Drug WarRant

Tweet from Transform Drug Policy

Trying to blame the Denver 420 shootings on marijuana is like trying to blame the Boston bombings on running #growup

Sorry to subject you to reporting from The Mail (if you follow the link), but they’ve got the quotes from Susan Sarandon’s Huffington Post video.

[Susan Sarandon] said in a new interview that making the plant illegal is ‘racist’ and a ‘waste of money.’ […]

‘I believe in individual rights, I mean, I would like to see everybody be able to smoke pot. That’s a waste of our money to incarcerate all those people. I’m totally a libertarian in that sense,’ the actress said in a HuffPost Live interview on Wednesday. […]

‘It’s completely racist, you’re picking up everybody at the lower level because the mandatory drug laws let you trade in to get off,’ she said. ‘People at the bottom are filling up our jails, mostly people of colour… you’re wasting taxpayers money and allowing drug cartels to make money.’ […]

‘You never hear of anybody robbing stores when they’re too high, they don’t drive cars, alcohol causes more damage to your body, so it’s just a hangup from ignorance that’s become politicised.’

Sarandon is a fairly powerful very liberal celebrity activist, and her voice actively behind legalization could be good to help liberals stop putting legalization on the back burner.

I got to meet with Susan once — we both had some time to kill at LaGuardia airport and chatted for awhile. She was on her way to open her newest ping-pong social club (SPiN) – this one in Milwaukee. Quite delightfully personable.

I’ve been busy helping students who are holding a four-square marathon to raise money. They do it every year (last year was 69 straight hours). So I’m there through the nights and cook grilled cheese and breakfast sandwiches for them. It’s been a rough one with storms, high winds, and a cold front bringing it down to 27 degrees at one point.

I hope you’re all having a wonderful and safe 4/20.

I may have shared this with you before, but it’s worth doing again… I have a group of very talented friends who have an improv comedy group called Octavarius. One of the things they have worked on is a tran-media project called “I Made America,” which is an internet TV series, plus live events, viral videos and so forth, about some of our founding fathers who were brought through time to present-day Chicago, and are now forced to make a living.

Here’s one of the video shorts they made just for fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j2TPZGpBC0&sns=em

Gil Kerlikowske, Drug Czar, Opposes Marijuana Legalization

Really? That’s news?

It did get Kevin excited…

Kevin Sabet tweet: Today: Gil Kerlikowske, Obama’s Drug Czar, Opposes Marijuana Legalization http://t.co/UbFX09Za5V

Today. Like it was breaking news.

Of course, we know it’s no surprise. It’s not like he has a choice:

Responsibilities. –The Director– […]

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–

1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

Kevin, however, sees it differently.

Tweet: @TransformDrugs That reading of ONDCP’s authorization is 2nd biggest “mountain out of a molehill” instance/mistake made by reformers.

Again, really?

How else can you possible read it? If there’s another way to read it, then maybe we can just read the drug laws to say that marijuana isn’t really illegal.

From the Pew Trust: Report: No Easy Options for Feds in Legal Marijuana States

The federal government may not have much choice but to continue its mellow attitude toward legal marijuana in Washington and Colorado.

New laws legalizing recreational marijuana use in Washington and Colorado probably fall under the states’ “power to decide what is criminal and what is not,” according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The report analyzes court precedent and lays out what the Justice Department and the Obama administration might do to enforce federal law now that several states have passed marijuana laws that contradict it.

The agency’s conclusion: The feds face an array of unappealing options.

Here’s the report: State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues (pdf)

As you may know, the Congressional Research Service is the entity that Congress turns to for detailed policy and legal analysis.

Here’s the key:

In Section 708 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. §903), Congress specifically articulated the degree to which federal law was to preempt state controlled substances laws. This express preemption61
provision recites language that evokes the principles of conflict preemption, stating,

No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.62

Notably, the provision clarifies that Congress did not intend to entirely occupy the regulatory field concerning controlled substances or wholly supplant traditional state authority in the area. Indeed, Congress expressly declined to assert field preemption as grounds for preempting state law under the CSA. The Supreme Court has stated that this provision suggests that Congress “explicitly contemplate[d] a role for the States in regulating controlled substances.”63 As such, the preemptive effect of the CSA is not as broad as congressional authority could have allowed. States remain free to pass laws relating to marijuana, or other controlled substances, so long as they do not create a “positive conflict” with federal law, such that the two laws “cannot consistently stand together.”

This is crucial, and why the Feds can’t simply overturn the Colorado and Washington laws, for example (or any of the medical marijuana laws, either). The states, of course, have to dance a bit of a fine line to make sure they don’t implement laws in a way that conflict with federal law, but the mere notion of the state having a different way of dealing with marijuana than the federal government is not a problem. In this instance, the CRS actually mentioned an Amendment that you rarely hear having any power:

Under both Tenth Amendment and preemption principles, federal and state courts have previously held that a state’s decision to simply permit what the federal government prohibits does not create a “positive conflict” with federal law.85 As discussed above, under the impossibility prong of conflict preemption, the Supreme Court has specifically held that so long as an individual is not compelled by state law to engage in conduct prohibited by federal law, then simultaneous compliance with both laws is not “impossible.”86

The CRS also explains why international treaties do not overturn state legalization laws.

It is well established that treaties, like federal statutes, may preempt conflicting state laws. The Supremacy Clause expressly provides that in addition to federal law, “all treaties made … under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”138 Therefore, a state law is generally preempted to the same degree whether it is in conflict with a federal statute or an international treaty obligation. However, not all treaties are accorded “automatic” preemptive effect.139 Only where a treaty “constitute[s] binding federal law,” without the “aid of any [implementing] legislative provision,” does it qualify as the “Supreme law of the land” for preemption purposes.140 Such treaties are known as “self-executing” treaties—meaning an international agreement with “automatic domestic effect as federal law upon ratification.”141 […]

…neither the Single Convention nor the other international drug control treaties appear to be “self-executing.” Each treaty requires the signatory nation to give legal effect to the goals of the treaty through domestic implementing legislation. The provisions of the treaties do not themselves establish binding domestic law. The United
States, for example, implemented the obligations of these treaties through the CSA.145 Because these treaties do not create binding law “of [their] own force,” it would appear unlikely that a U.S. court would accord the treaties direct preemptive effect.146

So where does this leave the feds? They can use their limited resources to arrest and seize whomever they can get their hands on. They can tie marijuana to other federal laws — gun possession, public housing occupancy, employment drug testing, etc.

None of these options will achieve the overturning of state laws. And their pettiness will turn individuals further against the federal government.

Or… the federal government could listen to the states, and to the people.

Just a thought.

It’s good to be reminded every now and then who some of the players are.

Last week’s ridiculous article in the Springfield, Illinois State-Journal Register: Guest Column: Marijuana not a safe or effective medicine by Peter Bensinger and Andrea Barthwell.

It’s full of the standard nonsense that has been trotted out time and time again to opposed medical marijuana. But let’s remember just who Barthwell and Bensinger are.

According to the article:

Peter Bensinger is former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and former director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Andrea Barthwell is former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Of course, that leaves out a good portion of the story. Andrea Barthwell was a founder of Illinois Marijuana Lectures — a group that toured Illinois trying to sabotage medical marijuana efforts. I caught her lying about her sponsorships in that little enterprise and it was shut down. See Andrea Barthwell Caught Red-Handed.

Shortly after that, this crusader against medical marijuana went to work promoting… medical marijuana (Sativex). See Andrea Barthwell, Snake Oil Salesman.

Later, she created a group called The Coalition to End Needless Death on our Roadways, where she simply took annual traffic fatality figures from the NHTSA, made mathematically improper conclusions from that data, and distributed those conclusions in press releases, that were often printed uncritically by duped media sources, until I started contacting them and letting them know they were being duped. I also countered with my own site: End Needless Death with Truth, not Lies

Wherever you find Andrea Barthwell, it appears the truth is beating a hasty retreat.

So let’s take a quick look at Peter Bensinger. What possible reason would he have to be a prohibitionist? Here’s one:

Two of the loudest anti-marijuana spokespeople are two elder drug warriors, Peter Bensinger (DEA chief, 1976—1981) and Robert DuPont (White House drug chief, 1973—1977), who run a corporate drug-testing business.

“Their employee-assistance company, Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, the sixth largest in the nation, holds the pee stick for some 10 million employees around the US. Their clients have included the biggest players in industry and government: Kraft Foods, American Airlines, Johnson & Johnson, the Federal Aviation Administration and even the Justice Department itself,” writes Kevin Gray for The Fix.

Former DEA administrator Peter Bensinger – who owns a drug testing company – lobbies for a federal crackdown on legal marijuana
“‘These are not just old drug war architects pushing a drug war model they’ve pushed for 40 years,’ says Brian Vicente, a Denver lawyer and co-author of Colorado’s Proposition 64, which legalized marijuana for recreational use. ‘These guys are asking Eric Holder to pursue prohibition policies that line their own pockets.'”

In addition to his profiteering from drug testing, it’s probably worth noting that he’s spent significant time connected to the prison industry, as a Board Member of Federal Prison Industries and as Director of the Corrections Department for the State of Illinois.

Some good fun.

Not sure if the embed is working properly. Here’s a link to the video.

I found this mildly interesting. DEA director Michele Leonhart is testifying before Congress today on the DEA budget. I took a look at her prepared remarks, and was struck by the lack of any reference to what is going on in the United States regarding cannabis.

There were three references to marijuana in her speech: a reference to the various kinds of drugs seized in Mexico; a reference to non-medical prescription drug use being second only to marijuana; and a reference to synthetic cannabinoids.

Nothing about medical marijuana. Nothing about marijuana legalization efforts. Nothing about Colorado or Washington. Absolute silence.

Wonder how much of this is about the White House still not wanting to discuss legalization, and how much from the DEA recognizing that to discuss domestic marijuana today is akin to opening the discussion about the future relevance of the DEA.

…

If anyone watches the testimony, I’d be interested to hear how the questioning went.

The White House spends all year traveling around the country talking about their “third way” and their “21st Century Drug Policy” — that the focus needs to be on treatment and that we can’t arrest our way out of drug problems. That there’s too much focus on incarceration.

At the same time, they’re dealing with severe national budget pressures, so you’d think this would be the perfect excuse to actually significantly reduce spending on things like domestic drug law enforcement. Well, the budget for domestic drug law enforcement was 9.4 billion in 2012, and they’re asking for 9.5 billion in 2014.

There’s absolutely no good political reason to do this… except to fund profiteers who give campaign donations.

The only way they can even find a positive spin is by throwing even mmore money at treatment, further pushing up the entire drug war budget. And even then… As the Huffington Post reports:

The White House budget proposal for fiscal 2014 devotes 58 percent of drug-control spending to punishment and interdiction, compared with 42 percent to treatment and prevention.

So much for the “third way.”

I can’t imagine what it must be like to have the complete lack of integrity to work in the Drug Czar’s office… that would allow you to write a post like this one.