Drug WarRant

They don’t come any dumber than Dennis. Unfortunately, a fair number are as dumb.

House OKs bill to ban flavored rolling papers

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Flavored tobacco rolling papers that critics say are used to smoke marijuana would be banned under a plan approved by the Illinois House.

The House gave its OK to the bill sponsored by Rep. Dennis Reboletti Thursday night. The legislation would also toughen the penalty for heroin sales. […]

The bill would also send anyone who sells 3 or more grams of heroin to prison. The threshold is now 5 grams.

What a schmuck. He apparently thinks the state is just rolling in money.

In the meantime, the state legislature is gridlocked over how to resolve the Constitutional requirement that they pay their debts, they’re cutting education spending right and left, have run out of new casino income streams, and are pretty much broke.

But Dennis figures they can always spend some money hassling small store owners who sell rolling papers. And prisons? There’s always room for more. Right?

I wonder if former prosecutor Reboletti ever figured out that sending people to prison costs money.

He certainly can’t prove that either provision will actually do anything useful. It’s all about grandstanding with the taxpayers’ money.

Time for the residents of Elmhurst to take out the trash and elect someone responsible.

From the Moving towards a Drug-free Society: Statement made by the 2nd Congress of World Federation Against Drugs – WFAD, Stockholm, Sweden on May 23, 2012… (where our own Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske was a proud and eager participant):

[…] Realizing that advocates of legalization and decriminalization of drugs are driven by greed, disrespect of human rights and lack of understanding of the harms of drugs and of addiction, and that making drugs more legal to use, and thus more accessible, will escalate drug use and the chemical slavery of drug addiction; […]

The Congress of WFAD finds that states and all concerned individuals, groups and bodies need to support the international conventions on narcotics and to advocate for a balanced and restrictive policy that seeks to limit the harmful effects of drugs through prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and recovery programmes.

All over the media this morning is the screaming headline from the Los Angeles Times:

Most California voters don’t support legalizing pot, poll finds

The subtext is, if California doesn’t support legalization…

Of course, it’s the Los Angeles Times, and the Los Angeles Times poll, and the Los Angeles Times has never been pot friendly at all. The actual numbers are 50% opposed, 46% in favor with a error margin of +-3.5%. So yes, the headline is hyperbole.

The actual question was a simple one tossed in with a whole bunch of other questions about a broad range of political topics.

For example, one question asked was:

Some people have proposed that the state legalize online poker and collect a cut of the proceeds from gambling websites. The 200 million dollars or more each year that some legislators say would come from these new fees could help pay for education, public safety and other government services. From what you know, do you favor or oppose this proposal?

However, for marijuana, the question was:

Do you think marijuana should be legalized for general or recreational use by adults?

No indication of tax revenue. No mention of regulation, etc. It’s not that the question is a bad one per se, but rather that the topic of marijuana legalization in particular is such a minefield with decades of intense propaganda, that unless you really define your terms specifically, lots of people really aren’t sure to what they are saying “yes.”

Compare it to the Rasmussen question recently that showed 56% of Americans supporting legalization:

Suppose that marijuana was legalized and regulated so that it was illegal for people under 18 to buy, that those who drove while under the influence of marijuana received strict penalties, and that smoking marijuana was banned in public places like restaurants. With such regulations in place, would you favor or oppose legalizing and regulating marijuana?

How you ask the question, and in what context within the overall survey, makes a big difference.

Breaking news:

Marijuana legalization supporter Beto O’Rourke has just defeated prohibitionist 8-term Congressman Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Texas’s 16th congressional district.

In early 2009, when he was an El Paso city councilman, O’Rourke championed a council resolution calling for a national conversation on legalizing and regulating drugs as a possible solution to the drug cartel violence just over El Paso’s border in Mexico. The mayor vetoed the unanimously-passed resolution and the council was set to override the veto until Congressman Reyes butted in to the debate and threatened that the city would lose federal funding if it insisted on pushing the legalization conversation. The override vote failed, but the national conversation on legalization has only gotten louder and louder.

Now, O’Rourke is all but certain to be the next congressman from the heavily-democratic district. His voice will fill the anti-prohibition void left by retiring Reps. Barney Frank, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

The O’Rourke victory comes just two weeks after Ellen Rosenblum defeated former U.S. attorney Dwight Holton in the Democratic primary for Oregon’s attorney general, a campaign that largely centered on Holton’s role in cracking down on state-legal medical marijuana on behalf of the Obama administration.

It’s increasingly clear that the era of drug policy reform being a political third rail is over. Supporting clearly failed prohibition policies that cause so much crime, violence and corruption is becoming a political liability.

Watch this anti-O’Rourke attack ad that Reyes put out focusing on the drug policy issue to see exactly what DOES NOT work in politics in 2012: http://vimeo.com/37489037

And see http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/border-war-beto-orourke-silvestre-reyes for some more background on the O’Rourke-Reyes race.

This is great news. And despite an attack ad that specifically went after Beto for his legalization viewpoint. An 8-term Congressmen with a power base is defeated by a drug policy reformer.

Things are changing. With Rosenblum in Oregon and O’Rourke in Texas, the notion that being a prohibitionist is the safest political move is changing.

Paul Waldman’s post yesterday — Why Democrats Support the Drug War Status Quo — at The American Prospect seems a bit out of place today.

At the moment, there remains a strong incentive to support the status quo, lest you be targeted in your next race as some kind of hippie-lover. The incentives on the other side, on the other hand, are almost nil. When was the last time somebody lost a race for being too tough on drugs?

Yesterday.

Hope you had a good holiday weekend — especially the many veterans who are regulars here. I raised a glass to you, while hoping for an end to wars and for bringing war profiteers (both political and financial) to justice.

It got me thinking about the drug war — and yes, it is a war regardless of the drug czar’s wishes to avoid the words. And, of course, as with many wars, there’s no “winning” side or “righteous” side in this war. There are only combatants who refuse to give up their war, and the rest of the world who are victims of its destruction. We are not combatants in the drug war. Our fight is to end the war. Our fight is for peace.

…

It’s been a busy time lately and will continue to be as I finish up some projects prior to taking a large tour group to New York next week. I’ve also started rehearsals for my next show in Chicago, which will be opening June 29.

I’ve also had to adjust my blogging routine. I finally retired the 2006 Mac laptop that you loyal readers helped purchase for me. It served me extremely well for a whole lot of years. I’m trying to get adjusted to blogging on an iPad. It’s more portable, but it also has some challenges and differences that require adjustments on my part. I haven’t gotten used to new ways of keeping track of articles, etc. Bear with me.

…

Courts Expose Stop-and-Frisk as Racist, Unconstitutional NYPD Harassment Strategy: 8 Important Facets of the Legal Decision

“According to their own explanations for their actions, NYPD officers conducted at least 170,000 unlawful stops between 2004 and 2009”

Families of Mexico drugs war victims berate candidates – apparently U.S. politicians aren’t the only ones who prefer to avoid talking about the drug war.

Trial To Begin Monday In Lawsuit Over Dog Fatally Shot By Hartford Police – federal lawsuit. Time to start reining in the police abuse of dogs (via Radley Balko)

The recent reminders of the President’s extensive past recreational drug use bring an important issue to the forefront. What will we do with the President?

All the relevant authorities have been clear on this subject– there is no such thing as consequence-free recreational drug use.

The “first way” has been deprecated by the ONDCP, so it’s unlikely that we’ll see the President cuffed on the side of the tarmac as they search Air Force One. And the “second way” silver bullet of legalization isn’t an option. It’s just not possible for someone to do weed and maybe-a-little-blow and then, without intervention, just go on and write books and become President and stuff.

Therefore, it’s clear that he needs treatment. Fortunately, based on the thousands of treatment places I see advertising on and spamming this site, there are apparently some choices available. And it’s possible that his health care plan may cover some of the cost.

Perhaps the President can be enrolled in a H.O.P.E. Program, where he can be assured of swift, predictable, and immediate sanctions — a perfect choice for an active man-on-the-go like him. All he’d have to do is make a phone call each weekday morning to see if he’s to be drug tested that day. Simple!

It’s imperative that we get going on this right away. If not, someone’s going to figure out that President Obama’s drug use is exactly like the drug use of the vast majority of recreational users. And suddenly, we’ll have millions of people wondering why the government is destroying their lives, when, if left alone, they could be somebody– maybe not President–but someone living their own dreams and hopes.

And we can’t have that, can we?

Andrew Kirell asks the right question:

In light of these stories, shouldn’t President Obama offer every American the right to “choom” (verb, to smoke marijuana), instead of continuing to lock up marijuana users for hitting three-foot bongs like he did?

… in his article Why Won’t President Obama Support Our Right To ‘Choom’ A Doobie Like He Did?

Young Obama apparently was also a bit of a bogart when it came to communal marijuana smoking:

Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

In light of one of this administration’s drug policy fetishes, I also find it a bit ironic that Obama had actually developed a special way to smoke pot while in the car.

A very interesting article about an entirely different subject: Obama and Gay Marriage: A Lesson for All Progressives and the Obama Campaign

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that in the wake of President Obama’s support for marriage equality, opposition to it is at an all-time low, at 39 percent. For the first time, strong support exceeds strong opposition. Moreover, there is now greater support for marriage equality among African Americans — a whopping 59 percent — than in the general population, breaking long-held stereotypes.

Look at that: Leadership happens. […]

And there’s a lesson here for all progressives — and for the Obama campaign. We were told by the Democratic strategists and the campaign pollsters, the Democratic establishment, that coming out for marriage equality would be harmful to the president. […]

But the opposite has happened.

This is a point that Scott Morgan has been making for some time when it comes to drug policy. The notion that a President would be damaged by showing real leadership in drug policy reform is a false fear, and way out of date.

There are things we can learn from the activism work being done in gay rights.

I find the statistic about African American support for marriage equality particularly stunning. Imagine what could have happened with an African American President speaking out compellingly about the devastation of the drug war in African American communities. Imagine true leadership.

Meanwhile… the drug war continues and people die.

The Atlantic – this is a photo essay with warnings about them being graphic and stark. I’ve seen much more graphic photos of the violence in Mexico. Comments on the article are a mixed bag — a fair number who see legalization as part of the solution, but also some idiots…

Mexico has been soft on drug lords for years, largely because they are in control of much of the corrupt government. Nobody knows who can be trusted, and there is no accountability for being a violent criminal in Mexico. There is no death penalty, and your buddies will break into the jail and get you out in a few months anyway. It’s a free for all, and it’s a cop out to say that the US is to blame. These guys aren’t fighting drug agents – they are fighting each other for a larger piece of a country that is out of control. If the US is to blame, it is only because we tolerate drugs too much here. […]

I don’t use. My conscience is clear.

If you use, you deserve to be laying on the side of the road more than most of the people shown here. Party on. I hope the karma comes around. […]

50k don’t really make a difference, especially if they are criminals.

Your Latest Reminder That Obama Has Taken the War out of the War

In Honduras: Four dead in one operation, including a 14-year-old and two pregnant women. Then, a village raid, in which agents put a gun to the head of a teenager, threatened to kill him, then dumped in the jungle, still tethered. The DEA and Pentagon are playing coy about their involvement.

Federal judge: GPS use illegal in Chicago-Kentucky drug bust – Hmmm… a pro-Fourth Amendment ruling?