Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Poll supports medical marijuana Looks clear to me: A random sample of 732 registered voters nationwide was interviewed by telephone June 8-11, 2005 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C. Margin for error is plus or minus 3.7%. The survey was commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project. Q: Should the federal government prosecute medical marijuana patients now that it has been given the okay to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court? Total Men Women <45 45+ Dems Reps Independents Yes 16% 19% 13% 14% 18% 12% 19% 17% No 68% 70% 66% 74% 64% 73% 63% 68% Not Sure 16% 11% 21% 12% 18% 15% 18% 15% Q: Do you think adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor recommends it, or do you think that marijuana should remain illegal even for medical purposes? Total Men Women <45 45+ Dems Reps Independents Legal 65% 67% 63% 71% 61% 77% 52% 66% Illegal 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 9% 34% 17% Undecided 15% 13% 17% 9% 19% 14% 14% 17% Gee, I wonder if Congress will care? 6:58:58 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Hawaii situation cleared up Good job, ACLU. U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo last week threatened to arrest doctors in Hawaii who recommend marijuana to their patients, based on his warped and completely inaccurate interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Raich. The ACLU threatened legal action last week in a letter sent to Kubo, pointing out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year in Walters v. Conant that doctors have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to recommend and discuss medical marijuana with patients. The U.S. Supreme Court let stand the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2004 by denying the federal government's request for review. [...] The ACLU's letter pointed out that, contrary to Kubo's earlier statements, the Raich ruling did not address any issues related to the continued validity of state medical marijuana laws or doctors' rights to recommend medical marijuana. It was limited to the federal government's power under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to enforce federal marijuana laws against individual patients and caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. After receiving the ACLU's letter, Kubo was quoted in the Honolulu Advertiser as stating that the federal government would not seek from the state a list of doctors who certify marijuana use for their patients or prosecute physicians because they recommend the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Boy, he was just itching to go after those doctors, wasn't he? Couldn't even be bothered to get a rudimentary interpretation of the decision before he started his threats? This jerk is a U.S. Attorney? He doesn't have dangerous criminals to go after, but instead gets his kicks out of intimidating doctors? 6:35:08 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Mexico gets results from its drug war ... if by results you mean massive corruption, gunfights in the streets, people afraid, and an economy dependent on criminals. Reuters is reporting Tourists desert town in Mexico drug war NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico (Reuters) - A brutal drug war that has claimed scores of lives and left this Mexican city on the Texas border without a police force is scaring away U.S. visitors, local traders said. Mexican troops and federal police took over Nuevo Laredo, a city just across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas, to curb a drug war that has killed 45 people and set off an armed clash between police. Heavily armed troops rumbled through the city for a second day on Tuesday. Tourist bars and craft markets are nearly empty as the usually steady flow of U.S. day-trippers seeking a T-shirt and a margarita has slowed to a trickle. That's the situation today, but for a better look at the historical background, check out Big sweeps have yielded few benefits: Long-term effect on drug trade has been virtually nil, experts say by Tracey Eaton in the Dallas Morning News. Since the 1970s, Mexican authorities have periodically launched splashy anti-drug operations like the one now being carried out in Nuevo Laredo and 13 other cities. But these high-profile raids -- often involving hundreds of federal agents and soldiers -- have had virtually no long-term impact, drug-trade specialists say. "The whole history of anti-drug sweeps in Mexico is that eventually the sweepers get converted," said Charles Bowden, author of Down by the River and other acclaimed books about the drug business. "They join the traffickers. Nothing changes except there are more drugs -- and they're cheaper." [...] Don Henry Ford, author of Contrabando: Confessions of a Drug-Smuggling Texas Cowboy, said Mexico's drug economy has multiplied since the 1980s, when he smuggled marijuana. "The money is just too big now," he said. "There's no way the government's going to stop it. And they can't afford to. If all that money were to dry up, it would literally cause a wave of people trying to get out of there. It would break the nation." Complicating matters: Many of those in law enforcement are corrupt, he said. After the Mexican army raided his marijuana plantation in the 1980s, he said, soldiers forced the field workers to finish packaging the drugs so they'd have an easier time reselling it later. It's a depressing and realistic picture of what prohibition really looks like. Said Celerino "Cele" Castillo, a former 12-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration: "We are more addicted to drug money than we are to drugs." 6:06:10 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

You can still make a difference. The House won't get to Hinchey/Rohrabacher amendment until tomorrow (Wednesday), so there's still time to act. The best bet is to make a phone call. Tell them to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to the Justice Appropriations bill. Tell them there are more important things for your federal tax dollars to do than harrass sick people who are following state law. 5:10:37 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

An interesting day on C-Span It's time to act. If you haven't already, you need to contact your Congressperson and have them support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment to the Justice Appropriations bill. At this point, the best way to have an impact is to call their office and tell the staff person. Remember, this is an amendment to the appropriations bill that would state that no federal money can be used to go after medical marijuana patients (in states that have medical marijuana laws) if they are complying with state law. [This is how the votes went in 2003 and 2004 (an Aye vote was good).] The amendment is likely to be debated today. While passage of the amendment is unfortunately still unlikely, we have the best chance we've ever had, coming right after the Supreme Court decision and all the press coverage and opinion polls. Also, this is the first time that the amendment itself has gotten some publicity. An AP wire story came out yesterday on it: Medical marijuana proponents seek House vote Tuesday. That story makes it clear that Mark Souder will be leading the effort to defeat the amendment (no surprise). Mark Souder has already been out on the House floor this morning. The House has started discussion on the Justice Appropriations Bill (carried on C-Span), mostly dealing with the rules, so far. But even so, drug war issues have been mentioned. Souder got up and almost started shouting about the fact that the Appropriations bill doesn't have enough drug war money. That's right, Republican Mark Souder thinks the current administration is soft on drugs and said he is "appalled at the President's approach to drug policy." He particularly complained about the reduction of certain programs (like the Byrne grant for drug task forces) with colorful language like: "We're looking at almost a 50% whacking in some of these categories." The thing is, these were horrible programs, full of corruption, that needed to be ended. But the Bush administration didn't just cut their funding - it moved the money to other areas of the drug war so that the entire drug policy budget actually increased. Now Souder and others are trying to restore the cuts. The House version of the appropriations bill already puts $348 million back into the Byrne grants and $60 million back into Meth Hotspots program, and Souder announced he will try for more through the amendment process. Of course, this will be done without reducing any of the amount that the President's budget shifted to other areas, so we could end up with a massive increase in the overall drug policy budget... could that have been the plan? Update: So far, the leaders of the discussion about the bill (from both parties) are bragging in program after program about how much additional drug war funding they have added to the bill beyond what the administration asked. Update 2: We're in the amendment phase of the discussion -- the amendments are being discussed, but the votes held to a later time. There are also some amendments that are offered just to have the opportunity to bring up a point and then withdrawn. Three amendments have pushed for additional funding for federal law enforcement (read "drug") grants to local entities (through increasing taxes, cutting NASA, or cutting across the board). Davis (IL) had a nice discussion amendment highlighting the importance of helping ex-cons transition into the work force. Hinchey hasn't appeared yet. Update 3: Buzzword today seems to be "meth." Everybody's using the scourge of meth to ask for more funding for federal law enforcement grants. Two more amendments looking for increased funding for COPS, one taking money from the FBI to do it, and another taking money from the Census to do it. Update 4: Wow! Now they're asking for more money for Byrne JAG grants by taking money away from legal assistance for the poor! That's just outrageous. There must be some very powerful lobbying being done by law enforcement for there to be this many amendments on essentially the same subject. [note: idiot Rep. Cliff Stearns actually said that if we fund the Byrne grants, the poor won't need legal assistance because there will no longer be any crime! And he asked the representatives to join him and "be on the side of the angels."] Update 4 pm Eastern: They're now going to be voting on all the amendments that have been discussed so far, so there's a break in the action while the members show up on the floor and vote on all of these. Hinchey hasn't come up yet. Results of voting on the first amendments that related to drug war: Amendment offered by Mr. Obey. An amendment to increase funding for State and local law enforcement. The increase is offset by a reduction in funding for NASA. Failed. Amendment offered by Mr. Terry. An amendment numbered 20 printed in the Congressional Record to increase funding for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. The increase is offset by making an across-the-board cut in discretionary spending of 0.448%. Failed. Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert. An amendment numbered 12 printed in the Congressional Record to increase funding for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs by $78.3 million. Amendment offsets the increase by reducing funds for salaries and expenses at the FBI by $50 million, reducing salaries and expenses at the Drug Enforcement Administration by $11.7 million, and by reducing funding for international broadcasting operations by $16.6 million. Failed. Amendment offered by Mr. Baird. An amendment to increase funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services by $10 million. Amendment also seeks to increase funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration by $10 million. Amendment reduces funding for the 2010 decennial census by $10 million. Amendment also seeks to reduce funding for the salaries and expenses of the Bureau of the Census by $10 million. Passed. Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns. An amendment numbered 16 printed in the Congressional Record which seeks to increase funding for the Justice Assistance Program by $10 million. Amendment seeks to reduce funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $10 million. Failed. Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett (NJ). An amendment to increase funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program by $21,947,600. Passed by voice vote. Update on Hinchey: In a bit of housekeeping on the bill, it was announced that the Hinchey amendment will get 30 minutes of debate (15 minutes per side) when it comes up. Also, it appears that there are a ton of amendments left to debate. It's likely that this may continue as far as Thursday (certainly all day tomorrow). 11:18:53 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []