Sunday, September 18, 2005

Downing Street's Secret Drugs Report Go see Daksya's new blog, Psychotonic. He's done a great job of laying out the Downing Street Report (something he had sent to me, but I had not gotten around to posting). Here it is in four installments: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 10:58:26 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

The Return of Reefer Madness At Salon, Maia Szalavitz takes on the ONDCP's advertising campaigns, including some of the borderline and outright lies about mental illness, depression, and cancer. Nothing new to those of us who follow this regularly, and it's not particularly compelling reading, but still nice to see it as the lead article on Salon.com. Salon once was a real leader in this area (particularly with the Daniel Forbes investigative reporting and Arianna Huffington's opinion pieces back in 2000), but needs to get more regularly involved in exposing the drug war. 10:41:47 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Just a simple case of mistaken identity? Via Last One Speaks and US Marijuana Party, comes this gem. So here's the deal... Cops think they see marijuana plants in a back yard. They take pictures They show the pictures to the district attorney The district attorney takes a search warrant application to a judge The judge signs it Officers search the property During the search, "at least 10 officers went through the Smiths' house, checking drawers and closets and videotaping everything" Now, in a free society, if we weren't already used to the complete surrender of rights to this obsession over a plant, this would already seem to be a bizarre story. But wait! There's more... It was the former mayor's house, and the back yard is where the former mayor's wife entertained local senior citizen groups The plants were actually sunflowers, not marijuana The search took place in Bel Aire, Kansas Kansas is the Sunflower State Even if none of the plants were blooming, sunflower leaves aren't in the least bit similar to marijuana leaves. Now this is a silly story -- a funny story. But it shouldn't be. It should be a really f*cking scary story. The fact is that we've reached a point in the drug war where searching a home is considered a routine function, not demanding diligence or competence. A decision to send 10 men through your house videotaping your closets and drawers is not one to be taken lightly. Update: Here's another article, including actual picture of the plants (picture at right is from that photo by Les Anderson of the Ark Valley News). One of the things we learn is that the officers actually still thought it was marijuana after searching the place and took some with them! The whole article is incredible. Read it all. The more details you read, the more pissed off you'll get. Here's a sample: When the officers were in their home, she kept trying to find out why the officers were searching it. "I asked the police chief (Chris Ludiker), 'Why would you think this?'" she said. "You know us," she told him. "My husband hired you when he was mayor. We've lived here 40 years in the same house. Why would you think this? We're senior citizens." Smith, a marriage and family counselor in Wichita, said the officers questioned her and her husband about why they had more than two vehicles. She said he told her that two people didn't need more than two vehicles. "One of them is my Jeep," she said. "I drive my Jeep to Utah every year when we go backpacking there. We've gone there with our family for 15 or 16 years. I really enjoy driving my Jeep on trips." The officers asked them "over and over," Smith said, about whether they had someone living there with them. "They said younger men had been seen going into our house," she said. "I told them we had two sons, the one in Wilson who gave me the seeds and the other one who is an electrician in El Dorado. One visited us on July Fourth, and one was here overnight over Labor Day weekend. There hasn't been anyone else here." Smith said Ludiker also referred to the sign on their fence near the gate to the back yard. The sign reads "Guard dog on duty." A separate sign under that sign reads "No trespassing." "I told him it was a joke--that's why I bought it," she said. "All we have is our little dog. He asked about other dogs. There aren't any." When their family members initially heard about the drug raid, Smith said they laughed. Then they got mad. That's right. Get mad! And here's more info on the sunflower plant. [Thanks, Tom] 6:30:30 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Asset Forfeiture Abuse The Las Vegas Review Journal nails Boulder City Attorney David Olsen in this scathing editorial Southern Nevada has a new general in the drug war: Boulder City Attorney David Olsen. And Mr. Olsen isn't concerned about sacrificing freedom to wage his campaign. Mr. Olsen is attempting to use the state's civil forfeiture laws to seize the home of Cynthia Warren, a Boulder City resident who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor drug charge for possessing six marijuana plants. Although Ms. Warren has not been convicted of selling illegal drugs, Mr. Olsen is convinced she's a six-figure drug dealer with a home-based operation that threatens his community. So why isn't Mr. Olsen making sure this 55-year-old woman is locked up with pushers from the Rollin' 60s and the Kingsmen? Why didn't the city orchestrate a sting to ensnare this dealer during a big sale? Because the evidence wasn't there.[...] No matter. Mr. Olsen wants her house. "I'm not concerned about the criminal charges against her," he said. "This doesn't have anything to do with her criminal case."[...] Mr. Olsen should drop the civil case. If he won't, District Judge Michael Cherry should shred it for him. Then lawmakers should reform state forfeiture laws to prevent such blatant abuses in the future. A good start. David Olsen may just end up being such an idiot that he'll help the cause of asset forfeiture reform. 12:22:40 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Drug War and Class War In today's Providence Journal, a good read by Froma Harrop [...]Possession of cocaine, a felony, did not interfere with [George W. Bush or Lincoln Chaffee's] Ivy League education. Nor did it stop them from seeking and attaining high public office. Today, taxpayers cover both men's salaries and health-care costs, and will eventually provide their government pensions. All, apparently, is forgiven. But when some low-income kid gets convicted of smoking a joint (a misdemeanor), America gathers up its moral indignation and strips him of his federal student loan. This is a sick double standard, and it will continue unless changes are made in the Higher Education Act. The article really nails the problems with the Higher Education Act financial aid provision. As things now stand, police swoop down on some college party and drag off the pot-smoking kids. Come the next semester, rich daddies write the usual checks, and the children of doctors, lawyers and U.S. presidents are back in class. Poor and working-class students go home. So far, 175,000 young people have lost federal student aid because of the Drug Provision. The whole War on Drugs is a lesson in class discrimination. "A ton of drugs are taken by middle-class kids," says Tom Angell, a director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "Middle- and upper-class people often don't get caught. And they can afford good lawyers to avoid a conviction in the first place." Way to go, Tom. 11:47:39 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []