Drug WarRant

Could not pass up sharing this release in its entirety with you…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 25, 2011

One Hitters Burned Again By Timid Czardinals

Office of National Drug Control Policy Backs Out of Softball Game with Drug Policy Reformers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Once again, the softball team representing the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has backed out of playing a Congressional Softball League game against the One Hitters, a team consisting of members of several drug policy reform organizations and others who support ending the “war on drugs.” A game between the two teams had been scheduled for May 25, but the ONCDP Czardinals pulled out shortly after scheduling the game, with ONDCP public liaison coordinator Quinn Staudt citing an “accidental double-booking.”

This is not the first time the Czardinals have refused to play the One Hitters. In 6 years, the team found one reason or another to avoid taking the field against this team of individuals dedicated to reforming the out-of-date and ineffectual policies promoted by the ONDCP.

This behavior is being mimicked on the national stage by the ONDCP as well. While drug czar Gil Kerlikowske has stated that he will no longer use the rhetoric of a “war on drugs” and President Obama said that he wants to move to treat drug abuse as a health problem rather than a criminal justice problem, little has been seen in the way of action in that direction. The President has also said that he does not support the legalization of any drug, even marijuana, despite the inarguable damage marijuana prohibition does to society, individual users, medical patients that benefit from marijuana treatments, governmental budgets, and respect for the rule of law.

“It is really disappointing that the ONDCP not only refuses to have an honest debate with drug policy reformers about the absolute failure of drug prohibition, but also keeps ducking out of softball games with us,” said One Hitters team captain Jacob Berg. “We think it would be a great opportunity to advance the discussion between drug law reformers and the people ostensibly in charge of drug policy in this country. I wonder if they are afraid to have that conversation. The drug czar said ‘legalization’ isn’t in his vocabulary, but it’s just a friendly softball game!”

The One Hitters hope the Czardinals will put aside ideological differences and accept their invitation to play a softball game this summer on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Here’s a petition to sign at AVAAZ

To Ban Ki-moon and all Heads of State:
We call on you to end the war on drugs and the prohibition regime, and move towards a system based on decriminalisation, regulation, public health and education. This 50 year old policy has failed, fuels violent organised crime, devastates lives and is costing billions. It is time for a humane and effective approach.

I’m not a big one on petitions, usually, but this sounds interesting, particularly since the petition is connected to the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which is apparently releasing a major report soon. The petition is aimed to support that report.

This, by the way, is a pretty amazing commission, looking to completely change the global approach to drug policy, based on evidence.

The commission also has a powerhouse membership, including a number of former heads of state who have come out for legalization.

I’ve signed the petition and suggest that you do the same.

It’s kind of sad that if you want to really see how Americans have lost their liberty, you are more likely to read about it in another country’s newspaper.

A patriotic duty: repeal the Patriot Act by Jennifer Abel in the Guardian (UK)

The first thing you need to understand about the Patriot Act is this: Osama Bin Laden’s destruction of the World Trade Centre wasn’t the reason the act was passed; it was merely the excuse. The real reason dates back to the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan demonstrated his principled commitment to personal liberty and small government by turning the “war on drugs” up to 11.

Of course, the constitution as it’s written makes drug laws difficult to enforce. Police learn about most crimes – real crimes – when the victims report them to the police. But there’s no victim to complain when a willing buyer purchases a product from a willing seller, so drug cops looking to make arrests and justify their existence had to resort to privacy violations and fishing expeditions instead.

Then came the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the most horrific in my country’s history. But it was also the answer to every drug warrior’s prayers: they finally got the unconstitutional powers they craved, and under a spiffy patriotic acronym to boot.

Jennifer Abel notes that even with the end of Bin Laden and the lack of international support for al-Quida, the Patriot Act isn’t likely to go away, “because the Patriot Act was never about Bin Laden in the first place.”

Exactly.

But come on now, there were all sorts of politicians grudgingly accepting the Patriot Act as a short term requirement that objected to the sheer magnitude of the rights infringement. Surely now that Bin Laden is dead, they’ll at least discuss it, right?

Glenn Greenwald last night:

Tonight, a cloture vote was taken in the Senate on the four-year extension and it passed by a vote of 74-8. The law that was once the symbolic shorthand for evil Bush/Cheney post-9/11 radicalism just received a vote in favor of its four-year, reform-free extension by a vote of 74-8. […]

But what’s most notable isn’t the vote itself, but the comments made afterward. Sen. Paul announced that he was considering using delaying tactics to hold up passage of the bill in order to extract some reforms (including ones he is co-sponsoring with the Democrats’ Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Leahy, who — despite voicing “concerns” about the bill — voted for cloture). Paul’s announcement of his delaying intentions provoked this fear-mongering, Terrorism-exploiting, bullying threat from the Democrats’ Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein:

“I think it would be a huge mistake,” Feinstein told reporters. “If somebody wants to take on their shoulders not having provisions in place which are necessary to protect the United States at this time, that’s a big, big weight to bear.”

In other words: Paul and the other dissenting Senators better give up their objections and submit to quick Patriot Act passage or else they’ll have blood on their hands from the Terrorist attack they will cause. That, of course, was the classic Bush/Cheney tactic for years to pressure Democrats into supporting every civil-liberties-destroying measure the Bush White House demanded (including, of course, the original Patriot Act itself), and now we have the Democrats — ensconced in power — using it just as brazenly and shamelessly

And these folks take an oath to defend the Constitution.

Update: Powerful slam on the Democrats (and so-called “liberal” blogosphere) by Kevin Gosztola at Firedoglake: Deafening Liberal Silence as the Senate Moves to Extend the Patriot Act

Why are there so few Democrats taking issue with the idea that government should be able to violate the Fourth Amendment to fight terrorism when that is not the case? Why is there so little push back from liberals or progressives to put an end to the extraordinary assault on civil liberties that the Bush Administration escalated and the Obama Administration has done little to bring to an end? […]

Liberals began the Obama presidency committed to making Obama do it—whatever they thought needed to be fixed now that President Bush was gone. They had some kind of a vision. Now, they tinker around the edges and ask for minuscule reform that will not upset the balance (or gross imbalance) of power in the country. They ask for changes that have no monetary impact on the corporatist elements of the United States, which make money off of subverting democracy to fight the “war on terror.” When their voices are most needed, they say nothing and do nothing.

Liberals contend that people must cut Obama some slack. Meanwhile, the imperial presidency expands.

Over at Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society, guest blogger Allen Hopper of the ACLU discusses the issue of the way the federal government is conducting their anti-state medical marijuana offensive and how that could result in a court case.

This is the issue we were discussing in 10th Amendment Case recently, and I think that perhaps Allen does a better job than I of explaining why this potential lawsuit is valid, despite established Supreme Court case law giving the feds the authority to outlaw cannabis.

So, what are these threatening new letters really about? In a letter to Attorney General Holder last week, the ACLU suggested that the federal government is improperly attempting to influence the states’ legislative processes. The ACLU points out that several of these letters landed on state officials’ desks just as new state laws regulating medical marijuana were about to be enacted. The Governor of Washington, for instance, vetoed a popular medical marijuana bill after receiving a letter from U.S. Attorneys threatening to prosecute state officials who license and regulate dispensaries. If the ACLU is right about the real purpose behind these U.S. Attorney letters, the feds may be opening a can of worms they’ll wish they hadn’t. A federal lawsuit put on hold in 2009 after the DOJ issued the Ogden Memo could be reopened, with court-ordered discovery into federal enforcement practices.

It isn’t at all about whether marijuana is illegal at the federal level, but rather whether the federal government is improperly enforcing the law selectively in order to interfere with the state’s legislature. That’s a legitimate 10th Amendment issue.

This lawsuit would be a continuation of one filed some time ago by the ACLU (later temporarily put on hold due to the Holder memo), and which the courts have already refused government’s motion to dismiss.

At issue was whether the government had selectively enforced federal marijuana laws in California, purposefully targeting those organizations operating in full compliance with state laws and most closely collaborating with local governments; the lawsuit asserted that such raids were an attempt to undermine state medical marijuana laws and force the state to re-criminalize medical marijuana.

It’s the selective enforcement that opens the door to this legitimate legal challenge. That doesn’t mean that it’ll win if pursued, but it is completely separate from the Raich decision.

In other lawsuit news, Groups Sue Feds Over Marijuana Rescheduling Petition Delay

As many of you know, one of the big tricks the federal government uses to maintain its death-hold grip on outlawing marijuana is to have systems in place for making change and then using delaying tactics and internal revolving door appeal systems to keep the challenge in limbo for years. Usually the courts are hesitant to get involved as long as there is a “process” going on.

Inevitably, however, there is a limit that even the courts will accept.

A coalition of medical marijuana and drug reform groups filed suit in federal court in Washington, DC, Monday in a bid to force the government to act on a rescheduling petition that has languished at the DEA for nearly nine years. The lawsuit asks that the government respond to the petition within 60 days.

The petition argues that marijuana has accepted medical use and should thus be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow for the medicinal use of marijuana, and an ever-increasing mountain of evidence has shown marijuana to be effective in treating a number of diseases and conditions.

The groups filing the lawsuit include the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), Americans for Safe Access (ASA), Patients Out of Time, NORML, and California NORML. Also included are medical marijuana patients William Britt, Kathy Jordan, Michael Krawitz, and Rick Steeb.

The first rescheduling petition in 1972 was stalled for 22 years.

Via Radley Balko comes this excellent asset forfeiture cash stealing investigation by News 5 in Nashville.

Again, this isn’t a surprise to us, but as evidenced by the anchors at the end of this segment, most of the population is not aware that this kind of thing goes on in this country.

Update: More from the News 5 investigation:

Questionable Traffic Stops Caught On Camera

In this one, the News 5 helicopter team tracked a police car that pulled over two Hispanic men with Texas plates supposedly for weaving on the road, yet the News 5 helicopter video showed that the car wasn’t weaving at all. The news investigation team covers the line between persuading someone to consent to a search and tricking them. Very good piece.

Video Shows Officer Offering Truckers Freedom For Cash

Cops searched the truck and couldn’t find anything, but felt that something was there, so they threatened the truck drivers with prosecution unless they gave up the cash, despite the fact that there was nothing they could charge the drivers with.

News 5 reporter: “If I have not committed a crime, is it proper for a police officer to make me think that I have?”

District Attorney General Kim Helper: [pause] I believe… that officer can use a variety of techniques…

There are more videos and stories connected to this investigation, including extended interviews and traffic stop videos.

With the black market value of illegal drugs, there’s no way that drug warriors have a chance to stop the drugs. Trying to overcome the laws of supply and demand is harder than defying gravity.

Even without the violence and corruption that insures the power of the black market, the ingenuity and determination of those who make their living from the black market goes far beyond what our drug warriors can stop.

VIDEO: The Daring Zip-Line Coca Harvesters Of Bolivia

Inside Mexico’s Drug Tunnels – Photo Essays – TIME

Ecuador Seizes Drug-Running Super Submarine

And these are the people who usually accuse us of wanting to get ‘high’…

Well, the impending predicted rapture (6 pm on May 21) has been quite entertaining. Alas, it will end soon. Based on the jokes I’ve heard, very few people if they even believed it (which they don’t), would actually want to spend a significant amount of time with the people who do believe it.

The word is that it’ll come by time zone, which means it’ll hit Kiritimati, Christmas Island in just a few minutes.

What are your favorite rapture jokes?

Here’s one (thanks, Radley) from Six Feet Under (possibly NSFW).

This week, the World Medical Association and the International Federation of Health and Human Rights Organisations have called for compulsory drug detention centers to be closed.

Sarah Evans at Open Society Foundations has the story: Shut Down Abusive Drug Detention Centers

As many as an estimated 400,000 people worldwide are currently held in drug detention centers— sometimes for years at a time— on suspicion of using drugs or because of a positive urine test. Most get no medical evaluation, and no treatment—for drug addiction, TB, or HIV. Though these centers are called “rehabilitation,” “treatment,” or education centers, what goes on inside is not based on research or accepted medical principles so much as the desire to discipline and punish.

Patients’ human rights are frequently violated, said the WMA and the International Federation of Health and Human Rights Organizations (IFHHRO). Drug users are beaten, starved, and forced to labor—often in the service of private companies. The number of such “treatment” centers has continued to grow in recent years. […]

Dr. Adriaan van Es, IFHHRO’s director[:] “As in other forms of medical care, drug dependency treatment should be voluntary and should respect and validate the autonomy of the individual,” he said.

The drug detention centers are really prisons by another name, and most operate outside either the medical or criminal justice system. National police, military forces, and other public security authorities run most drug detention camps. Detainees suspected of drug use can be held without trial, an appearance before a judge, or right of appeal. While some people do enter such facilities by choice, most do not, and those who attempt to leave are often beaten by the “teachers” who staff the centers.

This issue is being addressed as part of the campaign to Stop Torture in Health Care

We may think we’re above all this in the U.S., but we’re not.

Our forced treatment may not be as abusive, but it is still forced treatment, and when it means loss of liberty or loss of parenting, it’s not that different from torture.

It’s amazing how little we, as a society, discuss the ongoing horrors of the drug war in other countries. Perhaps it’s because it would force us to look at ourselves as well.

… because you need one.

Change to Pot Law?

One state senator is behind two controversial pieces of legislation involving pot and school buses.

That caught my attention… Actually, this is just a very confusingly written article. Turns out the pot and school buses are completely separate items.

You pay $100,000 bill for addicts’ sex and disease control

VICTORIAN taxpayers have footed the bill for more than 2 million condoms – most of them flavoured – for drug users in the past 2 1/2 years, tender documents reveal.

Taxpayers have also been slugged for almost 700,000 sachets of lubricant, as part of an add-on to a needle exchange program.
The free prophylactic program means Victorian taxpayers supply more than 2000 condoms a day to drug users, at a cost of more than $100,000 a year.

A bargain.

Willie Nelson endorses Gary Johnson for President

Legendary country music singer and pot head Willie Nelson and his Teapot Party have endorsed the pro-legalization presidential bid of Republican candidate Gary Johnson, the Johnson campaign announced in a press release Tuesday. The endorsement came after Nelson and Johnson met last week and marks the Teapot Party’s first foray into presidential politics.

Marijuana is Here to Stay – Lester Grinspoon

It is also clear that the realities of human need are incompatible with the demand for a legally enforceable distinction between medicine and all other uses of cannabis. Marihuana simply does not conform to the conceptual boundaries established by twentieth-century institutions. It is truly a sui generis substance; is there another non-toxic drug which is capable of heightening many pleasures, has a large and growing number of medical uses and has the potential to enhance some individual capacities? The only workable way of realizing the full potential of this remarkable substance, including its full medical potential, is to free it from the present dual set of regulations – those that control prescription drugs in general and the special criminal laws that control psychoactive substances. These mutually reinforcing laws establish a set of social categories that strangle its uniquely multifaceted potential.

San Francisco

For the second time in a week, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi accused police of stealing from drug suspects after releasing video footage Tuesday that shows two officers walk into a residential hotel empty-handed and leave with bags that were not booked into evidence.

This is the same city (and possibly the same hotel) where cops have been caught on video entering without permission and then claiming to have been given permission to search, leading to the dismissal of nearly 100 cases.

What makes the cop’s story even fishier in this case is that the cops supposedly found meth in the apartment, yet the charges were dropped when the cop who was caught on video with the bag didn’t show up in court despite a subpoena.

The resident says there was a laptop and video camera missing.

The police union has it all figured out, however.

The latest accusation brought an angry response from the head of the police officers’ union, who said there was probably an innocent explanation and called Adachi a “media whore” who is staining the careers of good cops for political gain. […]

The union president, former narcotics inspector Gary Delagnes, said he had supervised or worked alongside Guerrero and other officers facing accusations. Guerrero, he said, was “my best undercover (officer) out there for 10 years. … There’s never been a single allegation that he has taken a dime.”

Delagnes said he had spoken to Guerrero and that the officer didn’t recall the backpack. However, Delagnes said, narcotics officers sometimes collect evidence in bags found at a scene and then throw away the bags.

“I’m guilty of it myself,” he said. “Rather than book the $1 backpack, we throw it away.”

He continued, “Why would you steal a $50 camera when you’re probably seeing $100,000 a month in cash? These are top-level cops, and they’re trying to allege they went over the wall for coffee, tequila and an iPod? It’s ludicrous.”

Hmmm… Is it really a good idea to point out that the cop could be stealing a whole lot more than a laptop and camera?