Thursday, July 21, 2005

Nice tunnel Link Where's Colonel Hogan when you need him? 6:48:38 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Walters is SO full of it! Over on the Drug Czar's "blog" is this dramatic statement: On Tuesday, July 19th, attempts to legalize medical marijuana failed for the second time in Iowa City, IA. The City Council ruled against the legalization of marijuana for medical use initiative to be put on the November 8th ballot. Iowa City is the latest of many cities that have taken a stance against medical marijuana and deemed it unsafe as medication. [emphasis added] Um, no. On Tuesday night, the Iowa City City Council ruled there weren't enough legitimate signatures to allow an initiative onto the November 8th ballot. I read the entire article, but didn't see anyone from Iowa City say: "Yeah, we re-counted and you're short a few signatures, so I guess that means that medical marijuana is unsafe..." John Walters, perennial wanker. 6:21:05 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

2005 Truth Report is out Speaking of NORML, they've come out with "The 2005 NORML Truth Report: Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana," -- a detailed analysis and refutation of the White House's more prominent allegations regarding marijuana and marijuana policy. (HTML version or pdf version) It's a good read, and a good report to give to your local press so they're prepared with some real facts. If anything, the report bends over backwards to be cautious in making sure every refutation it gives is backed up with hard evidence. The truth, I believe is even further away from the government's position in most cases, but I understand NORML's desire to be the one in the debate that is clearly not pushing propaganda. 5:43:49 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

U.S. District Court rules federal agents may spit on state laws and court orders Another reason to dissolve all multi-jurisdictional drug task forces. They are not accountable to local or state authority. You may recall me talking some time back about the case of Don Nord, in Denver. Arrested, yet turned out to have valid medical marijuana certification, and merely wanted his marijuana paraphernalia returned. Here's my recap from a year and a half ago: GRAMNET - the Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team (which included a DEA agent) raided a Hayden, Colorado home in mid-October. They seize some marijuana and some pipes. It turns out Don Nord is a medical marijuana user and that was his medicine (legal in Colorado). No charges are filed against Nord, and the judge orders the pipes and 2 ounces of marijuana returned for his medical use. The officers had given the marijuana to the DEA, and the DEA refused to return it. The judge cited the officers for contempt and directed them to appear in court at 1:30 pm February 2 "to show why they should not be punished for defying the court order." The U.S. Attorney's office is using taxpayer money and sending lawyers to defend the DEA agent against the contempt citation... and now The U.S. Attorney's office is trying to get the case moved to federal court and contempt charges dropped. Well, guess what? According to NORML: Denver, CO: A US District Court judge ruled yesterday that federal law enforcement officers cannot be held in contempt for failing to follow a state judge's order to return medical cannabis and grow equipment seized from a state-licensed patient. "I find that (the agents) were performing acts that were authorized or that they reasonably believed were authorized by valid federal law," US District Court Judge Walker Miller decided. Just say NO to the involvement of federal drug agents in your local affairs. 5:37:35 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Possible jury nullification attempt? Interesting. Read the details of this case. An 18-year-old faces a controversial "school-zone" mandatory prison term for selling pot. (The Massachussetts "school-zones" cover just about everything.) The defense attorney apparently raised enough questions about entrapment and that the severity of the sentence was extreme, that the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. Pay attention to this, folks. We may see a whole lot more of this in the future. If the Supreme Court continues to rule against the individual (I don't know enough about nominee Roberts yet to have a strong opinion, but I was concerned to hear that he had a record that showed deference to the powers of the administration), and if the legislature continues to ignore the will of their consitutents as it relates to drug policy, and if the administration continues to enjoy waging war against its own citizens, then eventually, the citizens will have to take charge of justice themselves. And they have that ability, that right -- in fact, that responsibility -- in the jury box. [Thanks to Herb] 4:51:10 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Still time to fight to repeal the HEA financial aid provision The debate in committee has spilled over to today, so you can still call if you're in one of the districts listed below. The New York Times came out with a dynamite editorial on the subject: One of the most irrational initiatives in the war on crime was a decision by Congress in the 1990's to cut off some ex-offenders from federal education aid. It's highly unlikely that anyone has been deterred from lawbreaking as a result. But if people who have paid their debts to society and are seeking new starts are denied education aid, they could well be locked out of the new economy and sent right back through the revolving door into prison. Congress is revisiting a particularly onerous law under which tens of thousands of students have been turned down for federal grants and loans because of drug offenses, some of them minor and as much as a decade old. A proposed change in the law would improve the picture slightly. It is aimed at penalizing students who commit drug-related crimes while receiving federal aid. It would be better to repeal the provision entirely, as many observers have suggested. Law enforcement officials have learned over and over again that ex-offenders who get an education and find jobs are far less likely to end up back behind bars. Barring former offenders from school aid makes it virtually impossible for them to get the necessary schooling for joining the mainstream. The law has a disproportionate impact on poor and minority communities, where the drug trade is rampant and young men often have run-ins with the law before they get their lives on track. By narrowing access to affordable education, the federal government further diminishes the prospects of young people who are already at risk of becoming lifetime burdens to society. Members of Congress are understandably hesitant to cast votes that might brand them as being "soft on crime." But it doesn't take a genius to see that barring young offenders from college leads to more crime - not less. Student aid was never intended for use as a law enforcement weapon. Any attempt to employ it that way will inevitably yield perverse and unfair results. They're exactly right on this one. Great editorial. One of the things that's bugged me about this whole issue is the irrelevant mean-spiritedness of people like Souder. Take this comment by his spokesperson: "Students who receive taxpayer dollars to go to college are not making the most of it by taking drugs," Green said. "It's one thing if they're paying for their education or if their parents are paying for it, but it's unfair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a student with a drug habit." First, this is not about students with a drug habit -- it's about students who were caught smoking a joint. Second, this provision does absolutely nothing to insure that students are "making the most of it." I know students who smoke pot regularly who get straight A's and are leaders on campus. On the other hand, I know students who waste their time getting drunk, playing computer games, or watching "All My Children" who are struggling with their classwork. Federal financial aid already has an effective provision to make sure students are getting the most out of college. It's called grades. If your GPA falls below a certain point, you lose your financial aid, regardless of whether it's because you're smoking pot, or watching the Cartoon Network all day. The HEA provision is wrong, and counter-productive, and I hope it's completely repealed. 7:45:48 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []