Drug WarRant

I know a lot of you aren’t on Facebook, but for those who are, there are more and more good drug policy reform resources all the time.

Here’s a good one I hadn’t seen before:

A War on Drugs: A War on People

This excellent page discusses the global ramifications of the drug war and is:

Committed to raising awareness about the human rights violations that occur under the auspices of the war on drugs

And, of course, don’t forget to join Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party on Facebook (which has organized its first national meetupevent.

Of course, Students for Sensible Drug Policy have a strong presence on Facebook, not only from their national organization, but individual chapters around the world with their own pages.

There are active pages for Law Enforcement Against Prohitibion, Drug Policy Alliance, NORML Women’s Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, Marijuana is Safer, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Flex Your Rights, The Vienna Declaration, and more.

And don’t forget, you can follow Drug WarRant on Facebook as well, where all Drug WarRant posts are also duplicated with its own audience of over 1,000 daily views.

Are there good drug policy reform Facebook pages that I’m missing?

I ended up yanking about 5 comments today from a variety of folks for breaking the rules, so I thought it might be a good idea to recap my philosophy on comment moderating.

• Don’t call other commenters nasty names.

Pretty simple, huh?

Why? It’s not that I’m squeamish about the language or haven’t used that language myself to talk about the DEA or someone else in prohibition — rather it’s my experience that once it happens, the whole conversation turns into nothing but a shouting match and nothing interesting is said again.

Also, since this is my blog, I reserve the right to be completely arbitrary and unfair about it. I may yank yours even though someone else said something worse to you. Just like in football, it may be the retaliation that gets the penalty.

Sometimes it’s because I’ve been too busy to read them all, but other times I have my reasons.

For instance, if a prohibitionist or prohibition enabler stops by and calls us nasty names, I’ll probably leave the post up. We don’t get them here often enough and it’s nice to have a chance to argue with them (argue, not call them names). If you respond in kind, it brings you down to that level, cuts off any chance of having a discussion, and allows them to prance away gloating that “those legalizers didn’t even have a response to my argument — they just called me names, because they knew I was right.”

A couple of you found clever backhanded ways to give a dig back, while refuting the arguments. That’s cool.

Final note: a commenter I’ve never seen before left a comment wishing someone a bullet in the head. Comments like that will not only be pulled, but will probably get the commenter banned.

Feel free to disagree — actively, passionately, vocally, and intelligently, but civilly.

Thanks! I’ve got some of the best commenters out there and we have some amazing discussions.

The December 27, 2010 edition of The Nation focuses heavily on Drug Policy Reform

Nearly forty years after President Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” it is painfully clear that the nation’s approach to drug policy is counterproductive and cruel. Shifting our priorities toward a more sensible approach—one that offers treatment rather than punishment for addicts, and that recognizes the deep injustice of mass incarceration—seems like a daunting task. But as the writers in this forum suggest, we have all the answers and resources we need. If ever there was a time to say enough is enough, it’s now. —The Editors

There are 13 articles on the drug war in this issue. Many of them available now online (a few of them are subscriber-only).

If you’re not familiar with the concept of official student groups at state universities, here’s how it works in most cases….

A group of students can get together and form an organization (which may or may not be connected to a national organization) and get approved as an official student group (usually by submitting a set of by-laws, list of officers and getting a faculty advisor). Once approved, the group usually gets certain benefits, such as being able to check out university rooms for free for meetings and events, being able to promote their events and meetings through a variety of means on campus, and have the ability to apply for student fee money for the purpose of providing programming or other activities that are open to the student body as a whole.

Since state universities are government entities, they cannot by law discriminate based on viewpoint.

Northern Illinois University has an odd system. They differentiate between political organizations (campus Republicans and Democrats) and social advocacy organizations (including such things as anti-war organizations and pro-or-anti abortion groups). Political organizations are not allowed to apply for funds, but get the other benefits of being a student organization, social advocacy organizations can also apply for funds.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy was established as a social advocacy organization at NIU but was told by members of the student government, who apparently didn’t agree with their message, that they should apply as a political organization. The SSDP members felt that was wrong and that they shouldn’t be denied the option of applying for funding, so they went ahead and applied as a social advocacy organization. The NIU Student Association Senate denied their application completely, so now SSDP cannot even meet on campus.

Press release from SSDP

“It’s clear that the NIU Student Association Senate is incapable of fairly imposing its policies on student groups and after speaking with lawyers and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), we believe that the NIU Student Association Senate is in violation of the First Amendment,” explained Jonathan Perri, Associate Director at SSDP. “Unfortunately, it also seems that some members of the Senate are simply opposed to SSDP’s mission to promote an open and rational discussion about alternatives to current drug policies, including marijuana legalization, and that this may be the basis for their decision.”

SSDP has been an important voice of reform in this country (and internationally) by involving young people in issues of extreme importance. Just downstate at Illinois State University, where I function as faculty advisor for the SSDP chapter, the group is well received in the university community and their Constitutional rights are protected by both the student government and upper administration.

The student government at NIU is shooting themselves in the foot. They should welcome the debate that SSDP brings, and they should eliminate the bizarre and impractical distinction between political and social advocacy groups.

Sorry about neglecting to pass on the programming note regarding the CNBC documentary that was on tonight called “Marijuana USA.”

Here’s the CNBC page on the show.

There are also showings at midnight and 1 am ET (may be more later).

Let us know if you saw it and what you thought.

Site note: I’ve been getting a huge spike in comment spam this week, so I’m afraid I’m just deleting the entire batch each time without actually looking through 45 pages of them. Sorry if one of your comments got stuck in there.

So we spend millions of taxpayer dollars on the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign — a campaign that has been shown to have almost no positive effect and, in fact, has even been shown to have a reverse effect.

The advertising agencies they hire know this, so they keep trying to come up with a new and different approach that is going to appeal to kids today.

They even pay lip service to the idea that trying to use advertising by the government to change youth behavior is absurd..

We know that you’re very smart when it comes to the messages you see and hear. That’s great and you should question us, too.

Sometimes you just gotta wonder what they think they’re actually accomplishing. I just saw this on TV…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T82Z40t8Y8k

We’re really spending money on this?

OK, well they may not think that’s what they passed, but I don’t know any other way to accomplish this.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

1. declares that drug trafficking organizations cultivating illicit marijuana on Federal lands in the United States pose an unacceptable threat to the safety of law enforcement and the public;
2. affirms that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to confront the threat of illicit marijuana cultivation on Federal lands; and
3. calls upon the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to work in conjunction with Federal and State agencies to develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategy to permanently dismantle Mexican drug trafficking organizations operating on Federal lands.

Via LEAP, who were ready with a great response:

“No matter how many grow operations are eradicated or cartel leaders are arrested, there will always be more people willing to take the risk to earn huge profits in the black market for marijuana,” said Richard Newton, a former U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent who is now a speaker for the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “My years of experience in federal drug enforcement tell me that only when we legalize and regulate marijuana will we put a stop to this madness. After all, you don’t see too many Mexican wine cartels growing grapes in our national parks, and that’s because alcohol is legal.”

At the Drug Czar’s “blog”: ONDCP and Canada Renew Partnership in Substance Abuse Work

Last month Director Kerlikowske visited Ottawa, Canada to share the Obama Administration’s efforts to restore balance to drug control efforts and discuss drug issues affecting both sides of the border.

Ah yes, “balance.” That’s the code word that the drug czar likes to use to excuse why, if he’s already ended the drug war, and they know that supply side policy doesn’t work, they still use so much enforcement. It’s really a “balanced” approach of [and then they mumble] mostly law enforcement. It’s sort of like calling it a balanced approach to a diet when you have a diet coke after eating an entire Death by Chocolate.

On his first trip to the Canada in his official capacity…

Interesting wording there. Perhaps a staffer in the office doesn’t realize that Canada is a sovereign nation (actually, perhaps the entire office doesn’t realize that) and going “to Canada” isn’t going “to the Canada” — it’s not like going “to the mall.”

He also discussed how these measures, combined with smarter use of law enforcement, could help reduce the southbound flow of drugs, especially methamphetamine and ecstasy, from Canada into the U.S. and stream of guns into Canada from the U.S.

Yep, there’s the real agenda. Supply-side, pure and simple.

He also met with the Honorable Peter Kent, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs; the Honorable Rob Nicholson, M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; the Honorable Vic Toews, M.P for Provencher and Minister of Public Safety; and Member of Parliament the Honorable John Weston to discuss cross-border issues on drugged driving…

Really? He is so determined to beat this dead horse. He apparently sees his claim to fame (other than ending the drug war, of course) to be the creation of an international epidemic of drugged driving out of thing air all by himself. I wonder what those “cross-border issues on drugged driving” are? Do we have a lot of people who are driving high and failing to stop at checkpoints? Is drugged driving something that is catching and they might have to seal the border to keep it from spreading?

During meetings with Mr. William J.S Elliott, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and with members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Drug Abuse Committee, Director Kerlikowske discussed current drug-related challenges and explored opportunities for cross-border collaboration across a range of law enforcement of issues.

More “balance.” And more bad grammar.

Hope you had fun on your trip to the Canada, Director Kerlikowske. Did they enjoy your lies as much as we do?

The day Westminster gave up on science by Ian Dunt

Last week’s police reform and social responsibility bill contains a clause scrapping the requirement for the home secretary to appoint at least six scientists to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). So that’s that then. They’ve admitted it. The drugs war has nothing to do with reality. It is now to be based entirely on fairy tales.

Of course, it’s always been based on fairy tales. It’s just that the UK is ready to admit it. The U.S. still pretends that there’s some science involved in their policies, but that’s never really been the case, either.

“A number of people expressed concern about what the cost may be to the county,” said Mendocino County Board Chairwoman Carre Brown, also 1st District supervisor. “We have no money to put into this.”

Nor does cash-strapped Mendocino County seem to be alone in its inability to contribute much to the estimated $1.5 million price tag of a combined law enforcement effort to reclaim the Mendocino National Forest for hikers and outdoors enthusiasts, according to Brown.

That’s an estimate offered at the symposium of what it would cost to launch a large, six-county law enforcement operation next year, according to Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman.

Must be tough. Figuring out the huge cost of getting marijuana grows out of the national forest… Oh wait. Wasn’t there a Proposition recently that would have done that automatically and raised tax money to boot? Gee, I wonder what happened with that? They don’t even mention it.

Not all college newspaper contributors are clueless about the truth. Thank goodness for SSDP.

Gutierrez went on to say, however, that he now realizes there is not even time for the institution building to take hold in the remaining years of the Calderon administration. “We have 18 months,” he said, “and if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognizable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain the confrontation into the next administration.”

He lamented the pervasive, debilitating fear that is so much a part of contemporary Mexican society, where even people in the Yucatan, with “European levels of security” are afraid because of the instability in a few distant cities.

In the U.S., they want us to be unreasonably fearful in order to increase authoritarian government power. In Mexico, they want the people to feel unreasonably safe in order to… what?

A New Zealand glamor model who was charged with possessing half a million dollars’ worth of methamphetamine said test results show the substance was harmless fake snow.

Bought at a $2 store.

Hey, if it’s white and powdery, it must be worth a half million.

The AP points out that their story confirms what critics of drug war have said for years: The government is quick to boast about large arrests and seizures, but its efforts result in little, in any, slowdown in the drug trade.

And not only has it failed to interrupt the drug trade – it has made it much more violent. While Mexico’s and the United States’ “surge” in fighting the cartels over the last four years has not impacted drug availability or slowed down the trade, it has led to close to 30,000 prohibition related deaths in Mexico. It’s not the marijuana or coca plants themselves or the use of these drugs that causes this bloodbath. The brutality is a byproduct of drug prohibition, which makes drugs as valuable as gold and creates a profit motive that people are willing to kill for.

In a sane world, people would be outraged by this.

Vast expenditures resulting in no beneficial results, but causing tens of thousands of deaths. Hmmm… better invest some more money in that enterprise.

This is an open thread.

It’s important in a country like ours to have a mechanism to counter a grave injustice should one occur. In that light, the founders properly saw fit to vest the President of the United States with the power of the pardon.

Of course, we all know about the injustice that can occur in the drug war, with up to life sentences given to many low-level drug offenders.

President Obama has deliberated for two years, reviewing the requests for pardons and has finally identified the worst injustices and is ready to wield his pardon power (Via TalkLeft), including a whopping four drug cases “who were given sentences that the president deemed excessive.” Such as the heartrending case of Roxane Kay Hettinger.

Roxane Kay Hettinger, Powder Springs, Ga., sentenced in 1986 to 30 days in jail and three years of probation for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Thank goodness the President was there to rescue this poor woman who spent 30 days in jail 24 years ago.

Or how about this tragedy?

Timothy James Gallagher of Navasota, Texas, sentenced in 1982 to three years of probation for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

I doubt that even a pardon can erase the horrible memories of three years not spent in prison 28 years ago.

Thank goodness that those are the worst of the injustices that have occurred in the drug war. I don’t know if I could take it otherwise.