Friday, February 1, 2008

Just kill them all Howard Wooldridge passes on the words of an aide to a major, Republican candidate still running for President: ...my personal belief is that you should just keep killing every drug dealer arrested. Eventually you're going to run out. I'm not sure we can make a real dent in the problem under our current justice system that allows people to deal drugs with little penalty. 12:30:25 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Decriminalization and Legalization - what do they mean? Much has been made around the drug policy blogosphere in the past day regarding a gotcha moment with Barack Obama regarding decriminalizing marijuana. The Washington Times, in a backhanded hit piece on Obama found a video statement from 2004 where he said he supported decriminalization (but not legalization), and then the article pointed out the fact that Obama raised his hand in last fall's debate saying he didn't support decriminalization. Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign said he in fact has "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall. This led a number of people naturally to get somewhat excited that Obama was supporting decriminalization, both from our side, and the opposition (the Times was pretty quick to get that in an editorial and tar him as left-liberal for it). And then, a short time later... When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to The Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use. "If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Mr. Vietor said. The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers. So it's a lot of hoopla, but nobody seemed to have a clue what language they were speaking. It's true -- decriminalization is a pretty messy word. I avoid it like the plague. Decriminalize: To reduce or abolish the criminal penalties for Not much clarity there. Reducing the penalty somewhere for marijuana possession from 2 years to 18 months would be decriminalization. I've heard some people say that decriminalization means you wouldn't be arrested for using marijuana (but you would for selling it). Some say it means a fine instead of jail time. Still others use it as a way of meaning "legal and regulated" and then consider legalization to mean completely unregulated. I think drugs should be legal (through legalization or re-legalization, if you prefer). So it behooves me to identify exactly what that means. So here's the definition I propose: When a drug has legal status, it means that a responsible adult may, in some way, openly obtain and use the drug for recreational purposes with no legal penalties. There may, however, be regulations regarding the purity/quantity of the drug, and the time/place/manner of its sale or use. I think that this is a good template for defining the legalization of any drug. It allows for a wide variety of options with different drugs, and clarifies that legalization doesn't have to mean a free-for-all (although unregulated would be one of many options). Now of course, such a definition would allow some legislators to over-regulate ("Marijuana smoking can only occur in a single-family home with the blinds closed and only on the 29th day of any month that begins with the letter 'F'"), but we'll always have to contend with idiots. What do you think? Any changes to the definition? 10:25:20 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Open Thread Needled to Death Excellent editorial in the Houston Chronicle slams District Attorney Susan Reed for prosecuting health workers. That's an abusive use of her prosecutorial office. Reed might not care for needle exchange programs and all the good they can do in a community to reduce the spread of infectious disease. But overzealous prosecution of three people who clearly had no intention of profiting from the sale of drug paraphernalia is a gross misapplication of the law. More here I'm with Alec on this one: Okay, I have basically zero interest in this story, but that just shows how poor I am at tapping into the public zeitgeist, because the media has gone crazy with the thrilling tale of a vending machine that sells medical marijuana. As far as I can see, it raises absolutely no important issues, legal, moral, or otherwise. But it's something new and different. The ONDCP won't be satisfied until they make every part of the world a mess. America educates Europe on drug policy (via Jennifer Kern). Good luck to Jerry Paradis, representing LEAP at a U.N. sponsored international drug policy conference in Vancouver next week. Update: LEAP's Hunter McDonald and Jack Cole will be there as well, and they'll be doing some media events in conjunction with it. The administration does one thing right, and then we can count on Congress to step up to try to undo it: Senators' plan would restore funding for anti-drug effort. Phillip Smith gives us a good story about justice perverted, and how Eric Sage Fights Back Quotable The thing that makes the war on drugs so insidious to me as a black man is not the fact that it has increased the number of black felons or that it has turned our neighborhoods into war zones. No, to me the one factor that has caused the most damage to us as a people is how it has removed us from the process of democracy. Sometimes the internet can be the source of incredibly useful information. Then there's WikiAnswers. Here's their answer to the question Why is Marijuana Illegal? Marijuana has affected many lives. Take mine for example. My ex spouse used marijuana habitually, and contrary to remarks stating that it makes you relaxed and peaceful, it made my spouse violent. He also could not drive well and put himself, me, and others on the road at great risk. Many people who are high think they drive fine. But it is an illusion to them because they are high. Also, I have yet to meet anyone who has tried hard drugs who did not start off with marijuana. Although I have never met anyone who has smoked marijuana before cigarettes. And many people drink alcohol before they try anything else. Therefore, I have a very hard time believing that it is not a gateway drug. I agree that alcohol is just as bad. However, I don't think marijuna should be legal just because alcohol is. Two wrongs don't make a right. Marijuana severally affects your motor functions, awareness of surroundings, and sensory perceptions. How can that not be dangerous to you and those around you? So why dont we prohibit alcohol, cigarettes and driving? Driving is dangerous, it kills many people every single year. Not only that but we should also prohibit cancer, its a leading cause of death. My head hurts. 12:59:10 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []