Tuesday, March 3, 2009

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement disconnect continues The Sheriff of Essex County, Massachusetts writes of his discussions with young people about marijuana and decriminalization. He says We should never have reduced the criminal penalties associated with the possession of marijuana. And so what are the reasons for this? But the reality is if you use marijuana, and are arrested for the infraction, the charge stays on your permanent record. And such a charge may hinder your chances for employment, particularly if you ever had aspirations of working in law enforcement at the local, state or federal level. A marijuana charge also negatively affects the way you are perceived when you apply for other jobs. You may, for example, lose your ability to apply for a commercial driver's license if you garner a marijuana charge. You may also lose the chance to work for a particular company if that corporation requires regular drug tests and perceives you to be a habitual user of marijuana. The list of problems associated with marijuana use is endless. Um. Huh? Thats a list of problems associated with prohibition. The Sheriff appears to be saying that they should never have decriminalized marijuana because there are still major penalties that users could face. What other reasons does the Sheriff offer? I also reminded the students that when you become a regular marijuana user in high school, you are looked down upon by those who do not partake in the practice. Ah, yes. Marijuana should be illegal because people will think less of you if you smoke it... Yeah, that makes sense. It continues to amaze me that some law enforcement in Massachusetts is completely incapable of understanding.... the law. 10:11:17 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

And the absurdity never stops Link Narcotics officers in a two-county drug force in North Carolina were serving a warrant on a suspected marijuana dealer. After a hot, tiring day searching the house -- and while waiting for the truck to load up the seized growing equipment and the misdemeanor amount of pot -- they got some pizza... and beer. It was very nice of County Sheriff Joe Shook to provide the beer, particularly since he had to drive across state lines to Georgia to get it (the county they were in was a dry county). 1:20:48 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Good deterrents Drug Sweeps At Schools Applauded As Deterrent Before police officers with drug-sniffing dogs scoured the halls at Mount Vernon High School on Tuesday, students were given a five-minute warning to come clean. A few handed over prescription and over-the-counter medications hidden in their backpacks or lockers. The hourlong building sweep that followed netted no illegal drugs, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a success, said detective Cpl. Matt Dailey of the Mount Vernon Police Department, who helped organize the search. "We want them to know that we're out there; we're watching." [...] "I think the bang for the buck is very good on the return," said Bob Cornwell, director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association. [...] School officials say that random, unannounced drug sweeps help them measure a school's safety and security. The exercise also is designed to make students think twice, said Mount Vernon Superintendent Steve Short. Yep, that's a deterrent all right. You know what else would be a good deterrent? Selecting students at random and making them strip naked in front of everyone while guards go through their clothes and bags. That'd be a good deterrent. Or how about this? Gather all the students in an assembly and pick one and execute him in front of a firing squad right there in the gym. Tell the other students that'll happen to anyone who uses drugs. That would be a good deterrent. A little extreme? Sure. But you see, this is the mentality that has infected our schools. Anything goes as long as it's seen as a deterrent to drug use (even if it isn't). And so our young people are raised believing that they have no rights and become perfect fodder for authoritarians. 9:01:29 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Is student activism starting to come back? I have been heartened by the incredible work and growth of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. It gives me hope for the future in the development of a base of young drug policy reform activists. And then I see an editorial like this in the school newspaper of a major university (University of Arizona) and I smile. But this policy could not be more relevant to our current condition, as the UA sinks into a financial mire of budget shortfalls, desperate reorganization schemes and forced cutbacks. What better time to ask whether pursuing and penalizing student drug-users is really the wisest use of our time and money? Of course, the UA didn't write this policy, and it might be argued that even a united university community would be hard-pressed to change a federal law. But difficult is not the same as impossible, and it's not impossible to imagine changed policy resulting from a nation of colleges raging against a policy that demands that they treat campus pot-smokers the same way they would treat, say, an outbreak of campus heroin addiction. Our student government leaders, so eager to leap on anything that smacks of the downtrodden, should make this issue their own. At the very least, they would make it clear that this issue is an issue, and one that affects us all. After all, even those of us who don't partake still wind up paying when those who do get busted - we pay through the teeth for the service, in fact, every April. A nation of colleges raging against a policy. That's something to dream about. 8:33:52 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Just for fun An open letter to the President: Obama, you're no stranger to the bong. [Via Reason] 8:21:55 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []