Drug WarRant

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.: Marijuana vs. Scotch and a Low IQ

Wow. How can a founder and editor-in-chief write something so ridiculously idiotic?

This is an anti-marijuana article presumably aimed at readers who never tried marijuana, never read anything about it, and never had any friends who used it.

Rather small target audience.

I’d take it apart, but Jacob Sullum has already done a fine job: Because Bob Tyrrell Prefers Scotch, Marijuana Should Be Banned

I find myself fairly consumed recently with the events in Ferguson. It certainly does seem to be a defining moment, connecting a whole lot of puzzle pieces — militarization of police, racially unbalanced enforcement, the drug war, lack of accountability of authorities, a dysfunctional justice system — all things we’ve discussed here on a regular basis.

And from reading my Facebook news feed, it appears that it’s getting some major traction with the general public (finally). I’ve also been sadly chuckling a bit with some of the developments – progressive sites taking on the charge of fighting over-militarization as if they discovered it… and today, news that the SWAT lobby has approached Congress saying, essentially: “please don’t take away our toys – how about if we agree to better training and policies?”

I wrote a general piece of Ferguson and policing for my Facebook friends, which you can read if you’d like…

Continue reading →

This infographic on drug use and problematic drug use is nothing new to us, but helps to visually point out how criminalization is a broad sledge hammer that is wrong in two ways: 1. It mostly punishes those who are non-problematic users, and 2. Those who are problematic users need something more helpful than a sledge hammer.

What do they think they’re licensing?

Patients face ‘hoop-jumping’ to gain medical marijuana

Yet now that the state has enacted a medicinal cannabis law and just this month began distributing applications for would-be patients, the Chicago woman is still deciding whether to go through that process or simply continue to use the drug outside of the new legal channel.

She’s particularly concerned about having to submit her fingerprints to the state — Illinois is the only state that requires that of medical marijuana applicants — along with documentation of her Social Security disability insurance, proof of age and residency and a recent photo.

She’s never had to submit such information for the narcotics prescribed to her in the past, she noted.

“Boy, this is a lot of hoop-jumping to go through,” said Falco, 49.

Connecting the dots…

In The New Republic: There Is Only One Real Way to Prevent Future Fergusons: End the War on Drugs by John McWhorter.

So, what will really make a difference? Really, only a continued pullback on the War on Drugs. Much of what creates the poisonous, vicious-cycle relationship between young black men and the police is that the War on Drugs brings cops into black neighborhoods to patrol for drug possession and sale. Without that policy—which would include that no one could make a living selling drugs—the entire structure supporting the notion of young black men as criminals would fall apart. White men with guns would encounter young black men much less often, and meanwhile society would offer young black men less opportunity to drift into embodying the stereotype in the first place.

A particularly busy time for me – last weekend of my show (Living Canvas Rx Fri-Sat-Sun at the Den Theatre in Chicago), plus another Living Canvas show (completely different, performing as part of the Abbie Hoffman Festival this weekend in another Chicago theatre, plus a conference to attend this weekend in Lisle, Illinois, and classes starting on Monday!

End the Drug War, Save the Children at the American Conservative

Mark Kleiman: 16.2 million cannabis addicts? No, of course I didn’t say that. Bill Bennett just made it up. And, of course, Mark is completely right. It was, however, also completely predictable that the book would be used to bolster arguments against legalization (in fact, I think I did).

And you thought Chinese performances were dull before… Chinese theaters won’t hire drug-linked performers. That’s just plain bad for the arts.

#Ferguson

No, there’s no obvious direct connection to drug policy when reading the facts of the case (known to date), yet there’s no way I can, as someone who writes about drug policy, ignore the death of Michael Brown and the resulting military occupancy of the town of Ferguson, Missouri by police forces.

Because the connection is real. The drug war led inexorably to this moment, to the racial applications of the war, to the militarization of police forces, to the sense by many in law enforcement that they are an occupying force surrounded by enemies, to the community disconnect and finally, to the understandable rage that suddenly explodes within communities where a single event becomes a last straw.

#Ferguson is merely a data point. If we don’t do something to reverse our course soon, it’ll turn into a country-wide conflagration. It’s not a desire, but a fact.

Note: Just to be clear, I quote Radley Balko, with whom I strongly agree: “I don’t tolerate threats to kill or harm police officers, public officials, or anyone else. It not only contradicts everything I believe in, it’s also counterproductive to reform. This is the precise sort of crap police officials cite when explaining why they need more power, bigger guns, and more militarization, or when they falsely claim that their jobs are getting more dangerous.”

Another good post on the Congressional hearing on pot and driving, this time by Jacob Sullum: Stoned Drivers: The Case Against Panic

Mica, a proud pot prohibitionist who chairs a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, convened the hearing to raise an alarm about the deadly threat that legalization poses to anyone navigating the roads and highways. But by the end of the hearing, anyone who was paying attention recognized that his grim prophecies have little basis in fact.

Some people just don’t belong in the criminal drug trafficking business. Irish drugs smuggler arrested ‘after throwing 3m worth of cocaine out of hotel window in fit of paranoia’

A receptionist alerted police after discovering the drugs scattered over an internal patio floor.

Officers arrested the 39-year-old with a second suitcase packed with cocaine outside his room after he allegedly went looking for the drugs and then asked for a duplicate key when he found himself locked out.

We’ll all sleep better knowing that a bumbling idiot has been taken off the streets.

Hooked on Legalization: Marijuana Is Addictive, Whether Legalization Backers Admit It Or Not

This article gets so much wrong — most notably the idea that cannabis causes addiction, and secondarily the notion that the existence of people who are having trouble managing their cannabis use should be an argument against legal regulation.

Tom Keane in the Boston Globe: Right wing takes lead on reforming crime policy

DRUGS ARE BAD for you, no question. But wars on drugs are worse — at least the way we’ve been waging this battle. But change may be coming, and from the least likely source: the right wing. Just as it took Richard Nixon to reopen ties with China (a Democrat would have been pilloried as a commie sympathizer), so it may take conservatives to reform our nation’s drug and sentencing laws.

Uh, OK, I appreciate the overall article – some good stuff there, but let’s go back to that first sentence.

DRUGS ARE BAD for you, no question.

Nope. Sorry. I have a question.

What the hell are you talking about?

Last I checked, our bodies are constantly manufacturing drugs that keep us alive. I’m currently taking blood pressure drugs that are also helping insure that I live a longer life. There are millions of people who would be dead right now if it wasn’t for drugs. And countless others whose quality of life has been improved by drugs — of all kinds, both licit and illicit (the differences there being more political than scientific).

The fact is — drugs, when used appropriately, are GOOD FOR YOU.

Jacob Sullum on Why Prosecutors Love Mandatory Minimums

When you see the stark choices that federal defendants face, you can begin to understand why an astonishing 97 percent of them decide to plead guilty. The bigger the gap between the sentence a defendant can get through a plea bargain and the one he will get if he is convicted after a trial, the stronger his incentive to “cooperate”—and the weaker the system’s claim to be doing justice.

Holder clearly is right that plea bargains do not require mandatory minimums. But from the perspective of prosecutors who are single-mindedly focused on obtaining convictions as expeditiously as possible—and terrified of what might happen if a substantial portion of defendants started asserting their Sixth Amendment rights—there is no reason to give up the enormous leverage that mandatory minimums provide.

This has led to the strange situation where the biggest opposition the Attorney General faces to reform of mandatory minimums comes from his own prosectors.

Just a reminder…

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.