Reminder. If you haven’t done it yet, please consider signing the Vienna Declaration.
… Basing drug policies on scientific evidence will not eliminate drug use or the problems stemming from drug injecting. However, reorienting drug policies towards evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfil human rights has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.
The ACLU is suing Wal-Mart, for firing Joseph Casias, because he tested positive for marijuana, despite using it legally as a medical marijuana patient in Michigan.
California Rallying Cry?: Vote Green, Not Brown. Steve Fox has some advice for gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, who came out against the marijuana legalization referendum:
Here is my political advice to Mr. Brown. From now on, if he is asked about Proposition 19, he should say, “I have some concerns about the initiative, which I hope could be addressed by the state legislature if it passes, but if I am elected to be the next governor of the state I certainly plan to respect the will of the people.â€
If he chooses to ignore this advice, he may be hearing or seeing – or simply feeling the effects of — the following slogan in the fall: “Vote green, not Brown.â€
The dangers of drugged driving by Gil Kerlikowske, in The Baltimore Sun. The Drug Czar is clearly determined to push this unsupported policy move. I’ve written a letter in response, but have not heard from the Sun, yet.
Interesting survey of newspaper and blog comments to determine what arguments pro and con are used most often regarding marijuana legalization.
PROS:
- Medical usefulness 48%
- Crime and law enforcement 41%
- Potential positive impact on economy and public finance 33%
- Safer to use than some other prohibited drugs and alcohol 24%Industrial use 15%
CONS:
- Mental and physical health risk 68%
- Substantial legal substitutes for marijuana’s medical attributes 32%
- Social effects 32%
- Crime and accident risks 26%
- Tendency to lead to other drug use 16%
Santa Cruz County Grand Jury determined that legalizing marijuana would bring in an estimated $7,549,200 for the county. I haven’t heard of a Grand Jury used that way before.
Stupid Drug Warrior Tricks…
- Legalizing Marijuana by Chris Watkins, Narcotics/K9 Ops Contributor at Officer.com
- Medical Marijuana Too Dangerous, Costly by Gerald Turetsky, in the Times Union (Albany, NY).
Marijuana claims victims from the growers, users and the environment. Cancers associated with tobacco use are just as likely in marijuana. […] Tens of thousands have been murdered on the US/Mexico border in the last several years and to turn a blind eye to this issue is negligent on our part and dangerous to our national security. This fight won’t be won if we have politicians promoting the use and taxation of an illegal drug to fill federal, state or local coffers. This simply goes against the basic fundamentals of a civilized society and allows our government to become nothing less than drug dealers.
Marijuana is has other health risks. THC levels vary greatly. In recent years its potency has risen by up to 600 percent and, in some cases, 1,500 percent. These are dangerous levels, especially for people with weakened immune deficiency systems, heart conditions and psychiatric illnesses.
This is an open thread
Wow. That last article from Gerald Turetsky is just chock full of classic reefer madness that has been debunked over and over. It’s so sad to see someone present an argument that lacks even the rudimentary application of critical thinking and logic.
Signed it two days ago.
Glad to read the ACLU is helping out Joseph Casias. Too many times we read about these events and then rarely hear anymore about it. Besides, ChinaMart sucks.
Dope priest prophecy
Doomantra from beneath the sea
Green throne, raised to the black sun
Doom child, wake to planet song
Rise, black amps tear the sky
Feedback will free your
mind and set you free
Rise, black amps tear the sky
Riff hewn altar wreathed
in smoke and weed
Dopethrone, in this land of sorcery
Dopethrone, vision through T.H.C.
Dopethrone, feedback will free
Dopethrone, three wizards
crowned with weed, yeah
Black monolith charged with unlight
Sacrifice to forever midnight
Towers, titan sonic wave
Sorcery, necromantic slaves
Rise, black amps tear the sky
Feedback will free your
mind and set you free
Rise, black amps tear the sky
Riff hewn altar wreathed in
smoke and weed, yeah
Dopethrone, in this land of sorcery
Dopethrone, vision
through T.H.C., yeah
Dopethrone, feedback will free, yeah
Dopethrone, three wizards
crowned with weed, yeah
In this land of sorcery
Vision through T.H.C.
Holy feedback, it will free
Three wizards crowned with weed
The best argument against the drug war (and one drug warriors have great difficulty answering on the side of keeping certain drugs illegal and others strictly contnrolled) is none of the ones listed in that survey. The best argument for complete legalization of all drugs is this one:
We have a federal Constitution which governs our federal government, which Constitution does NOT give the authority to the federal government to ban or regulate ANY drugs. It required a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol and another to repeal it; but no amendment was ever passed by congress, nor ratified by the requisite number of states, to criminalize any other intoxicant/drug. Therefore, the “war on (some) drugs” is patently unconstitutional. As a Constitutionalist, this is one of the highest priority issues for me, right up there with opposition to the PATRIOT Acts (I and II), the healthcare bill, and other issues relating to congress and the federal government exceeding their Constitutional authority.
@Dopethrone. Only hick cops call weed dope. The band Electric Wizard sucks! Kind herb is not dope! Dope is crap like Heroin!
Now that it’s known that the human body actually makes its own morphine, how will this scientific fact be reconciled under the new drugged driving issue being pushed by the ONDCP?
If the government wants to spy on our metabolites, why discriminate between the chemicals morphine and THC? Doesn’t morphine seem a bit scarier than marijuana?
Complicating the morphine picture is that much of the plant kingdom also produces trace amounts of morphine that when consumed in the form of green leafy foods get concentrated in products like animal and human milk. It’s not enough morphine to get anyone high, of course. But does this mean eager young drug warriors and road cops will sign up to go lick the problem at its source?
“This simply goes against the basic fundamentals of a civilized society and allows our government to become nothing less than drug dealers.”
hmmmm, ya know i’m really having trouble wrapping my brain around the idea that stormtroopers kicking in people’s doors and shooting them to “protect” them from drugs is somehow civilized.
@Windy
I agree with you.
For those people interested, our Supreme Court workaround for the lacking constitutional amendment is the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause, giving Congress authority…
“To regulate any activity having a substantial affect on interstate commerce” – Supreme Court
The original says:
“To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” – U.S. Constitution
Our judicial branch is obligated to only interpret the law.
Not only have they failed to do so in the context of the war on some drugs, they established a legal precedence undeniably undermining our entire written national foundation.
The Supreme Court ruling in Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) is unbelievably ridiculous, and will not stand the test of time.
Justice Clarence Thomas explains the ridiculous nature of this ruling in the first paragraph of his dissent:
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
Republicans should clearly be leading the charge to repeal the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as part of an overall effort against the New-Deal-sanctioned abusive Commerce Clause interpretation relied on heavily to authorize over-regulating the private sector, and will be used as needed to authorize Obamacare and Cap-n-Trade.
Republican support would heavily tip the scales against the prohibitionists and give us the public power needed to repeal this disastrous policy — automatically removing our obligation towards relevant international treaties which require national constitutionality.
I post in the Wall Street Journal comments section when I can, because it is dominated by conservatives, likely wealthy enough (i.e. powerful enough) to have at least some influence in our nation’s effective oligarchy spanning the public and private sectors.
Though my posts may be largely ignored, some replies and recommendations (thumbs up button) suggest that at least some people are getting the message, noting the overall trend of more comments towards a ‘non-drug-war’ solution with more recommendations for those comments.
Repealing the CSA is not an ‘if’, but a ‘when’.
Like the Berlin wall being torn down fairly suddenly, public pressure against Congress and the Supreme Court will emerge forcing a correction to the Commerce Clause interpretation (and, if we do our jobs right, repeal the CSA as part of that correction).
The whole truth is on our side (there is no sustainable point supporting the CSA), and that is too much to try to sweep under the rug in favor of prohibitionist propaganda.
“Wow. That last article from Gerald Turetsky is just chock full of classic reefer madness that has been debunked over and over. It’s so sad to see someone present an argument that lacks even the rudimentary application of critical thinking and logic.”
What it shows is the lack of knowledge on current research
and the use of propaganda that was presented to them when they were being trained as a “good little drug warrior”.
Even cops have to believe in something and apparently he learned the myths he spews because once he convinced himself of his role as a narcotics officer,he quit learning.
Or he is trying to protect his funding from the federal government and the monies being made from search and seizures of marijuana busts.
“This fight won’t be won if we have politicians promoting the use and taxation of an illegal drug to fill federal, state or local coffers. This simply goes against the basic fundamentals of a civilized society and allows our government to become nothing less than drug dealers.”
Politicians are not deciding if marijuana is going to be legalized in California,the people are.
If we waited on politicians to decide anything but their own pay raises and ways to make their election fund contributors more money,it would never happen. As soon as politicians see a way that they can actually get their fingers in the pie,they will start supporting the issue.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Sign the Vienna Declaration - Drug WarRant -- Topsy.com
Don’t get your epanties in a twist PDC. The Wizard tours and gets paid while you bitch online.
“There is still more we can do. Fifteen states have already passed legislation establishing a zero tolerance “per se” standard for drugged driving. Using this standard, an individual who is driving erratically can be stopped and cited if, after testing, he or she is found to have an illegal drug in his or her system.”
Kerlikowske has clearly gone off the deep end with this nonsense.
He seems to be suggesting that we simply eliminate any requirement for actual impairment in being cited for driving while intoxicated.
There are innumerable reasons one might drive erratically, maybe you dropped your smoke in your lap.
At the very least one should be expected to fail a standard sobriety test before being subjected to any testing.
I was once stopped for having my high beams on in my car, and was subjected to a sobriety test merely for that. Would this constitute a reason to be tested for the presence of metabolites?
Ahhh, my hometown Bmore Sun acting as a mouthpiece for Droopy, the head drug warrior. What a shame. An example of how clueless the Baltimore Sun is about the drug war: the one columnist that is outwardly against the drug war on their staff thought Justice Stevens was some kind of revolutionary anti-drug war figure. Shameful indeed.
Link
It’s sad to see people still trying to use scare tactics. This is 2010? Wait?! People don’t believe the lies in this article?! Marijuana has never caused cancer. Marijuan has NEVER killed anyone. It is IMPOSSIBLE to overdose on marijuana. Get educated peeps. Stay open minded. There are government funded studies that prove marijuana is safe..google: “top studies the government wish they’d never funded”. The TRUTH is out there..not “here”.