|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, January 20, 2007 |
Question of the Day
Jeff wrote me to ask what I think about slashdot's question of the day.
Question: Is it better to abide by the rules until they're changed or help speed the change by breaking them?
Interesting. The question on slashdot was clearly generic, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that we're talking about drug policy.
The question itself raises several questions:
- It assumes that changing the rules is a good idea. Of course, we believe that it is.
- The word "better" could be interpreted to mean "more moral" or "more efficacious."
- "abide by the rules until they're changed" -- you could do that and wait forever with no change.
- "help speed the change by breaking them" -- there's no guarantee that breaking them will have any effect.
I've often heard people comment on a particular situation (such as someone dying in a drug raid, or getting an unusually long prison sentence): "Hey, I'm for changing the laws, but as long as pot is illegal, it's their fault for breaking the law," or I hear "Sure, marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, but it's against the law. Case closed." I definitely do not agree with those viewpoints. People use drugs, prohibition is unjust and dangerous, so regardless of "legality," I feel for those nonviolent lawbreakers who were unlucky enough to get caught. And the idea of simply promoting "abide by the rules until they're changed" thus seems unrealistic, callous and cruel.
Yet as far as choosing an efficacious approach to "speeding the change," I'm not sure breaking the law is completely relevant in this situation. Millions break the drug laws on a regular basis, and it's not to change the law. Most people who smoke pot are not trying to make a statement, nor do most people consider drug use to be a statement for change. So simply breaking the law to speed the change seems unrealistic, unless you consider the notion that if enough people break the law, the law will collapse under the weight of its unpopularity (and your lawbreaking added to that effect).
Perhaps breaking the rules in some kind of public way would speed change. Civil disobedience is a time-honored method of effecting change of unjust laws or actions. The non-violent public act of sacrifice (often risking freedom through arrest) can generate public awareness and sympathy (the public can get a feeling for the genuine beliefs of the protester since the protester is seen to have nothing to gain and much to lose personally through his/her civil disobedience). Now, I don't think that smoking a joint on the street corner is going to work. It would have to be big, organized, and publicized. In a way, hempfests have been a form of civil disobedience, and even medical marijuana systems -- as they conflict with federal law -- are a form of civil disobedience.
What do you think?
Is it better to abide by the rules until they're changed or help speed the change by breaking them?
3:13:51 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 19, 2007 |
Headlines from Bizarro World
- Colombia 'good model' for Afghan drug war, US says
- Titanic 'good model' for ship-building, US says
- New Orleans 'good model' for disaster planning, US says
- Henry VIII 'good model' for family values, US says
- Chernobyl 'good model' for energy management, US says
Strangely, one of those headlines is real.
9:23:02 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
The Rule of Law (updated)
Check out this exchange between Senator Specter and Attorney General Gonzales about habeas corpus (unofficial transcription):
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?
Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
Yep. This is the highest legal officer in the country. No wonder he's so opposed to the judiciary and their meddlesome "interpretations" of the Constitution that threaten the rights of the executive branch.
And, of course, he's right. He's just looking at the literal meaning of the words. It all makes sense now, and I can start reading the Constitution as the Bush administration would like me to. Let's consider some other provisions...
- The Constitution doesn't say that people have the right of freedom of speech. It simply says that Congress shall pass no law abridging it.
- The Constitution doesn't say that people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches. It simply says that it shall not be violated. If people don't have it, it can't be violated.
- The Constitution doesn't say that people have the right to a speedy trial. It simply says that they shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.
- The Constitution doesn't say that the President is limited to two terms. It simply says that no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.
OK, I'm kidding, but... how is that different from the constant destruction of the Constitution we've seen, most specifically in the past 4 years? (And for those of us following the drug war, we're particularly sensitive to it since we've been dealing with the encroachment much longer.)
Even beyond the faults of past administrations, this group in power seems to see individual rights as some kind of minor annoying obstacle to the function of government, as opposed to seeing the protection of individual rights as the primary purpose of government.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Now I want to make is clear that I am not against the Bush administration because they're "conservative" or because they're "Republican." My strong opposition to the Bush administration stems from the fact that they are enemies of the Constitution. As a drug policy reformer, I have allies who are liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, Libertarians, moderates, and every other form of political creature, with the exception of blatant authoritarians. And it's way past time for all good conservatives and Republicans to disavow the authoritarians with everything they've got.
Unfortunately, this administration has encouraged every authoritarian nutcase to come out of the woodwork.
The same kind of people who react to an outrageous 55 year sentence for marijuana sales with statements like "I've got no sympathy for someone who breaks the law," will defend every form of lawbreaking imaginable from the government or its agents. Not only will they defend wiretapping and illegal search and seizure, these morons demand a Presidential pardon for two U.S. border agents who shot 15 times in broad daylight at an unarmed drug suspect who posed no threat and was running away (Note: the suspect first tried to surrender, but one of the agents tried to hit him with the butt of his shotgun, so the suspect ran.)
Nutcase Alan Burkhart writes:
While [border agents] Ramos and Compean did engage in activities that undermined their credibility - they disposed of spent shell casings after the incident - our justice system is failing to look at the larger picture. Our country is being poisoned by illegal drugs coursing across the southern border. The Mexican drug cartels have hired corrupt members of the Mexican military to protect their drug runners on US soil. There have been multiple armed confrontations between Border Patrol officers and these hired mercenaries. Our Border Patrol officers are outgunned, and on occasion outnumbered, in these incidents.
Why is it difficult to simply do the right thing? Why were Ramos and Compean brought up on charges instead of being congratulated for a job well done?
Why? Because they broke the law and betrayed their trust as employees of the American people and defenders of the Constitution. Because they violated the rights of another human being. And that is worse than any drug law violation you can imagine or invent.
Update: Alan Burkhart responds in comments
Update: Crooks and Liars has the video of Gonzales and his horrific literal reading of the Constitution. Prior to the statement above, he says:
There is no express grant of habeus in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away
12:29:52 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 18, 2007 |
Feds continue medical marijuana raids
Via
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--City of West Hollywood officials reacted swiftly today to news that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had raided and shut down five medicinal marijuana dispensaries located in West Hollywood. "The City of West Hollywood has had a long-standing commitment to the compassionate use of medical marijuana for those persons who are facing catastrophic illnesses," said City Manager Paul Arevalo. The DEA's enforcement of federal drug laws against the dispensaries conflicts with Proposition 215, a ballot measure approved by the California voters in 1996 decriminalizing the use of medical marijuana.
and The Agitator:
A fine use of our tax dollars, Mr. President.
We can't have AIDS-having, pot-smoking hippies in California thumbing their noses at our federal vice laws. Good, God-fearing families in Kansas shouldn't have to worry about what might happen to their kids if we start allowing cancer-stricken chemo patients in Burbank to light up a doob with impunity.
So rest easy, Kansas. Once again, your federal government showed 'em who's boss. Like that time they handcuffed a post-polio patient to her bed, and led her taste the business end of an assault weapon. Man, that was sweet.
It would almost be funny if people weren't, you know, dying because of this shit.
9:05:48 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 |
Marijuana and driving... plus bad reporting and bad science
Those of you who have followed this blog for awhile know that I've been very interested in the evidence regarding the dangers of marijuana and driving. This is an important issue -- particularly when it comes to the topic of marijuana legalization/criminalization. Prohibitionists point to the supposed dangers of intoxicated driving as reason to oppose legalization (whether relevant or not) and also use the stoned-driver bogeyman to push for zero-tolerance driving laws that are based simply on the presence of cannabinoids -- a sneaky back-door means to criminalize marijuana use.
Of course, there's no doubt that marijuana use affects reaction and space/time perception. That's pretty much a given, and anyone who has smoked pot will confirm this. So it's reasonable to assume from that fact that marijuana and driving would be a very bad combination. And yet... and yet, the government has an exceptionally difficult time demonstrating that "fact." They turn to discredited "studies" or isolated anecdotes about some tragic accident involving a stoned driver (where it usually turns out the driver was also high on a dozen other drugs).
The truth is, and studies have confirmed this (see U.S. National Highway Safety Administration (1993), Dutch study (1994), Australian study (1998), Transport Research Laboratory (2000 and 2001)), most stoned drivers are much, much safer than drunk drivers and are even safer than tired drivers or drivers talking on cell phones. It's because pot makes people cautious (and sometimes a little paranoid). People who are stoned know that they are affected, and so they compensate by driving slower and focusing their entire energy on driving. Most pot smokers, when behind the wheel of a car, become old people. (Unlike many drinkers, who become reckless and believe themselves to be invincible.)
My own joke on the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver:
A drunk driver will speed through a stop sign without even noticing it, while a stoned driver will stop and patiently wait for it to turn green.
The fact that actual marijuana impairment is so hard to classify may be why there has been so little interest on the part of the government on researching a means of measuring a level of marijuana intoxication that would compare to Blood Alcohol Content levels. (That, and their desire to use cannabinoid presence to criminalize use.) Instead, the government has encouraged research into a variety of questionable drug-testing-in-relation-to-fatal-crash-statistic studies (many of which even fail to separate drivers from passengers).
So my attention was caught by this story from radio-canada that started out fairly dramatically:
U.S. drivers who tested positive for cannabis over a 10-year period had a 29 per cent higher risk of causing a fatal crash than motorists not taking the drug, a new Canadian-led study suggests.
Strong damning proof, or a mix of imprecise words and absolute rubbish?
Here's what the sentence implies:
- That drivers who tested positive for cannabis were somehow tracked over a 10 year period of their lives.
- That certain drivers were identified as causing fatal crashes
- That cannabis-positive drivers had a 29 percent higher rate than all other drivers.
I wrote to Michel Bédard, author of the study, and asked for some clarification. Turns out #1 is a actually bad wording; #2 is bad reporting of limited scientific data; #3 is simply false.
Me: Should it read "U.S. drivers who tested positive for cannabis over a 10-year period..." or "Over a 10-year period, U.S. drivers who tested positive for cannabis..." ... I'm guessing that it actually meant that the data covered 10 years, but that the instances of drug testing were relatively proximate to the crash.
Bédard: You are correct, we used data from 1993 to 2003 and the presence of cannabis was in relation to a given crash.
Me: How was it determined that the person who tested positive actually CAUSED the fatal crash?
Bédard: ... we cannot claim that the driver "caused" the crash but rather that there is an association between the presence of cannabis in the blood and making an unsafe driving action.
Me: The 29 per cent -- is that really a comparison between those who tested positive for cannabis and those who did not (which would include those who tested positive for alcohol but not cannabis), or is it a comparison between those who tested positive for cannabis and those who did not test positive for cannabis OR alcohol?
Bédard: All drivers tested negative for alcohol. The comparison was between those who tested positive or negative for cannabis in the absence of alcohol.
He was also nice enough to send me information from the abstract (the full study isn't yet available online).
We used a cross-sectional, case-control design with drivers aged 20-49 who were involved in a fatal crash in the United States from 1993 to 2003; drivers were included if they had been tested for the presence of cannabis and had a confirmed blood alcohol concentration of zero. Cases were drivers who had at least one potentially unsafe driving action recorded in relation to the crash (e.g., speeding); controls were drivers who had no such driving action recorded. We calculated the crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of any potentially unsafe driving action in drivers who tested positive for cannabis but negative for alcohol consumption. In computing for the adjusted OR, we controlled for age, sex, and prior driving record.
So what do we have? First, all those who tested positive for alcohol were eliminated from the study, so the sample is dangerously skewed. Second, the best that they could do is identify drivers involved in fatal crashes that had been cited for something, with no information as to whether that related to the crash. If an alcohol impaired driver crashed into someone sober who used cannabis days earlier, and both drivers were cited for speeding, the drunk driver would not be included in the study, but the sober driver would be classified as positive for cannabis and having an unsafe driving action associated with a fatal crash. And even then, all we have is an association, not a cause. There could be many explanations that have nothing to do with cannabis impairment. The study tells us nothing useful, but it does feed the media feeding frenzy.
And while I appreciate Mr. Bédard's willingness to be candid with me about the study, he has contributed directly to misinformation through promoting the reults of a study with limited value, through his obvious bias, and through his imprecise and downright false communications with the press [from both the radio-canada article and here]:
"Those who tested positive for cannabis had 29 per cent more risk of having committed a driving action that led to the crash than those who did not," Bédard told CBC News.
"It tells us that cannabis is not a safe substitute for alcohol, and I especially mean that for young people," said Bédard. [...]
What he found was that those victims where THC was involved, were at greater risk when involved in an accident.
"Compared to people who have not tested positive for cannabis, or THC in this case, which is the metabolite we're looking at, people who did test positive have a 29 per cent higher risk." [...]
"The big thing is that cannabis is not a safe alternative to drinking when it comes to driving."
And once again, the prohibitionists fail to find their smoking gun.
9:10:50 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Redefining moderate voters
Jessica Peck Corry writes in the Denver Post:
Reporters and politicos - so eager to define individual voters as liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat - find themselves in a predicament: Most Colorado voters in the last election simply defied such categories.
In November's election, 41 percent of all voters supported legalizing marijuana, a number greater than the 40 percent who voted for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez. In all, 636,938 voters wanted marijuana legalized, 11,000 greater than the number who backed Beauprez.
While once considered a rallying cry of hippies and peaceniks, marijuana legalization is now a position supported by economics professors and family physicians.
... and people are starting to notice (although the media is sometimes behind on this)
Despite such widespread support, the media unanimously held that November's bid for bud fell flat, with headlines like "Pro-pot proposal takes a big hit" and "Marijuana amendment goes up in smoke." Beauprez's bid, on the other hand, was largely recorded as a casualty of a national trend where mid-term elections rarely see gains for the majority party
Her conclusions as to what the election results mean are, I think, most relevant to Colorado, and I don't think they can yet be extrapolated to the rest of the country as she does, but they're interesting:
The old categories may just not fit anymore. [...] This "Middle Majority" is growing, now representing closer to 40 percent of America. These individuals tend to have a vibrant libertarian streak while still maintaining conservative social values in their own lives. [...] Most in this group support legalization because they are tired of the government taking billions away from important priorities like education and health care, and instead frittering it away on a failed militarized drug war.
8:50:13 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Marijuana decriminalization attempt in New Hampshire this morning
In the Nashua Telegraph:
A move to decriminalize the use of marijuana tops the agenda as the New Hampshire Legislature begins to hear from the public on its 1,400 bills for the 2007 session. [...]
"Despite the threat of severe penalties, many responsible, productive New Hampshire citizens continue to use marijuana. As long as these individuals do not harm others, we believe it is unwise and unjust to continue persecuting them as enemies of the state," the group declares.
Matt Simon of Amherst, the group's spokesman, said it had less than a week to prepare testimony in support, but will be ready.
"Six days isn't much time, but the evidence is on our side, and I know we will be able to make a compelling case for the committee," explained Simon.
"If the committee is willing to give this bill the serious consideration it merits, it will conclude that decriminalization is the only sensible solution to the slew of problems marijuana prohibition has created for New Hampshire."
The group contends laws against the use of marijuana only increase the incidence of violence and property crime.
Leaders with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (NHLA) are also expected to offer support.
The three authors are a rare bipartisan mix led by liberal Keene Democrat Chuck Weed, conservative Haverhill Republican Paul Ingbretson, and Manchester Republican Steve Vaillancourt, who at other times has been a Democratic and Libertarian lawmaker.
Interesting group of bill authors. But I'm a bit surprised at the short notice -- it doesn't seem likely that it will do well, so the publicity surrounding the effort is the important part.
12:09:37 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 |
... and I'll be President of the United States.
Via Phillip Smith -- Apparently Indonesia, impressed with the U.S. success in becoming drug-free by 1995, has decided to be marijuana-free by 2015.
11:00:28 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Some sanity on Afghanistan in the Washington Post
Finally. An excellent article in a major paper clearly laying out the answer to Afghanistan that we've been talking about for ages.
Anne Applebaum -- Ending an Opium War: Poppies and Afghan Recovery Can Both Bloom
Yet by far the most depressing aspect of the Afghan poppy crisis is that it exists at all -- because it doesn't have to. To see what I mean, look at the history of Turkey, where once upon a time the drug trade also threatened the country's political and economic stability. Just like Afghanistan, Turkey had a long tradition of poppy cultivation. Just like Afghanistan, Turkey worried that poppy eradication could "bring down the government." Just like Afghanistan, Turkey -- this was the era of "Midnight Express"-- was identified as the main source of the heroin sold in the West. Just like in Afghanistan, a ban was tried, and it failed.
As a result, in 1974 the Turks, with American and U.N. support, tried a different tactic. They began licensing poppy cultivation for the purpose of producing morphine, codeine and other legal opiates. Legal factories were built to replace the illegal ones. Farmers registered to grow poppies, and they paid taxes. You wouldn't necessarily know this from the latest White House drug strategy report-- which devotes several pages to Afghanistan but doesn't mention Turkey -- but the U.S. government still supports the Turkish program, even requiring U.S. drug companies to purchase 80 percent of what the legal documents euphemistically refer to as "narcotic raw materials" from the two traditional producers, Turkey and India.
Why not add Afghanistan to this list? [...]
The director of the Senlis Council, a group that studies the drug problem in Afghanistan, told me he reckons that the best way to "ensure more Western soldiers get killed" is to expand poppy eradication.
An excellent article -- do you think any policy leaders will actually read it? The article does a good job of laying out the issues, and also shows that regardless of the difficulties and potential limitations in implementing the Senlis Council's recommendations, the result would still be positive for us -- certainly more positive than the direction we're headed right now.
[Thanks mbc]
8:58:48 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Outstanding Editorial
In the Colorado Springs Gazette: Editorial: It's Time for New Strategy in the Drug War
[...] After decades of an even worse failure in the drug war, it's time for the government to rethink that war as well. [...]
Besides failing to keep drugs off the street, the drug war is detrimental to our national security.
Many officials note that the illicit drug trade finances terrorism.
That's a fair point, but it's 180 degrees off course.
It blames drug users for all the money in the illegal drug trade, when prohibition is responsible for the huge amounts of money to be made selling drugs. [...]
The way to get terrorists out of the drug trade is to take away the profit incentive.
The drug trade doesn't finance terrorism, the drug war does. If the U.S. and other nations stop treating personal choices such as drug use as crimes, many problems would disappear. [...]
We often hear about drug-related crime.
It should more accurately be called drug war-related crime. [...]
After four decades of a failed drug war, isn't it time to take a fresh look at what's not working on that front?
12:38:48 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 15, 2007 |
Odds and Ends
There's been all sorts of stuff to read this holiday weekend. Here are a few more ...
 Radley's got a piece at FOX News about the good folks at LEAP
For several years now, LEAP has been looking for a debate with the country's top drug policymakers [^] anyone from DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to Drug Czar John Walters to powerful prohibition politicians like Indiana Rep. Mark Souder.
So far, they've had little luck. That's too bad. If the drug war is still as important and necessary as our leaders in government say it is, it's champions should be able to defend it--especially against the law enforcement officers they've asked to fight it.
I feel their pain. I've been wanting the same thing myself.
Libby talks about North Dakota hemp efforts over at Detroit News.
Tanya at Blame the Drug War covers a scathing report in Canada.
VANCOUVER, OTTAWA -- The federal investment in the war on drugs has been an abject failure, according to a report to be published today.
Canada's drug strategy, renewed with much fanfare in 2003, has put too much emphasis on law enforcement instead of on means to combat illicit drug use and minimize its human toll, says the report that is to appear in the HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review.
The criticism appears unlikely to sway the federal Conservative government from its intention, confirmed by a Health Department spokesman, to tilt the strategy even further toward pure law-enforcement measures.
The study, which found that critical programs in prevention, treatment and research are being underfunded, comes five years after Canada's Auditor-General issued a scathing report that said the country's drug strategy focused too heavily on enforcement and needed a more "balanced approach."
10:04:04 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
More Open Thread
Water Drinking Contest Turns Deadly
A Sacramento woman is thought to have died of water intoxication after taking part in a radio station's water drinking contest.
If only they'd stick to safe things like marijuana.
[Thanks, Allan]
Interesting read by Christopher Hitchens -- A Life of Living Dangerously (in the January issue of Maxim) about the nanny state:
I have what is sometimes known as a life, which luckily for me involves self-employment as a writer and speaker. It's always amusing, but it involves a fair bit of stress, travel, late nights, and the suchlike. And you know what? I think I can handle it on my own. There are times when a cigarette will help me-due to its famous nicotine content-to stay awake and to concentrate. (Nicotine can even ward off Alzheimer's, say the doctors, if you live long enought to get it, that is.) My metabolism can process Scotch whisky without any undue difficulty, and there are moments when the glow can help me write, or even talk. It wards off boredom, which presses in on me from every side in a country increasingly run by tedious idiots. Some of my writer friends do really well with the help of a joint, and good luck to them, but dope gives me heartburn and makes me less aggressive, and I don't need either of those results. Very occasionally, a snort of cocaine can be a good thing, but I despise people who make a habit of it. (Outside my house is a school with a sign that says DRUG FREE ZONE on its fence. Uh, huh. I am never more than two telephone calls away from a score if that's what I choose, and I gather from well-informed sources that the stuff often comes direct from the police department.) I have no use for breakfast, but at lunch a T-bone with about eight cloves of garlic, rammed home with some rich Burgundy or pinot, often appeals. (The New England Journal of Medicine now admits that two proper drinks a day are more or less essential for the heart: I was in possession of this information while doctors were still nervously covering it up.) I don't drink any sort of coffee except espresso, and was delighted to learn recently that decaffeinated beans raise a person's level of bad cholesterol. I have no intention of telling you about Viagra-related matters, but I will say that when my cock talks, I listen.
Via Grits for Breakfast, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution: Big score holy grail for drug officers. A depressing read. Makes you really realize how incredibly stupid all this is.
Over a nearly three-year period, 6,121 drug confiscations sent by Atlanta police to the GBI crime lab tested positive for cocaine. Just six were more than a kilogram, a little more than 2 pounds. On the other hand, more than 4,000, or 64 percent, were less than a gram, which is roughly the weight of a single raisin.
Coffield, a former police union leader, said a joke has circulated for years: "The Atlanta police narcotics unit is solving the cocaine problem one rock at a time."
"All they care about is numbers," said Coffield, expressing a complaint being voiced by current Atlanta officers and city officials.
An ignorant article in the LA Times by Chris Kraul: U.S. fears 'Colombianization' in Ecuador's drug war. Completely lacking in the article is any reference to the utter failure of the supply-side drug war and the culpability of the U.S.-led drug war in creating and exacerbating the problems in Colombia.
12:55:41 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 14, 2007 |
Open Thread
For fun -- a tongue-in-cheek column by Curtis Berndt in the Journal Gazette (IN): Ready To End Smoking Debates? Outlaw Tobacco And Legalize Pot
The Agitator reports that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has hired Mel Sembler to raise money for him. Mel Sembler, if you didn't know, is the child torturer who ran STRAIGHT, Inc. -- a series of concentration camps for youth which were shut down (only to become the Partnership for a Drug Free America Drug Free America Foundation).
Update: Correction -- STRAIGHT became Calvina Fay's Drug Free America Foundation. I get those "drug free" names mixed up. [Thanks, Steve]
12:32:54 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
