|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 |
Lots going on...
 If you live in Illinois, Drug Policy Alliance has issued an action alert regarding a bill on Gov. Rod Blagojevich's desk that would make it easier for Illinoisans with nonviolent drug convictions to find jobs -- by sealing their criminal records four years after they finish their sentences.
Libby at Last One Speaks has a couple of articles you should check out: Bush to Visit Columbia, and Intoxication: It's Only Natural
Michael at Vice Squad discusses the UN report on Afghanistan's success in producing opium and heroin. Michael notes that it probably has not only driven down prices worldwide, but also helped out law enforcement numbers in quantity of seizures. The UN report expresses the "fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality." Well, duh.
Donald Lay has an interesting and well-written article in Thursday's New York Times called Rehab Justice calling for the federal government to learn from successful state drug court systems to deal with non-violent drug offenders. Gritsforbreakfast thinks he doesn't go far enough and that the feds should transfer the cases to the state courts. I support drug courts to the degree that they provide alternatives to prison, but ultimately, I do not support criminal penalties for non-violent drug "offenders" in general. [thanks also to David on that one]
Loretta at the US Marijuana Party Blog has Colbert King's article today in the Washington Post about Judge Retchin's failures in sentencing that led to the death of Jonathan Magbie. Each little detail that comes out is more damning than the last.
While I've blogged about the 55 year sentence for selling pot, Martin sent me this LA Times Editorial which put it in perspective in another way:
A 25-year-old Utah man sold eight-ounce bags of marijuana on three occasions to an undercover officer. This week he was sentenced to 55 years in prison because he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the deals.
That's more time than he would have received if he had hijacked a plane, beaten someone to death in a fight, detonated a bomb in an aircraft and provided weapons to support a foreign terrorist organization.
Scott is always sending me some of the best stuff. Here's a few that you should read, and I may blog some more about them later.
7:21:23 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 |
Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Scheduled for Thursday, November 18: Interview with Woody Harrelson, and Ed Helms does a mock interview segment with the head of the Marijuana Reform Party.
Should be fun.
10:39:27 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Retroactive punishment for $5 worth of drugs: two years of torture and deportation
NPR's All Things Considered has a disturbing and powerful two-part investigative report that is airing today and tomorrow: Immigrant Detainees Tell of Attack Dogs and Abuse
Zwerdling's first report looks at the case of Hemnauth Mohabir, a native of Guyana. In the spring of 2002, Mohabir returned to Guyana to visit his mother, who was ill. On his way back to New York that April, an immigration agent at Kennedy International Airport noticed Mohabir had a criminal record: Six years earlier, he'd been convicted of possessing about $5 worth of drugs. The judge fined him $250 for a misdemeanor and let him go.
Because of that past conviction, Mohabir was deported to Guyana and banned from ever coming back to the United States. But before returning to his native country, Mohabir was detained for almost two years at New Jersey's Passaic County Jail, where he alleges that guards taunted and beat detainees and terrorized them with dogs.
The documented evidence seems pretty clear in the report that there are significant abuses going on there.
This is sick. A past conviction for a small drug possession misdemeanor does not give our government the right to imprison someone for years and subject them to intimidation and abuse. This is not about homeland security - the $5 worth of drugs didn't make him a security threat. It's not about punishing criminals - a judge had already given him the legal penalty - a fine. It's not about evicting illegal immigrants - Mohabir was in the country legally and had a green card. And we, the taxpayers, had to pay lots of money to detain him for two years.
Can anyone give me a valid or logical reason in a free country for this kind of activity?
6:23:43 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
55 years for drug dealing
I had talked some time ago about the case of a first-time drug dealer facing a huge sentence because of mandatory minimums.
TalkLeft has the news that the sentence was finally, reluctantly given by Judge Paul Cassell -- 55 years.
The judge then urged Mr. Angelos's lawyer, Jerome H. Mooney, not only to appeal his decision but to ask President Bush for clemency once all appeals were exhausted. He also urged Congress to set aside the law that made the sentence mandatory.
What happened to the constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
6:10:23 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 |
Your tax dollars at work
Thanks to Richard Lake for the news that the government has put out a new book of Marijuana Lies and Distortions called Marijuana: Myths and Facts. It's available online as individual chapter pdf files or the entire book as a pdf.
Some of the items are absurd, and others seem to destroy the government's own position. For example:
Myth #8: My kids won't be exposed to marijuana.
I'm not sure how that's considered a myth, but the government assures us that in fact "If kids want marijuana, they can find it. More than half (55 percent) of youths age 12 to 17 responding to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2002 reported that marijuana would be easy to obtain." Of course, instead of admitting that prohibition has had a big part in that fact, they try for bizarre explanations:
Marijuana use is in some ways like a contagious disease, spreading from "infected" individuals to others around them. ... And then there's the Internet, a crowded landscape of promarijuana and drug legalization Web sites.
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would take them to blame me for young people smoking pot!
Then there's:
Myth #10: The government sends otherwise innocent people to prison for casual marijuana use
Of course, their refutation of this "myth" is that, in fact, there are only 3,600 prisoners for first time offense of simple marijuana possession in state prisons.
Can they do this without laughing? OK, first, they eliminated everything except state prisons. Then they go ahead and state that there are thousands of state prisoners who are first-time marijuana possession offenders. Their only justification is that statistically this is a small number.
Are there 3,600 corporate CEOs in prison who broke the law and fudged the books to run off with their employees' pension? Are there 3,600 politicians who violated their oath to support the constitution in prison?
So, in summary... due to prohibition, marijuana is easy for your kids to get, and the government does spend your money locking up first-time offenders whose only crime was possession of a plant. And your government also spends your money putting together useless propaganda.
10:10:22 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Raich symposium
Fortunately, Baylen made it to the Raich symposium at Georgetown yesterday, and has a full report. Great work! Sounds like an interesting and informative panel discussion.
It's interesting to hear the mix of optimism and pessimism regarding the chances Raich has in the current court. I'm confident that we have the best possible people on our side arguing the case. The briefs are stunning.
Some people express doubts on the court's willingness to legalize medical marijuana. While that is certainly a reasonable doubt by itself, the case isn't just about legalizing medical marijuana. The way this case is structured, a negative ruling by the court would, in essence, eliminate once and for all any semblance of states' rights. The question is whether the Supremes are willing to do that, and I don't think they are. Now, they may look to find some kind of compromise or weasel way out, but it'll be tough for them to kill the commerce clause restrictions for good.
Additionally, there may be renewed interest in states' rights from, of all places, the left. There's a very interesting article at Salon by Michelle Goldberg (may require reading an ad) about liberals now considering looking to states' rights as protection.
It's going to be an interesting ride.
9:38:56 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
