott] [Alternate link to story] 6:40:37 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Friday, September 10, 2004 Propaganda and Terrorism: Brought to you by the DEA (again) This was a sick, disgusting, and offensive exhibit when the DEA opened it last September in Dallas. "We worked closely with the New York Police Department and the Port Authority to go to Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills landfill for artifacts," Mr. Fearns said. "That's where the exhibit starts, with this reconstruction of elements from New York and the Pentagon and photos from Pennsylvania." That's right. Children's toys and twisted I-beams. Death and destruction to glorify the DEA. Read the rest of my original post from last year. Now, the exhibit opened today at 1 Times Square in New York City. Today. Sick. A reminder: While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of the FBI's financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs.... In Phoenix, where the now infamous Ken Williams memo originated, counterterrorism agents complained bitterly about their efforts being given "the lowest investigative priority" by a supervisor who preferred glamorous drug-fighting investigations. And yes, the DEA was part of the problem. A federal police force aimed at its own citizens instead of focusing resources at protecting the nation. For them to open Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists and You in Times Square on September 10th is reprehensible. [thanks to Baylen, I think, for getting me pissed off again] 9:54:37 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Good posts to read... Nikkie at ViceSquad has a couple of posts to check out: Substitution Effect about the latest statistical nonsense from the Department of Health and Human Services, and Let's Ban Driver's Licenses about new "study" that shows that driver's licenses lead to drugs. TalkLeft mentions a study that shows marijuana may be helpful for MS sufferers: "In the short term-study there was some evidence of cannabinoids alleviating symptoms of multiple sclerosis; in the longer term there is a suggestion of a more useful beneficial effect, which was not clear at the initial stage," he said. Jerralyn also has the story of an Oklahoma drug addict who has been charged with first degree murder for giving birth to a stillborn infant. Doctors told police the baby had enough methamphetamine in his system to kill two adults, which begs the question... How much does it take to kill two adults and why didn't it kill the mother? Baylen at D'Alliance shows that neither the Democratic or Republican platforms show even the glimmer of a clue regarding the drug war. He also give us a preview teaser of the Drug Czar's appearance in National Review. 9:37:34 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Welcome new visitors from Who's Left I enjoyed speaking at the festival today. Great day for it, and it was nice to see/hear some other speakers talking about civil liberties and drug war-related areas. If you're a new visitor, please take a moment to say Hi in the comments section (if they're working, which is about 75% of the time). 9:13:55 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Thursday, September 9, 2004 Some remarkable reading coming... You may remember back in July that the Justice Department was trying to get libraries to destroy a series of documents related to asset forfeiture. Seems the Justice Department didn't want people to know their legal rights. Well, that move backfired and the order has been rescinded. Now FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights is working on putting those documents online! This could be very useful for those targeted by forfeiture proceedings and their attorneys. I can't wait. The National Review is giving Drug Lord Czar John Walters the opportunity to respond to last month's article by Ethan Nadelmann (full footnoted pdf version) and he accepted. And the National Review is giving Nadelmann rebuttal time as well. All will be posted here at Drug Policy Alliance. Closest thing we've had to Walters in a debate. This should be good. Or ugly. Or something. 7:04:53 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] The police want to rub your knobs. TalkLeft posted about the case currently in a District Court in Utah (and Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy discusses it some more). Basically it involves cases where the police swipe your front door knob and test it for microscopic traces of drug residue that might have come from your hand. If it comes up positive, the police use that as probable cause to search your house. The question is whether the the swipe of the doorknob requires a warrant. The legal question is quite interesting, academically. I lean to the notion that either the doorknob is private, in which case a warrant is needed to test it, or it's public, in which case there's no way to know who touched it and a positive test is not justification to search the house. And I envision a scenario of someone putting some cocaine on their hand and going around grabbing doorknobs of enemies. When it comes down to it, though, it's just plain ridiculous that these procedures are even being considered. In my mind, it's just one more in a long list of indignities (and intrusions on our freedoms) that the American people have been subjected to in the name of this failed war on drugs. Update: More excellent commentary on this at Farkleberries. 6:35:44 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Speaking engagement For those of you in Central Illinois, I'm going to be one of the featured speakers at a free festival tomorrow on the Illinois State University quad. The event is called "Who's Left" and it's a day-long progressive activism festival, with speakers, bands and information. The event goes from noon until 10 pm, and I'm scheduled to speak at 12:30 pm. I'll be talking about the drug war, naturally. 9:18:01 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, September 8, 2004 Urgent Action Needed -- Higher Education Act From Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (with assistance from NORML and DRCNet): Since its inception, our organization has campaigned against a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act that denies federal financial aid to anyone convicted of a drug-related offense, no matter how minor. The provision is counter-productive and causes enormous harm, particularly to middle- and low-income students who cannot afford the high costs of college. Department of Education data indicates that more than 150,000 students have been adversely affected by the provision. Today, repeal is within our reach. As part of the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Senate will reconsider the ban on federal financial aid for drug offenders. We just learned that the vote on ONDCP reauthorization is tomorrow. To make a difference, you must phone today! If your Senator is on the Senate Judiciary Committee (below), take one or two minutes to demand that he or she repeal the ban on federal financial aid for drug offenders. Alabama: Jeff Sessions (R-AL), (202) 224-4124, (202) 224-3149 Arizona: Jon Kyl (R), (202) 224-4521, fax (202) 224-2207 California: Dianne Feinstein (D), (202) 224-3841, fax: (202) 228-3954 Delaware: Joseph Biden (D), (202) 224-5042, fax: (202) 224-0139 Georgia: Saxby Chambliss (R), (202) 224-3521, fax: (202) 224-0103 Idaho: Larry Craig (R), (202) 224-2752, fax: (202) 228-1067 Illinois: Richard Durbin (D), (202) 224-2152, fax: (202) 228-0400 Iowa: Charles Grassley (R), (202) 224-3744; fax: (202) 224-6020 Massachusetts: Edward Kennedy (D), (202) 224-4543, fax: (202) 224-2417 New York: Charles Schumer (D-NY), (202) 224-6542, fax: (202) 228-3027 North Carolina: John Edwards (D), (202) 224-3154, fax: (202) 228-1374 Ohio: Mike DeWine (R), (202) 224-2315, fax: (202) 224-6519 Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter (R), (202) 224-4254; fax: (202) 228-1229 South Carolina: Lindsey Graham (R) (202) 224-5972, fax: (202) 224-1189 Texas: John Cornyn (R), (202) 224-2934, fax: (202) 228-2856 Utah: Orrin Hatch (R), (202) 224-5251, fax: (202) 224-5251 Vermont: Patrick Leahy (D), (202) 224-4242 Wisconsin: Herbert Kohl (D), (202) 224-5653, fax: (202) 224-9787 Wisconsin: Russell Feingold (D), (202) 224-5323, fax: (202) 224-2725 What to say: Hello, my name is __________ and I'm from __________. I'm calling to ask Senator __________ to take action tomorrow during the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and support repeal of the ban on federal financial aid for drug offenders. This provision is poorly-designed and causes enormous harm. (PICK ONE TALKING POINT): - The ban only affects students from low- and middle-income families who depend on aid to afford college. Students from wealthier backgrounds who can afford to pay the full cost of college tuition are unaffected by the drug provision. - The ban has a discriminatory impact on minorities. For example, African-Americans, who comprise 13% of the population and 13% of all drug users, account for more than half of those convicted of drug possession charges. - The ban punishes students twice for the same crime. Students have already paid whatever price the criminal justice system demands of them. The provision represents an additional punishment that limits a student's ability to get an education. - The ban will not solve our nation's drug problem. To limit the number of deserving students eligible for federal financial aid is counter-productive. Access to a college education is the surest route to the mainstream economy and a crime-free life. I hope that Senator ________ will work to repeal this damaging, discriminatory ban. Thank you. More info here. You need to act right away, because this is happening NOW. If you can call, do so first thing in the morning on Thursday if possible. If you have fax capability, do so as soon as you read this. If neither is possible, use this page to send a note (it's hard to say if emails will get to the Senators in time). We've got to get rid of this horrible provision. Of course, what I prefer to do is call my senator and tell him not to re-authorize the ONDCP at all, but that won't happen. 10:42:25 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Illinois House committee to discuss Medical Marijuana Rich Rawlings with the Illinois Marijuana Party tells us that Illinois H.B. 4868 -- a bill creating The Medical Cannabis Act will be discussed in subcommittee on October 4. If you live in Illinois and one of the following Subcommittee members is your Illinois House Representative: Mary E. Flowers, Frank Aguilar, Patricia Bailey, Maria Antonia Berrios, Linda Chapa LaVia, Elizabeth Coulson, John A. Fritchey, Deborah L. Graham, Brent Hassert, Constance A. Howard, Carolyn H. Krause, Rosemary Kurtz, Karen May, David E. Miller, Rosemary Mulligan, Ruth Munson, Kathleen A. Ryg, Ricca Slone, Keith P. Sommer, or Ron Stephens, please contact them and ask them to support H.B. 4868. More information at IDEAL Reform. 10:20:09 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Crack Babies talk back From the Columbia Journalism Review, a piece by Mariah Blake: The Damage Done. It started in fourth grade when his teacher asked him to read aloud. Antwaun stammered, then went silent. "He can't read because he's a crack baby," jeered a classmate. In the cafeteria that day no one would sit near him. The kids pointed and chanted, "crack baby, crack baby." Antwaun sat sipping his milk and staring down at his tray. After that, the taunting never stopped. Unable to take it, Antwaun quit school and started hanging out at a local drug dealer's apartment, where at age nine he learned to cut cocaine and scoop it into little glass vials. "Crack baby," he says. "Those two words almost cost me my education." Antwaun finally returned to school and began learning to read a year later, after he was plucked from his parents' home and placed in foster care. Now twenty, he's studying journalism at LaGuardia Community College in New York City and writing for Represent, a magazine for and by foster children. In a recent special issue he and other young writers, many of them born to crack addicts, took aim at a media myth built on wobbly, outdated science: crack babies. Their words are helping expose the myth and the damage it has done. It's a good piece. For more on the myth of crack babies, see my earlier piece on the subject. From the comments on that piece, it's clear that it's hard for many to accept that the former hype about crack babies was overblown. It's likely that behavioral issues (that were probably more related to their environment than their exposure to crack) cemented the myth in many peoples' minds. 10:06:02 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] Monday, September 6, 2004 So much going on... Here are a number of things I've gotten from the drug policy reform community that I hadn't gotten around to yet, and probably deserved posts of their own. Check them out. Run Ricky Run: Football, Pot and Pain by Fred Gardner "Williams, who suffers from social-anxiety disorder and was a spokesperson for the anti-depressant Paxil, said marijuana helped him once he had to stop using Paxil because it didn't agree with his diet. "'Marijuana is 10 times better for me than Paxil,' he said. Interesting. Can't be well received by Paxil's company GlaxoSmithKline (huge campaign contributors). Doesn't Ricky know that it's un-American to replace expensive, synthetic, patented chemical drugs from Pharmaceutical companies with natural plants? [Thanks to David] Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor of The Progress Report writes about the difficulties of supporting either major party given the way they are acting today and notes: The President claims to be a compassionate conservative, but where is the compassion in denying suffering cancer victims medical marijuana? The Republican opposition to legalizing medical marijuana constitutes a denial of individual freedom and intrudes into criminal law that is Constitutionally reserved for the states. It shows cruelty rather than compassion. I am continually amazed at the ease with which so many Republicans seem to have willingly given up the notion of states' rights and individual freedom and responsibility. I'm very curious to understand why that has happened. [Thanks to Scott] Weather report: getting chilly in the Netherworld. Last week, something very rare happened: DENVER -- Dana May, a chronically-ill medical marijuana patient, and his lawyer Robert J. Corry, Jr., will pick up May's marijuana growing equipment seized by the DEA earlier this year. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) earlier said this is the first time in history that the federal government has returned marijuana growing equipment it previously seized. Boy, I would have liked to watch that. [Thanks to Walter in Denver] Alaskan marijuana rights. This new development has been widely reported, but I hadn't gotten around to commenting on it. You may want to first read my post when the courts in Alaska legalized the private in-home posession of 4 ounces or less of marijuana. "With regard to possession of marijuana by adults in their home for personal use, (the law) must be interpreted to prohibit only the possession of 4 ounces or more of marijuana," wrote Court of Appeals Judge David Stewart in the conclusion of the unanimous decision. That decision was based primarily on the Alaskan state constitution clause which states: "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed..." Now, the courts have clarified that there must be reason to believe that the amount of marijuana in a home is over 4 ounces before issuing a search warrant. Well, that just makes sense. Except to prosecutors: State prosecutors argued that the earlier decisions did not legalize marijuana possession in the home. Rather, the decisions created a defense that people can use when they are charged with possession. How stupid is that? OK, so there's a law that is based on the rights of the individual to privacy in their own home and possessing marijuana for their own use. Yet, somehow prosecutors don't see a problem with going into your home after any amount of marijuana and have you, what, reclaim your privacy by showing in court that it was only an ounce? Fortunately, the court struck down that nonsensical notion. Are the prosecutors that dumb? Or that corrupt? Libby at Last One Speaks has the story that we've lost medical marijuana patient and activist Biz Ivol. She'll be missed. Also, Another DEA raid, Eddy Lepp (Medical Marijuana Producer) facing two life sentences, and more ridiculous eradication stories. Baylen at D'Alliance has a lot of good stuff as usual, including a picture of the Change the Climate ads as they made it into the Metro stations! Also, a chilling and strange story of Canadian customs activities, plus info on the decision by Drug Policy Alliance to reject Ford Foundation funding because of potential speech restrictions. Baylen also points us to an outstanding editorial in the Denver Post: It's time to rethink and reform drug laws Thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley are joining the call for sweeping reforms, including legalization, taxation and regulated sale of marijuana. America's war on drugs is now in its 90th year. Federal law first restricted access to cocaine, heroin and related drugs in 1914. Marijuana was outlawed in 1937. Now, after nine decades of largely futile and often counterproductive efforts at drug prohibition, the time has come to reevaluate and reform America's drug laws. ... Even the last-gasp argument of prohibitionists against legalizing marijuana -- the claim that today's varieties are more potent than the pot so many baby boomers puffed in the '60s and '70s -- is actually an argument for the legalization and regulation of the product. Tell major companies such as R.J. Reynolds that they can make billions of dollars growing and selling marijuana legally if they keep it within specified ranges of potency and you can be assured that their legal products will fall within the specified standards. As long as marijuana remains outlawed, there is no possibility of setting such standards. Because of the federal government's pre-emptive authority, Colorado cannot take the final step of legalizing and regulating marijuana on its own. It is time for Congress and the president to call a cease-fire in what has become not a war on drugs but a war on people who use drugs. Buckley and the wide-ranging authors of "The New Prohibition" have performed a signal service by highlighting the current drug war as a microcosm of the inevitable failures of a federal nanny-state mentality. Read the whole thing. 10:25:03 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] No surprise here. President Bush used drugs. From the Mirror, the latest on President Bush and his drug use. GEORGE W Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David, a new book claims. His wife Laura also allegedly tried cannabis in her youth. Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s. She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either." Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush "liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine". Bush has admitted being an alcoholic but, asked during the 1999 election if he did drugs, he said: "I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes. "I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honour to the office." Later an aide clarified his remarks saying Bush hadn't taken illegal drugs in the past 25 years. It's not like this news is particularly surprising. The President experimented with drugs in his youth, just like a huge portion of the American population. And as long as his drug use didn't interfere with his ability to do his job (an important question, but perhaps more important in relation to alcohol), then I have no problem with whether he did coke at Camp David 14 years ago, or in the Lincoln Bedroom yesterday. What I do have a problem with is that he (like so many politicians) think that youthful experimentation is just fine for them, but merits prison for the rest of America. That attitude is simply corrupt. And no, I refuse the arguments put forward by some that it's not hypocrisy if you discover the flaw in your own character, correct it, and then enforce it for others. Sorry, but it's still hypocrisy. You give yourself a free ride for your past (perhaps with some kind of meaningless mea culpa), but require that others do more -- they must appear in court, serve time, etc., -- and that they may not have the same opportunity to survive that youthful experimentation as you. If a political leader had murdered someone in their youth, it would be expected for them to turn themselves in for criminal charges -- not just say that this was a youthful mistake, they're sorry, they've changed, and let's crack down on murderers today. Politicians must NOT be let off the hook for their youthful drug use while writing, passing, and enforcing tough drug laws for others. And this goes for Clinton, Obama, Bush, and a host of others on both sides of the aisle. No, I'm not advocating jailing Bush. But neither is it acceptable to gloss over this issue without a real discussion of drug policy. [Thanks to BuzzFlash] 4:46:46 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment [] New Voting Guides up: Florida and Idaho, Oregon, Washington Two more voting guides are now available with endorsements (although a few races are still pending). Florida -- parts of the state are a bit depressing, particularly in the 7th, where drug war idiot and stooge Mica is running unopposed. There are also a couple of races where the candidates seem to need a little help learning about Colombia. No endorsement for Senate yet. Idaho -- only a couple of races in Idaho, yet it's interesting that not a single candidate supports medical marijuana. What's up with that? I expected a little more of a states' rights viewpoint there. I've got a volunteer working on Washington state for me, and I'm going to continue cranking these out when I can. Let me know if you want to help or if you've got a state you'd like me to tackle next. Full voting guide is here. Endorsement strategy for President will be coming shortly. Update: New Drug WarRant reader Eric asked for an Oregon voting guide, so here it is. Further Update: Washington state info is up, including all candidates in the primaries (September 14) and their positions. Final endorsements will be added after the primary election. Big thanks to THEHIM for the research work! 12:19:13 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []