Thursday, May 22, 2008

A question for prohibitionists... You claim that it's drugs that cause violence, not the drug war, so... Now that you've had decades to show results, with billions of dollars spent, can you show me some proof that there has been any reduction in violence and corruption as a result of making drugs illegal? ... in the United States? ... in Colombia? ... in Mexico? ... in Afghanistan? 11:41:01 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Thank you sir, may I have another? Mike S. Adams recently had a baffling column over at TownHall.com: University Awards Criminal Justice Degree to Cocaine Dealer In a nutshell, one of his students at University of North Carolina-Wilmington was arrested for selling cocaine, spent several months in jail and had to drop out of school for a semester, but was re-admitted while continuing to serve time on weekends and was able to finish his degree, graduating with a BA in Criminal Justice on May 10th. Now I don't want to even get into the discussion of whether his sentence was appropriate. I have no idea what the particulars of this case were (and I doubt that Adams knows all the details either -- although you can certainly get an idea of Adams' leanings when he says "states should have the right to pass laws allowing for the execution of drug dealers"). I also don't particularly find the fact that he got a degree in Criminal Justice alarming or wrong -- there are certainly careers in which a Criminal Justice degree would be useful and a felony conviction would not necessarily be a barrier. Sure, it's mildly humorous, but that's about it. What I find bizarre about the column is: there has been an obvious failure of leadership within the ranks of our university administration. It could be argued that a student should eventually be readmitted to UNCW even after a felony conviction for cocaine dealing. But the notion of a) only having the student sit out one semester and b) readmitting him before he even finished serving his sentence for cocaine trafficking is preposterous. How can we make a judgment about whether the student is rehabilitated if he has not yet finished his sentence? Is there some reason why we have so much confidence in him? Or are we simply holding him to a lower standard because he is a minority? Do we just expect our Hispanic students to traffic in cocaine? Are we motivated by a racism that is almost too subtle to detect? Since when is the university supposed to be a secondary Justice system? Should the university have some kind of parole board to consider whether someone who has been complying with all the requirements of the courts should have some additional sanctions imposed by the faculty? I wonder if Adams would be happy if the student was first required to be paddled by all of his teachers before being allowed to pay tuition and study. My reaction to hearing a story like this is to applaud the student. And, quite frankly, to applaud the courts and the university for arranging the possibility for him to finish his degree that way. I have been somewhat appalled at my own university's policy of mandatory expulsion for felony drug distribution charges, regardless of circumstance or students' potential (although they do have a difficult, but possible, re-admittance procedure.) If a student is getting good grades, earning a degree that will help them in their life, and paying their tuition... isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't that be encouraged? Even in those who have broken the law? The university is in the business of providing an education. It's not in the business of making moral judgments of people, or acting as an extrajudicial punishment organization. I wonder if Adams would hold other businesses to the same standard. Complaining that a local grocery store, for example, agreed to sell groceries to a former drug dealer. Perhaps the store even allowed this criminal to buy filet mignon. How can we make a judgment about whether the shopper is rehabilitated? 9:40:14 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Rachel Morningstar Foundation In the memory of Rachel Hoffman, her parents have established the Rachel Morningstar Foundation, the goal of which is to pass a law requiring legal advice to be sought before a civilian can consent to undercover work. They will also work to decriminalize marijuana in Florida. Go Rachel. 9:02:24 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

How much pot? Apparently people are having complicated and heated discussions regarding how much marijuana a medical marijuana patient should be allowed to possess. I find it difficult to get very interested in that debate, although I understand that it's important for the patients. Here's what I do think, however. Law enforcement does not have a dog in this race. The patient can have a valid opinion. So can the doctor. But not the cop. It seems to me that the amount that a patient is allowed to have should be at least the amount that the patient needs. Since that varies for each patient, there should be no set limit. If you really have to set a limit, then I'd decide it based on safety and place it just under the amount that would cause a fatal overdose*. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about anyone getting hurt. 1:09:46 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

More stupid people tricks Art Hanger is a Member of Canadian Parliament and chairman of the House of Commons Justice Committee and he has written one of the most moronic OpEds I've read in some time. He's complaining about the Canadian Supreme Court's decision saying that suspicion-less sniffing of backpacks by dogs is a violation of the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. His OpEd: Basic Logic Escapes Six Justices In Two Drug Dog Cases, which is, of course, funny, because the one really lacking logic is the one who wrote this dreck. ...a police-trained drug dog, sniffing the back-pack of someone under suspicion hardly violates this elusive clause that says everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. This very basic logic somehow escaped six of nine members of the Supreme Court of Canada. Everyone to be afforded the protection of this clause includes a fellow by the name of Gurmakh Kang-Brown, who was caught with 17 ounces of cocaine in his luggage during a random search at the Calgary Greyhound Bus depot. Everyone includes a high school student in Sarnia, Ont., caught with 10 bags of marijuana and 10 magic mushrooms during a search on school property. Yet the Supreme Court, in what ranks high on the asinine decision list, recently rushed to protect their rights and privacy by ruling that police violated the charter by allowing their dogs to sniff search because they didn't have enough reason to suspect drugs were present. Didn't they? And so what. Both culprits were caught with sizable amounts of illegal drugs - enough to generate a lot of misery and crimes committed by users needing cash to buy these drugs. Trained dogs led police to drugs that in no way could be mistaken as stashes for personal consumption. The last time I looked, our schools, including elementary, and transportation ports are constantly being used by drug pushers to apply their trade; hence, the sniffer dogs are employed to curtail the drug pusher's activity. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to deal in illegal drugs forsakes their rights and I believe that most people in this country feel the same way. This guy is chair of a Justice Committee. Let's try to understand his reasoning. The search was OK, because it turned out that those searched were guilty. So this means that you can search anyone, because if they're guilty, then it's OK, and if they're not, well then... oops. Now maybe it would be all right for the government to simply shoot Art Hanger on sight, because if it turned out that he was a mass murderer then it would be OK, and if not, well then... oops. Art continues his intellectual exuberance to the end, by suggesting how the Justices could improve themselves... You know, police have another tool the justices might be wise to explore. It is called Drug Abuse Resistance Education ( DARE ), a basic program designed to educate children on the ravages of illegal drugs. 12:53:31 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []