Drug WarRant Friday, November 4, 2005 A new blog! Check out the brand new group blog: DARE Generation Diary (another fine effort from SSDP) An outstanding group of contributors from a wonderful organization. I expect great things. (The pressure's on, Tom). 11:00:59 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Vancouver calls for end to prohibition From Cannabis Culture yesterday: Today the Vancouver City Council unanimously adopted "Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substance Use," a plan that, among other things, calls for an end to prohibition and the regulated distribution of cannabis. [...] The prevention plan covers a wide range of substances. It includes recommendations on legal and currently-illegal substances. Importantly, the plan represents a major push forward on one of Vancouver's "Four Pillars" of drug policy: prevention. Worthy of note is that the plan's definition of prevention deems it to be preventing harm, not simply preventing use. In fact, the plan recognizes the human reality that: "Substance use occurs along a spectrum from beneficial, to non-problematic or casual use, through to problematic or harmful use." The concept of a spectrum of use is one key part of the underlying philosophy of the plan. Another is the recognition that regulated markets are an essential part of preventing harm to our society. According to the Vancouver Plan: "The intent of creating regulated markets for currently illegal substances is to better control their public availability. Regulated markets support the idea that 'No drug is made safer left in the hands of organized criminals and unregulated dealers.'" The full plan is available here (pdf). Now I don't agree with everything in the plan, but Vancouver is clearly on a strong track, separating use from abuse, recognizing the importance of harm reduction and realizing that prohibition is ineffective. [Thanks, Tom] 10:54:45 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Thursday, November 3, 2005 San Diego supervisors defy voters and state I haven't commented much on the medical marijuana situation in California recently. It's a complex situation made much less coherent by the flawed Raich decision (or more accurately, by the federal government's unwillingness to allow the State of California to administer its own laws regarding the medical needs of its citizens). Medical marijuana is still the law of the state, and the state is trying to set up procedures to adhere to the law (although that becomes complicated as well -- if you set up ID cards to properly handle medical marijuana distribution, does that set the patient up for potential federal harrassment?) The problem is, though, that the conflict between the state and the feds is emboldening some local units of government into disregarding state law -- another unsettling and de-stabilizing by-product of a disfunctional federal policy about a relatively harmless plant. California Senate Bill 420 takes effect in December and sets up a regulated system for medical marijuana and requires all counties to follow the procedures for patient applications, etc. On Tuesday, the San Diego County Supervisors refused: Flouting state law, county supervisors yesterday refused to implement a program providing identification cards that would help medical marijuana users avoid arrest. County attorneys warned supervisors that their vote will almost certainly plunge the county into costly and unwinnable litigation. Their response: Bring it on. They are breaking state law and therefore potentially subjecting the county residents to cost of large lawsuits simply because they don't agree with medical marijuana. And check out this bizarre reasoning: "After spending thousands and thousands of community enhancement dollars to go after gangs and drug dealers, I think it would be tremendous hypocrisy to vote for this," Supervisor Bill Horn said. "I look forward to the lawsuit when it happens." What's up, San Diego? How did these idiots become Supervisors? Can you do something about that, please? [Thanks, nhop and Scott] 7:48:30 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, November 2, 2005 Pot case up in smoke Link A low-level drug charge against a Decatur man has been dismissed after evidence was destroyed by the Indiana State Police lab before the trial. State police blamed the error on a miscommunication and said it was an isolated occurrence. [...] Lab employees destroyed the evidence in Huffine's case after reading a supplemental report written by the trooper, where he had checked off a box indicating that the evidence was of no value and could be destroyed, said Sgt. Rodger Popplewell, state police spokesman. [...] In Huffine's case, the box ordering the destruction of the evidence was checked accidentally and the lab believed it was OK to destroy it, Popplewell said. No mention was given as to the method of destruction... 7:46:12 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Marijuana now legal in Denver... sort of The citizens of Denver, Colorado voted yesterday to make possession of less than an ounce of marijuana non-punishable under city ordinances. At MPP: The initiative's language puts the city on record in support of treating private, adult use and possession of marijuana "in the same manner as the private use and possession of alcohol. From a practical standpoint, very little changed, as marijuana is still illegal under state law and that's how arrests would be prosecuted (so Denver residents should not rush out and start smoking pot in public). However, from a symbolic standpoint, this is pretty big, and something worth celebrating. "A few years from now, this vote may well be seen as the proverbial 'tipping point,' the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the U.S.," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "Replacing the failed policy of prohibition with common-sense taxation and regulation of marijuana has become a thoroughly mainstream issue, with the voters of two major U.S. cities endorsing such an approach within one year. Even the Denver Post, which opposed I-100, said in its editorial, 'We think it probably would be preferable for the state and federal governments to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana use.' "Last year, there were more than three-quarters of a million marijuana arrests, an all-time record," Kampia added. "That's equivalent to arresting every man, woman, and child in the state of Wyoming plus every man, woman, and child in St. Paul, Minnesota. The public understands that this simply makes no sense. Regulating marijuana will take money out of the pockets of criminals and free police to go after violent crime, and the voters of Denver took their first step in that direction today." Even if we have to do it one state at a time, one city at a time, or just convince one person at a time, I believe that momentum will eventually build enough to end marijuana prohibition. 12:52:47 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, November 1, 2005 Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal At TalkLeft... The Supreme Court heard arguments today in the case of a New Mexican religious sect that wants to be allowed to drink a hallucinogenic tea at ceremonies twice a month. The justices were critical of the Bush administration's position that drug laws forbidding such use trumps the right of the sect to practice its religion. John Roberts and Sandra Day O'Connor seemed particularly harsh on the Government. Nancy Hollander of Albuquerque argued for the sect. At SCOTUSblog: A small religious band of about 140 adherents, locked in a high-stakes legal battle with federal drug enforcers, appeared on Tuesday to be nearing at least a partial victory in the Supreme Court. The government's no-exception, zero-tolerance approach to the religious use of a hallucinogen ran into considerable skepticism among the Justices. Only one, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, seemed ready to go most of the way to support the government side. As far as I'm aware, this is one of the two most important drug war-related cases of this term (the other being Gonzales v. Oregon). Now this one also has freedom of religion issues, so it isn't strictly drug war, but it does relate to how absolute the power of the federal government is in the area of drug control. Any chinks in their armor would be a good sign. Will it be a 4-4 tie? Make your predictions here. 10:56:17 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Monday, October 31, 2005 Early reports on Alito not promising I'm trying to get a little bit of an early handle on our new Supreme Court nominee. What I've seen hasn't been exactly reassuring. First thing I saw was this rather sensational item: Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. Turns out after actually reading the entire decision that it was much more complex than indicated in the blurb and involved some technicalities. I wouldn't say that I agree with Alito's reasoning in the case, but it's not as over the top as it seems. However, then there's this report at USA Today. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says. That's very scary. Lustberg, however, loses a point with me in his use of the phrase "prisoners' and criminals' rights." I hope he's not referring to the 4th Amendment there, because the 4th Amendment is not criminals' rights, but rather citizens' rights and the rights of the accused (both guilty and innocent). (In fact, the only part of the bill of rights that is specifically for "criminals' rights" is part of the 8th Amendment.) It really disturbs me to hear basic core American rights and principles referred to as "criminals' rights." TalkLeft has a lot more on Alito's 'prosecutorial' approach. I'm going to keep looking (and please send me anything you find about his drug war views), but I'm not hopeful. All the more reason to concentrate on changing the lawmakers. 5:12:14 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Liberalism's Brain on Drugs At some point, everyone ought to throw his or her political theory -- whatever it is -- up against the wall of reality to see if it sticks. I ran smack into that wall when the state shackled Mark, one of my best friends, and hauled him off to a dank, violent, maximum-security prison for a 17-year stay. His crime: possession of a spoonful of cocaine, some of which they said he intended to distribute. That's the beginning of a good article by Ryan Grim in today's In These Times. I've always believed that we live in a fundamentally liberal society that can trace its way back to enlightenment thinkers like Jefferson, Madison, Locke, Mill and Rousseau. Sure, the past 24 years of the Reagan, Bush and even Clinton regimes haven't been kind, but one bedrock principle still seemed intact: If not equality and fraternity, we'll always have liberty. And so, as guards frogmarched my friend out of the courtroom shackled hands to feet, I wondered how confining that man for 17 years jives with my understanding of our nation's values. Is imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people an acceptable policy result of a liberal, pluralistic democratic society? Or, is the drug war proving libertarians correct about the potential for abuse of government power? Grim goes on to point out some of the abuses of freedom caused by the war on drugs (the drug war exception to the bill of rights, the huge prison populations, etc.), and liberalism's failure to face or respond to them. Silence from liberals in this debate is, in effect, an endorsement for the status quo. It is time to stand up in defense of liberty -- not just equality and fraternity. 7:56:50 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []