|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, January 19, 2008 |
ONDCP - mutant spawning ground
Scott at Grits for Breakfast has a piece about a low-life named Jon Cole who has surfaced in the Republican primary for the Texas House (District 67). Apparently he's using dishonest tactics that have angered everyone, including the Young Conservatives of Texas.
Cole's background? Working for the Drug Czar.
 According to his bio:
Working for our nation's "Drug Czar" at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy's Major Cities Team, Jon focused on the drug epidemic in Dallas, Houston, and other major cities. In his work, Jon analyzed the day-to-day efforts of law enforcement, government and citizens to help build national and local coalitions to combat teenage drug abuse. While in Washington, Jon learned firsthand the devastating effect Texas' porous borders have on the flow of illicit drugs into Plano and Dallas.
Yeah, right. Look at that photo. I'm guessing he was an intern, with no real responsibility and one opportunity to pose with the Drug Czar -- a puke kid with a political internship because of his fundraising work for the Party. (I've found no online presence of him working for the ONDCP except in his own bio.)
Yet still, look how warped he emerged. Here is his primary issue:
Stop Liberal Drug Decriminalization in Texas
- Renew Ronald Reagan's War on Drugs.
- Increase the penalty for those who sell to children.
- Double the penalty for those who addict children and turn them into drug dealers.
- Secure our Borders! Drug peddlers from Mexico target Plano because of the high household incomes and teenagers who are innocent to the nightmares of drug use.
- Expose and prevent liberal legalization schemes. Legislators in Austin are minimizing the rights of children and crime victims and allying themselves with liberals such as the ACLU and George Soros to decriminalize drug crimes and retroactively review previous criminal cases.
As if the Texas legislature has a history of being squishy soft on drugs.
 Now, I'm guessing that Cole was never a prize catch. If you look at his main photo, he looks like the rich a**hole boyfriend in the beginning of every B-movie romantic comedy before the girl realizes what a jerk he is.
But it probably took the White House Office of Drug Control Policy to completely warp him. I'm thinking that the toxicity of the ONDCP may suck out the soul of anyone who works there. Look at Andrea Barthwell, who has constantly jumped from one dishonest scheme to another since leaving the ONDCP. Even John Walters himself got his start assisting Drug Czar William Bennett.
Ah, if only we could get the EPA to shut down the ONDCP.
5:57:57 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 18, 2008 |
Open Thread
 Oh, look! The Afghanistan Opium market is getting some competition. Opium fields spread across Iraq as farmers try to make ends meet
LEAP member Judge Eleanor Levingston Shockett died last week. She was an outspoken advocate for reform who had been interested in drug policy since 1958.
The Drug Testing Medicine Show and Flea Circus is on the road again. The ONDCP held the latest of their little one-sided information propaganda sessions for schools in Washington State this week. But they can't get away with it. DPA's Jennifer Kern had an excellent OpEd published in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. The ACLU urged educators to reject the idea. And at the summits, volunteers passed out copies of the ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance's booklet: Making Sense of Student Drug Testing.
Upcoming summits:
- Jacksonville, FL, January 29, 2008
- Oklahoma City, OK, January 31, 2008
- Albuquerque, NM, February 6, 2008
- Indianapolis, IN, February 13, 2008
Strong editorial in the National Post: Emery Should Be A Free Man
Drug policy in Canada, particularly as it pertains to marijuana, is stuck in a sort of legal no-man's-land. Politicians want to appear tough on crime, but at the same time are loath to make criminals out of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians -- perhaps as many one or two million -- who are casual tokers. They tiptoe up to the precipice of decriminalization, always to scurry back at the last minute for fear of offending the United States, or the many domestic voters who oppose more liberal marijuana laws. At best, our leaders can only ever summon the courage for a de facto decriminalization: Keep personal pot possession nominally illegal, but instruct Crown prosecutors not to prosecute most offenders.
The irony is: This gutless approach undermines the rule of law more assuredly than decriminalization or full legalization ever could. [...]
Permitting Marc Emery to cut a deal with U.S. prosecutors is one of those cowardly half-measure that have come to symbolize Canadian drug policy. If Ottawa wants Canadians to respect the law, it either has to enforce it as written or -- as we would prefer -- change what is written to conform to the prevailing social norms. Our current neither-fish-nor-fowl stand makes a mockery of our criminal justice system.
From the DEA press release about their new reality TV show on Spike TV this spring, produced by Al Roker Entertainment:
"This job is a calling. We love what we do and you can see that on the show through the dedication and excitement of these agents," said Special Agent Mary Irene Cooper, DEA's Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs. "Nothing else I've seen captures the day-to-day experiences of drug law enforcement work like this series. You see the thrills, you see the anticipation, you see the chase, you see the reality.
I'm guessing none of these people will be featured on the show...
8:37:57 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 17, 2008 |
Government sued for street value of pot
This one's been sitting on my desktop for a week, but I didn't want to let it go by...
You know how the government always brags about how much marijuana it seized in a bust by assigning the highest possible street value for every bit of it? This could come back to bite them.
Dickes, a 38-year-old Desert Shield Marine who suffers from debilitating pain after catching grenade shrapnel in the Gulf, says he was treated worse by Colorado police than by anyone in Iraq. In April, 2007 officers raided his home after receiving a tip from a neighbor and, according to his lawyer Robert J. Corry Jr., threw the disabled veteran to the ground, held him at gunpoint and ransacked his home. They found 71 marijuana plants, at least 65 of which they confiscated illegally, and they charged Dickes with felony cultivation. After eight months of legal wrangling, the Arapahoe County district attorney dismissed the charges, determining that Dickes was in fact a certified grower. But, by then, his plants were long dead.
Thanks to a referendum passed in 2000, Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado State Constitution stipulates that "any property... used in connection with the medical use of marijuana... shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of state or local law enforcement officials." Not being equipped with the growroom or know-how to maintain them, Aurora police simply uprooted the plants and threw them in the evidence room.
So Dickes is planning on suing the suburb of Aurora for over $360,000 in damages.
9:40:59 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Gee, who'd have thought that people would be angry?
It appears at this point that are attempting to properly investigate the shooting of Tarika Wilson by police in a drug raid. And Attorney General Marc Dann even went personally to talk with members of the community. Angry members. He deserves credit for that.
And it was probably good for him to do that. Because it helped highlight a critical point (one brought about by the drug war).
Attorney General Marc Dann also pledged to take a closer look at relations between police and the community after hearing from dozens of people who said they don't trust the city's officers.
"This is not a problem that is unique to Lima," Dann said. "It is an unacceptable state of affairs that this many people in any community feels they aren't protected by the police." [...]
He tried to assure residents there will be a thorough investigation.
Still, he was surprised by the amount of anger he faced. "Clearly, this struck a chord in this community," he said
9:26:44 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 |
Obama on the drug war
Associated Press today.
HENDERSON, Nev. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he would bring a new approach to drug crimes in response to a questioner who noted ``if you were arrested when you were a teenager, then you never would be a candidate for the presidency.''
Obama didn't comment on the reference to his teenage use of marijuana and cocaine, which he disclosed in his autobiography and which some of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters have raised recently. Instead, he said the government is not handling the drug problem ``in an intelligent way.''
``I'm not interested in legalizing drugs,'' Obama said, adding that he prefers an approach that puts more emphasis on a public health approach to drugs and less emphasis on incarceration.
He said there should be more programs to keep young people from using drugs. And he said first-time offenders should be given help to overcome their drug use instead of being locked up at massive taxpayer expense from which they emerge as unemployable ex-convicts.
``All we do is give them a master's degree in criminology,'' Obama said.
It's a start.
2:09:52 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 |
Marijuana and Driving
The difference between drunk drivers and stoned drivers:
- The drunk driver will speed through the stop sign without noticing it.
- The stoned driver will stop and patiently wait for it to turn green.
The invoked boogeyman of reefer-crazed drivers on the road has been one of the convenient tools of the prohibitionist. The experienced marijuana smoker knows better -- they know from experience that they avoid driving, and when they do drive, they drive more cautiously/less recklessly, more paranoid and alert even than when they're sober, due to the marijuana-induced self-awareness of their impediment. But they also know that any attempt to explain that to the propaganda-fed general public will sound like the deluded braggadocio of the drunk who claims to be OK to drive.
So we're very careful to say: "Well, certainly driving while stoned would still be illegal," and without realizing it cede to the prohibitionists the fearmonger's tool. The public, certain that legalization will mean an increase in use, logically imagine a future multitude of stoned drivers mowing down their children.
This is why I've been so vocal about the relative safety of stoned drivers -- not to say that it's OK to drive stoned, but rather to say that, of the many dangers we face daily, stoned drivers will always be one of the lowest.
We now have another resource -- NORML's Paul Armentano has put together a comprehensive review of the science: Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review. I think that it could well serve as a useful tool in providing sane alternatives to prohibitionist posturing. And there are a lot of excellent points, well referenced.
Personally, I find the report to share characteristics with its subject matter -- it's overly cautious, although I understand the desire for an organization like NORML to appear that way in order to gain mainstream credibility. I'm assuming the audience for this is not the general public, but rather the researcher and the media -- it's way too... dry for viral propagation. I may need to take on a project of creating a page similar to Why is Marijuana Illegal? related to cannabis and driving for distribution on messageboards and social networks. If so, I will certainly draw upon Armentano's work, for which I am grateful.
I do question the strength of one of his assumptions:
Drivers should also be advised that engaging in the simultaneous use of both cannabis and alcohol can significantly increase their risk of accident compared to the consumption of either substance alone. 32-33
I've not been able to read the complete studies referenced, but I'd certainly want to verify that they conclusively show that the combination of cannabis and alcohol is more dangerous in actual crash likelihood than alcohol alone (although they certainly do show that alcohol and cannabis are more dangerous than cannabis alone), and I'd also like to verify that they address the mitigating caution factor. Based on other studies I've read, I'm skeptical.
Additionally in this regard, I think the Transport study's speculations are worth mentioning:
But the study also found that drivers on cannabis tended to be aware of their intoxicated state, and drove more cautiously to compensate. Indeed, doped-up volunteers often rated themselves as being more impaired than police surgeons brought in to evaluate their sobriety.
Surprisingly, drinking alcohol didn't offset this cautious behaviour, opening up the unproven possibility that a driver who is moderately drunk might be better off under some conditions if they had also smoked.
Paul Armentano concludes with a call for the development of better cannabis-specific impairment testing. That's something I also support, (although I'd push harder for it to actually be impairment-based and avoid phrases like "identify intoxicated drivers" (which I fear will lead to some cannabis equivalent of a 0.01 BAC)).
The development of such technology would also increase public support for the taxation and regulation of cannabis by helping to assuage concerns that liberalizing marijuana policies could potentially lead to an increase in incidences of drugged driving.42 Such concerns are a significant impediment to the enactment of marijuana law reform, and must be sufficiently addressed before a majority of the public will embrace any public policy that proposes regulating adult cannabis use like alcohol.
There's where I disagree. Better testing will not, in my opinion, assuage the public. They know that testing doesn't prevent drunk drivers from killing people. All that the implementation of better cannabis impairment testing will do is falsely tell them that cannabis driving is very dangerous -- something that they already believe -- and so, certain that legalization will mean an increase in use, they logically will imagine a future multitude of stoned drivers mowing down their children.
No, the way to assuage the public regarding legalization is to show them that driving while stoned is about as dangerous as driving with a cellphone. Something to be discouraged, maybe even outlawed. Certainly less dangerous than driving while fatigued. And not even in the same universe as driving while drunk.
The real reason to develop impairment based testing for cannabis drivers is two-fold:
- To prevent the prohibitionist claims that, since there is no reliable impairment test, we simply must outlaw driving with any metabolites in the body (the zero tolerance movement), thereby providing a sneaky way to prosecute people for smoking marijuana even if it was days before they drove.
- Let me tell you a true story...
Last Thursday, 17-year-old Courtney Anna Marie Kuenzi Kessenich of Spring Green, Wisconsin, was killed in a car crash. Courtney had been dating John Harrison (also 17) of Madison for about a year. There were planning to get engaged June 8 (her 18th birthday). She didn't want to drive home from work in the snow Thursday night, so John offered to drive. On the way home, he lost control of the car, which went sideways and it was hit broadside. She died and he is in the hospital recovering from serious injuries.
It's the tragic tale of so many young people on the roads. An accident. Two devastated families.
But it gets worse.
Police believe that they found some marijuana in the car and so they questioned Harrison while he was sedated and he admitted smoking a little pot earlier in the day.
So they arrested him "on suspicion of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle and causing injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle."
The charges are tentative and may still be dropped, but it's completely outrageous that such charges can even be contemplated without any evidence of impairment.
There's one other person who is devastated, and who is not going to take it -- the girl's father.
"It was an accident. It wasn't his fault," Kessenich said. "The road conditions were terrible and he lost control of the car and my daughter died. It was an accident. Why do I want to live with bitterness? I 'm supporting him and his family."
He said he wants Harrison to attend Courtney's funeral today in Spring Green.
"John was like a son to me," Kessenich said. "I've been agonizing over this. It 's going to be my mission to straighten it out. I don't want her going down as a statistic from a drunk driver."
The thing is... in the real world -- not the fantasyland of the prohibitionists -- people instinctively know that it's extremely unlikely that pot caused Courtney's death. In fact, some may even argue that if John had been stoned, he might have driven more slowly, or even convinced her not to make the trip home at all.
We know that there's no justification in claiming Courtney died because of pot. But without a way to actually test for impairment, you can practically see the Dane County regulars salivating at the chance to point to a Death By Marihuana!
Even if it means ruining more innocent lives.
Drive careful out there. OK?
10:14:52 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 14, 2008 |
Drug Czar Watch
I'm keeping an eye on the Drug Czar's "blog" 'cause I just want to see how he handles this one:
MIAMI -- U.S.-directed seizures and disruptions of cocaine shipments from Latin America dropped sharply in 2007 from the year before, reflecting in part a successful shift in tactics by drug traffickers to avoid detection at sea, senior American officials disclosed Monday in releasing new figures.
Conventional wisdom says that he'll take the "everything proves I'm right" road. You know, if seizures are up, that proves the war is working and we need to press our advantage by more funding; if seizures are down that proves the war is working, but we need to invest more to keep up with the bad guys.
Second possibility: he's put so much face into his recent push about how well the Colombian and Mexican interdiction is working that he may just pretend this news doesn't exist. That means he has to avoid the press as well.
Third possibility: a convoluted mix of explanations that say everything is exactly the way he expected it. The war is working in Colombia and Mexico, prices are still up and supply is still down and the lower level of interdiction is a sign that the traffickers have run out of drugs.
Place your bets.
Update: So far, Option 2 appears to be winning, though it's still too early to call it.
9:45:34 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Marc Emery agrees to 5 years in Canadian prison (updated)
LInk
Marc Emery, Vancouver's self-styled Prince of Pot, has tentatively agreed to a five-year prison term in a plea bargain over U.S. money laundering and marijuana seed-selling charges.
Facing an extradition hearing Jan. 21 and the all-but-certain prospect of delivery to American authorities, Emery has cut a deal with U.S. prosecutors to serve his sentence in Canada.
He also hopes it will save his two co-accused -- Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams, who were his lieutenants for so much of the past decade. [...]
If accepted by the courts in both countries, Emery said he will serve the full term and not be eligible for Canada's lenient get-out-of-jail-early rules.
"I'm going to do more time than many violent, repeat offenders," he complained. "There isn't a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, 'I was hurt by Marc Emery.' No one."
Ian Mulgrew, the author of the article, goes on to editorialize pretty strongly that the Canadian government should step in...
It's time for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to step in and say, sorry, Uncle Sam, not today -- not ever.
Update: This report tells a slightly different story:
Emery says his lawyers told him there was no hope to refute the U.S. allegations and the American offer also includes no jail time for his co-accused Greg Williams and Michelle Rainey.
He says the American's have demanded a 10-year prison term, where he serves at least five years in custody, most of it in Canada. [...]
Emery, who's been a vocal advocate for decriminalizing pot, says if the federal government agrees to the plea deal he could be going to serve time in a U.S. prison within the next 60 days.
Still 5 years actually served, but with the idea of some of it in the U.S.
Interesting, if this is true. Probably having a little bit of time served in the U.S. is a way for the U.S. prosecutors to save face? -- be able to say that they actually successfully extradited him, without taking the chance of Canada balking?
Hope the lawyers are doing their job well with the negotiations (dotting i's, making sure there are witnesses to the terms, etc.). Call me cynical, but I can't help imagining some additional charges magically surfacing once Emery's in the U.S.
Of course, remember that these are still preliminary reports.
11:54:49 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
California Appeals Court limits police ability to enter home when seeing marijuana
This is a good ruling -- or at least a step in the right direction.
In overturning a Pacifica man's conviction, the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco said officers may enter someone's home to preserve evidence of a crime - but only if the crime is punishable by jail or prison.
Under a 1975 California law, the court noted, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor carrying a fine of as much as $100, with no jail time even for a repeat offense. That means police who see someone smoking can enter only if they have the resident's permission or a warrant from a judge, the court said.
Note that this only affects California, and that the police could still get a warrant, but it's a positive ruling to prevent police from entering houses just because they saw someone smoking a joint through the window.
Police could still enter if they saw enough marijuana to reach a jail sentence, but they can't infer it.
In defense of the search, prosecutors argued that police had reason to believe there was more than an ounce of marijuana elsewhere in the apartment - enough to subject Hua to a possible one-year jail sentence - and that Hua or others might be committing felonies by handing marijuana cigarettes to each other.
The court said the first argument was based on "mere conjecture" and the second was a misinterpretation of the law, which prescribes the same maximum $100 fine for giving away a marijuana cigarette as for smoking it. Justice Mark Simons wrote the 3-0 ruling.
There's another good point by the Justice -- I've always found that whole notion of passing a joint being considered the same as trafficking to be one of the most offensive aspects of marijuana criminal law (not that all of it isn't, of course).
Naturally, some people aren't happy with this ruling, notably Deputy Attorney Ronald Niver who says he'll recommend appealing and had this bizarre statement:
"It's difficult to accept the proposition that if you see marijuana in one room, you cannot draw the inference that there's marijuana in another room," he said. "It's like saying that if you see the streets are wet, you can't infer that it's raining."
???
[Thanks, Tom]
7:58:10 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 13, 2008 |
Tarika Wilson update and some good voices added to the discussion
Tarika Wilson, the Lima, Ohio mother of six who was shot to death by police in a drug raid was buried on Friday.
On Saturday, protesters marched through the streets of Lima once again.
Ms. Johnson, march organizer, said marchers will demonstrate every Saturday until they find out why Police Sgt. Joe Chavalia shot the 26-year-old woman on Jan. 4.
Two strong articles have appeared in the Lima News, which leads me to some hope that the important things are at least being discussed.
First, this OpEd by Ronald Lederman, Jr.: A War We Should Call Off
Two recent reports from groups advocating reform of the justice system show that, no matter what happened in that house on Third Street, all parties involved stood to be the victims of a war that has gone on for too long with no overall success. This most recent battle in our War on Drugs has claimed at least three lives directly, many more indirectly, all to take one alleged dealer out of circulation. The lives involved include a 26-year mother of six and a 31-year veteran officer.
But, truth be told, we can go to many corners of this region to find some manner of drugs, and that's without counting alcohol as the drug it is. If Terry is everything prosecutors accuse him of being, is his being off the streets doing anything other than shifting traffic just a little?
But, lawmakers, who want to appear to be keeping us safe, pass increasingly tougher laws. They can claim credit for tougher laws, but we don't hold them accountable enough for their role in what happened on Third Street. Police agencies that want to show they're cleaning up the streets keep making busts without cutting very much into the overall supply. We end up locking many more people away, which means we're spending billions of extra tax dollars, but the rate at which people use drugs isn't declining. [...]
Society would have much more money and much more prison space if we limited our police actions against drug users and dealers to those who actually present a serious risk.
And then there's another one by Thomas J. Lucente, Jr.: The Ill-Conceived War on Drugs Destroying America
America's ill-conceived War on Drugs cost another life this month when a police officer in Lima accidentally shot and killed a woman and injured her baby during a drug raid. They were looking for her boyfriend.
The accidental shooting of 26-year-old Tarika Wilson was just the latest in more than a quarter-century of bloodshed.
Read that whole piece by Lucente -- it's a very powerful rant.
It concludes:
This "us against them" attitude makes it increasingly easier for them to bust down doors on unsuspecting residents based on often-spurious tips from shady characters. They conduct pre-dawn raids with very little intelligence on what they will find in the house. Then, when an officer kills someone, they put up a wall of silence and claim the whole operation was "by the book."
Well, whatever book they are using has no place in a free society where police should be protecting the liberties and freedoms of citizens -- even if that freedom includes the recreational use of drugs.
The Constitution has become nothing but a doormat for government agents to trample on as they bust down another door to another American home looking for drugs that may or may not be there.
4:11:36 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
