Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Proposed Illinois bill to drug test all new drivers In the Daily Vidette: As proposed by state Rep. Roger Eddy, House Bill 262 states that an applicant for an instruction permit who is under the age of 18 must undergo testing for controlled substances and cannabis and must be found to be free of controlled substances and cannabis before he or she may receive an instruction permit. Yes, another stupid bill so someone can say that they're tough on drugs. Wonder if the media will get anybody to comment on it who doesn't have their head up their ass. Wait a second -- who's this guy? ... "I think it is ridiculous, silly, inappropriate and ineffective. Here's the issue. Really what you need to be dealing with when it comes to driving is impaired driving. Drug testing at the time of permit or license has absolutely nothing to do with that. What it does is simply go out of its way to target young people who have used marijuana, regardless if it has anything to do with their driving," Guither said. [...] According to Guither, every study done has shown that alcohol is the more dangerous factor when it comes to road safety. "It is not even a close consideration with marijuana, which is somewhat in the same area as cell phone usage and being tired," he said. "It's really just a way for Congress to act tough. It is just not constitutionally a good idea." Hey, that's me! [Thanks, Micah] 11:48:53 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

HEA provision action alert From Students for Sensible Drug Policy, an opportunity to take action: Visit http://www.SchoolsNotPrisons.com/aid/ to send letters to Congress and join more than 150 prominent organizations that are calling on Congress to finally repeal the law that has stripped financial aid from nearly 200,000 college students with drug convictions. In the next few weeks, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will reintroduce his Removing Impediments to Students' Education (RISE) Act, which would overturn the penalty. Last year, the bill had more than 70 co-sponsors, including the new chairmen of the committees on Education and Labor, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform. Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself co-sponsored an earlier version of the bill. With the whole Higher Education Act due to be reauthorized later this year, there is very good reason to believe that these Congressional leaders will move to reinstate aid to students affected by the penalty. The letter signed by more than 150 prominent education, substance abuse recovery, and civil rights organizations can be found at http://www.ssdp.org/campaigns/hea/letter.shtml Check out the list of the organizations that signed the letter. Pretty impressive. 9:22:46 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Lou Dobbs week (continued) Well, Lou Dobbs is definitely upset. He appears to be attempting to make up in passion what he lacks in coherence. We must end the abuse of drugs and alcohol, and provide successful treatment for Americans whose addictions are destroying their own lives and wounding our families and society. Whatever course we follow in prosecuting other wars, we must commit ourselves as members of this great society to only one option in the War on Drugs -- victory. I guess the "how" will come later this week? 9:14:27 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced (again) an industrial hemp farming bill. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) "It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop. The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United States," said Dr. Paul. "By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit -- all without spending a single taxpayer dollar." Indefensible is right. And yet, this bill has an extraordinarily low chance of passing, because most of Congress is too scared to do anything right if it could even be perceived as having a connection to drugs (although I'd love to be proved wrong). [Thanks, DdC] It's actually a very simple and straightforward bill. It essentially amends the Controlled Substances Act to add the following: (B) The term 'marihuana' does not include industrial hemp. As used in the preceding sentence, the term 'industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. ... (i) INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY STATES.--In any criminal action, civil action, or administrative proceeding, a State regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp under State law shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any such plant meets the concentration limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) ... and such determination shall be conclusive and binding. How can you vote against that? 8:14:44 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []