Drug WarRant Saturday, October 8, 2005 Gonzales v. Oregon Casey gently reminded me today that I hadn't talked about Gonzales v. Oregon. [For those unaware of the case: Oregon passed a law allowing physicians, at the request of terminally ill patients in certain circumstances, to prescribe a specific drug mix that would allow them to peacefully die. Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped in and said that if any doctors did so, he would revoke their license to handle drugs listed in the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The State of Oregon appealed to the Supreme Court. This is a case that involves both the reach of the CSA and also states' rights and commerce clause issues. Oral arguments were heard last week.] I haven't talked about it much recently because, quite frankly, I put quite a lot of effort and anticipation into Raich, and even though I knew the odds were likely against my prediction, it was a bitter disappointment when SCOTUS ruled against us. I'm not prepared to get that attached to Gonzales v. Oregon. I do think it's an important case (particularly as it relates to the CSA and states' rights), and I hope Oregon wins (Radley Balko's view on the subject is close to mine). But in general, I'm mostly interested in waiting until the decision and analyzing the votes and opinions. This is the first case heard by new Chief Justice John Roberts, and his opinion in the case may say a lot about what we can expect from him in the future (early reports are not good based on his questioning -- Tom Goldstein notes that "the federalism 'revolution' was actually more of a 'petty insurrection' and George Bush has now officially put it down with the change from WHR to JGR.") Oregon is not the same as Raich, and there is some reason to believe that Oregon may prevail. Most reliable predictions I've seen, put it at a slight win for Oregon, or a 4-4 tie if O'Connor leaves before the decision. A nice overview of the oral arguments is presented in They're Dying in Oregon Should the Supreme Court save them? by Emily Bazelon in Slate. It shows just how tricky the case is and both attorneys were dancing around some nasty potholes. At one point, the government's attorney Paul Clement tried to bring in Raich, noting that the Supreme Court ruled last term that states didn't have the authority to prescribe marijuana. Then Ginsburg snatches the lifeboat away. "But Congress said when it made a drug Schedule I, 'No. Never,' " she says. "With Schedule II, it's OK with a doctor's prescription." Marijuana is definitely Schedule I. If Clement loses, this exchange will probably be why. The drugs that doctors prescribe to assist suicide are legal. Marijuana is illegal. The attorney general who is trying to nab Oregon doctors with a law that says nothing about assisted suicide is one executive appointee. Congress that passed a law explicitly criminalizing pot is the whole elected legislature. And this is the point where I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It may end up that states can prescribe lethal drugs because the federal government has classified them less "bad" than marijuana. If Oregon succeeds, then our government will have determined that states do not have the right to save lives (with pot), but they can end them (with Schedule II drugs). Excuse me while my head explodes. This does, however, emphasize the importance of drug policy reformers continuing the fight to get marijuana re-scheduled (Once marijuana is no longer Schedule I, Raich becomes essentially irrelevant, and Oregon may become a partial precedent for deciding future medical marijuana cases.) And another important point. We cannot depend on the Supreme Court to do our work for us. Raich taught us that. It would have been easier if SCOTUS had told the executive and legislature that we have rights. But remember that SCOTUS didn't make the laws or go after medical marijuana patients. If it wasn't for legislators and administrations tossing away the constitution in their quest for power over us, there would't have been a Raich or Oregon. We need to work to change those who make and enforce the laws (and we can -- more on that later), as well as continuing the pressure on federal agencies. For more detailed analyses of Gonzales v. Oregon, see these at SCOTUS blog by Tom Goldstein and Lyle Denniston. Also read Does Pot Lead to Suicide for Supreme Court Justices? Vague Commerce Clause precedents give free rein to personal preferences. by Jacob Sullum. 2:01:24 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Thursday, October 6, 2005 Keep an eye on Alabama Remember that Loretta Nall has announced that she's running for Governor of Alabama? Well, I know some of you are saying, "Yeah, but it's not like she has a chance or anything -- and the press will just dismiss her as some hippy pothead." Not so fast. While it's true that her chances of winning are slim, there's a really good chance that she could get some real visibility. And as far as being considered a wacko fringe candidate? Not a chance, standing next to Judge Roy Moore (of Ten Commandments fame, seen here autographing his new book") and soon-to-be-indicted Don Siegelman. This race is going to bring out the press for the entertainment value alone. It's going to be worth watching, and supporting. 11:26:23 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, October 5, 2005 Stupid media Check out the beginning of this AP article: PUERTO ARTURO, Colombia - Cocaine is killing the great nature parks of Colombia. Government spraying of coca plant killer is driving growers and traffickers out of their usual territory into national parks where spraying is banned. Here they are burning thousands of acres of virgin rain forest and poisoning rivers with chemicals. Now the government faces a painful dilemma: to spray weedkiller would be devastating, but the impact of coca-growing is increasingly destructive. The question is, which is worse? What's wrong with this article? First, the statement "Cocaine is killing the great nature parks of Colombia." No. Drug traffickers are destroying the parks, not cocaine. And why? Because the eradication program has pushed them to these locations. Now this doesn't in any way excuse the actions of the traffickers, or make what they do right. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this would happen. A child could tell you. It's the traffickers fault that the parks are being destroyed, but we could have prevented it if we didn't blindly follow the god of prohibition. Now let's take a look at another part of that quote: Now the government faces a painful dilemma: to spray weedkiller would be devastating, but the impact of coca-growing is increasingly destructive. The question is, which is worse? Here AP invents a fantasy set of alternatives. In the author's mind, there are two options: Have plentiful cocaine, or Spray destructive weed-killer But those alternatives don't actually exist. Years of "eradication" have shown that there has been no impact on cocaine availability. So in actuality, the alternatives are: Have plentiful cocaine or Spray destructive weed-killer and have plentiful cocaine Now which one makes more sense? On Sunday, US Ambassador William Wood urged Colombia to spray weed killer in the parks. No surprise there. If we don't care about the lives of the farmers and their crops and ecosystem, why should we care about... Colombia is home to about 15 percent of all the world's plant species and one of its most diverse arrays of amphibians, mammals and birds. Dozens of species that populate its jungles and Andes mountains exist nowhere else on the planet. One of the richest is the Sierra Macarena National Park, where monkeys clamber across the jungle canopy and big cats prowl. First we create a set of conditions that encourage traffickers to damage the parks. Then we go in and finish the job with weed killer. Aren't we the smart ones. 12:58:35 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, October 4, 2005 Drug War not helpful in Terrorism Fight Interesting analysis in the Bangkok Post regarding terrorism and Southeast Asia includes this bit: Thailand faces a hard fix in the South because trust of the government has nose-dived since the bloody anti-drug campaign that summarily denied 2,500 living, breathing Thai citizens of the most important human right: the right to life itself. There is considerable anecdotal evidence that the ill-conceived drug war in 2003 was used to terrify and settle scores, and nowhere more dangerously so than in southern Thailand, which erupted into open rebellion shortly afterwards. While the links between the drug war and the subsequent anti-state violence in the South are not clear, further examination might shed light on how law and order led to such anarchy and chaos. Yeah, I'd like to see some further examination, too. 1:03:11 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Monday, October 3, 2005 Harriet Miers, Supreme Court Justice? This is certainly the surprise nomination. Bush's personal lawyer, charges of cronyism, early positive statements from Daily Kos and Harry Reid, conservative bloggers' heads explode, and threats of a Republican filibuster? It's hard to know what to think. However, (via Volokh Conspiracy) &c. blog notes this piece of writing from Harriet Miers: [...] The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.[...] Additionally, we are reminded that success in fighting crime in our nation is more than treating symptoms. We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes. All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities. We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction. Now, while drug laws are not specifically mentioned, it seems hopeful that she, at least at one time, believed that giving up rights to fight crime was not the answer. 7:03:04 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Action Alert: Souder is at it again Via Drug Policy Alliance: Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has introduced a bill that would subject thousands of low-level, nonviolent methamphetamine offenders to long mandatory minimum prison sentences. These penalties are even worse than the ones enacted for crack in the 1980s. Breaking up families and wasting taxpayer dollars will do nothing to reduce the problems associated with methamphetamine abuse. Please click on the link below to take action. We need to flood Congress with faxes and emails. Souder's goal is to pass his bill before Thanksgiving. The last time we went toe-to-toe with Souder, we stopped his plan to let the White House spend taxpayer money on "attack" ads against marijuana reform ballot measures and Congressional candidates who support reform. With your help we will beat him this time too! Take action now. Souder's bill, the Meth Epidemic Elimination Act, would lower the amount of methamphetamine it takes to get a five-year mandatory sentence from 5 grams to 3 grams (about a sugar packet's worth). It would lower the amount of methamphetamine it takes to get a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence from 50 grams to 5 grams (about a thimbelful). These are even worse than the penalties enacted for crack cocaine in the 1980s, which devastated tens of thousands of families and wasted tens of billions of dollars. Although the new mandatory minimums would not apply to simple possession, they would be so low that many methamphetamine users would be charged with "possession with intent to distribute" just for possessing a weekend's worth of methamphetamine. Congressman Souder is the biggest drug war extremist in Congress. He controls a key Congressional Committee and is at the center of all drug war evil. His 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act, for instance, has kept more than 160,000 Americans from getting college aid because of drug convictions. Two years ago he tried to give the White House the ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money on "attack" ads against marijuana reform ballot measures and Congressional candidates who support reform. We beat him back and stopped that proposal, along with a proposal that would have allowed the White House to punish states that enact medical marijuana laws. I had already commented on the title (Elimination?) earlier, but I didn't know all the details of the bill then. Naturally, if it comes from Souder, it's got to be a mess. We must stop Souder. Regardless of your views on meth (and I think it can be a pretty dangerous drug if abused), excessive madatory minimums don't work. They're costly to taxpayers and society. This will cause tons of problems for years to come if it passes (and you know that Congress are too whimpy to vote down so-called "tough on drugs" measures. Next. It's time to get rid of people like Souder and Sensenbrenner. I don't mean shoot them or anything. But these sado-moralists are heads of crucial committees. We need to vote them out of office, or change the party in the House so they're no longer committee chairs. 5:40:30 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Sunday, October 2, 2005 Discussion on steroids... (No, not a discussion about steroids...) For those who haven't been following, the discussion on the Drug War Victims page that was mentioned a couple of posts back has been continuing at amazing length (and non-stop). I learned that this blogging software has a limit of 100 comments on a post, so I've had to create additional pages to get more commenting room. It's quite an entertaining debate. For the Prohibitionists: Jake -- aligned with, connected with, or working with the police force involved in the Hirko case. Very animated and prolific writer. For the Drug Policy Reformers: Kaptinemo Hope muleskinner Sukoi runruff Go to this page and read the first 200 comments and then dive into the comments window at the bottom for the up-to-the-moment discussion. 11:38:44 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []