Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Hichey amendment loses. Time to write letters. The vote was 163 in favor, 259 opposed. In my opinion, those who voted against it did so, for the most part, for one of two reasons: Fear of appearing soft on... anything. Fear of getting reduced campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. I'll tell you one thing for sure after listening to that debate. I felt proud to be on the side of Hinchey and the others debating in favor of the amendment (as, apparently, were those in the gallery). The opponents were dried up husks of stale, debunked, and irrelevant prattle. So what do you do next? Well, the first step is to find out how your Representative voted. That roll call will be available here (at the time of this post, the vote isn't available yet, but keep trying). I already know how mine voted (unless he didn't show up), because he has a record of being both corrupt and a jerk. So I'm starting on my letter to the editor in the local paper. I'm going to talk about how he voted to continue blowing our local taxpayers' money on having the feds harass sick people in other states who are following their doctor's advice and state law. I'm going to mention that Citizens Against Government Waste called it a waste of federal resources and said that it "proves that the government is incapable of exercising any kind of fiscal restraint." I'm going to mention that the Presbyterian Church recently joined the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association in supporting medical marijuana. I'm going to mention that most recent polls have shown that over 70% of Americans support the right of seriously ill people to use medical marijuana. And I'm going to conclude that if my Representative wants to go on his own to some other state and interfere with a doctor and patient following state law, that he's welcome to do it on his own, but he shouldn't be spending our tax dollars on it. Go ahead. Start work on your own letter. If your Representative voted the right way, thank him or her for it. If your Representative voted the wrong way, then let your displeasure be known in your local paper. If yours is a state without medical marijuana, then ask why he/she's wasting your tax dollars to interfere in another state. If yours is a state with medical marijuana, then ask why he/she's wasting your tax dollars to sabotage the wishes of his/her own state! (And ask if they remember what state they're from, or do they think they're from Washington DC?) I'm giving you an outline that you can use -- and there's no problem with using the exact same points I am, but write your own letter (newspapers hate getting form letters). Remember to follow the letter-writing guidelines of your paper. You generally must include a daytime phone number so the paper can verify that you sent the letter. Most papers won't accept a letter over 250 words (some even less). Microsoft Word and other programs have a word count feature that will help you. It's a good idea to trim your letter some after you write it anyway -- makes it tighter. Make your points strong and clear, but without fury. Don't go off on tangents. Stick to the point. MAP has writers' resources, and if it doesn't work for you to write a letter to the editor on the Hinchey amendment, check out their current focus alert. But write a letter. What have you got to lose? Just turn off the TV for 15 minutes and do it. You can email it to the paper. Start by copying my paragraph above and add your own words to it. You'll be done in no time, and you'll feel better about it. And you'll be surprised by the people who will come up to you and say "I read your letter in the paper. It made a lot of sense." 6:29:26 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment vote due today Today is likely the day for the next attempt. This is the fourth time that the HInchey amendment has been brought forward, and I have high hopes balanced with election year pessimism. A couple of new things on our side include: The Citizens Against Government Waste report that expressly supports the amendment The Prebyterian Church vote last Thursday to support Medical Marijuana. I'm expecting both of these to be mentioned on the floor today. Here's some of the material about the Presbyterian church vote: By consensus, the denomination passed a resolution "urging Federal legislation that allows for its use and that provides for the production and distribution of the plant for those purposes." [...] The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association in support of medical marijuana. "Medical marijuana is an issue of mercy," said Rev. Lynn Bledsoe, a Presbyterian minister from Alabama who works as a hospice chaplain. "As people of faith, we are called to stand up for humans who are suffering needlessly. It is unconscionable that seriously ill patients can be arrested for making an earnest attempt at healing by using medical marijuana with their doctors' approval." "Legislators who give lip service to 'moral values' had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue," said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. "The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations' governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it." [Thanks, DdC] Note: You can follow the House proceedings in general today here or watch on C-Span. 9:14:58 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

UN report and unintentional byproducts There have been hundreds of media "reports" out there in the past day that have been mindlessly parroting the UNODC hype because it's easy, but not all of them are buying it. Check out the Vancouver Sun UN drug report unintentionally argues against prohibition The 2006 World Drug Report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime will, no doubt, convince many people that we haven't been diligent enough in prosecuting the war on drugs, that we have to step up our efforts to eradicate illicit drugs, particularly marijuana. But the report actually confirms that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure, that it has failed to decrease marijuana use and it has placed users in greater danger. [...] But we can blame the rise in marijuana potency directly on the war on drugs. As the 2002 Senate report, which was ignored by both the current Conservative government and the former Liberal one, explained, growers produce the strongest pot possible because it's easier to trade. As more draconian laws were passed and enforcement was stepped up, it became more profitable to transport smaller quantities of potent drugs than large amounts of mild ones. The report even admits that "cannabis breeders in North America and Europe have been working to create more potent cannabis," but it seems unaware that this is a direct result of the criminalization of the drug. Since marijuana use and potency have both increased during the all-out war on drugs, it's abundantly clear that the war has been a failure. Indeed, the only way to control the purity of the product -- and thereby protect the health of the user -- is through the regulation of the growth and sale of marijuana. But don't expect to hear that from the UN agency any time soon, because it has been repeatedly bullied by the United States into promoting a prohibitionist ideology toward all recreational drugs. Regardless of what the agency says, its evidence its clear: The war on marijuana has failed to decrease drug use, and has increased the dangers faced by users. 9:05:38 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Two Podcasts The ONDCP's latest "podcast" is actually just the audio of their fact-deficient press conference with the UN and the DEA on the occasion of the UNODC's latest report, and the claims that marijuana has magically become some kind of Super-Drug. It's one hour and six minutes long, and I don't have time (or stomach) to listen to it now, but if you're a masochist and want to report back anything interesting... have at it. On a much brighter note, NORML's daily audio stash (mp3) features a good interview with Maurice Hinchey, co-sponsor of the Amendment that is likely to be acted on today in the House to prevent federal funds from being used to harass medical marijuana users in states where it's legal. Hinchey gives a nice overview of the situation, although it's not really much new if you've been following this issue closely. The most interesting part is when Hinchey is asked why the Republicans seem to be so unsupportive of the amendment. (First you have to get past NORML's extremely annoying and long podcast introduction, where they repeatedly tell you what you're listening to.) 8:56:38 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Quotable In the debate over marijuana legalization in Nevada comes an interesting piece: The Poetry of Drug Politics by Lohantan Valley News publisher Rick Swart: At the same time there is something just a little bit hypocritical about standing around the VIP tent drinking cantaloupe margaritas and espousing the ills of "gateway" drugs. Mind-altering drugs are like lawyers -- your own is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it's the other guy's that's all screwed up. [Via] 8:34:25 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []